1950-06-07

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
EDMOND CLOUTIER,	B.A., L.PH.,

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 7, 1950


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. Baler (The Balllefords) presented the third report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Hodgson:: How much money was acquired by the government in taking over property of old age pensioners in each of the years 1947, 1948 and 1949, by provinces?


Mr. Marlin:: The question implies that provincial pension authorities which administer the Old Age Pensions Act take possession of property owned by pensioners when pension is granted. Actually no pension authority takes possession of either real or personal property. Under provincial legislation, however, a pension authority may be authorized to control real property owned by pensioners.
At the death of a pensioner a pension authority may file a claim for recovery out of the estate of the pensioner of the amount of pension paid to the pensioner. In making its decision the pension authority must apply section 9(2) of the Old Age Pensions Act, which provides that ". . .no claim shall be made for the recovery of any such debt directly or indirectly out of any part of the pensioner's estate which passes by will or on an intestacy to any other pensioner or to any person who has, since the grant of such pension or for the last three years during which such pension has continued to be paid, regularly contributed to the support of the pensioner by the payment of money or otherwise to an extent which, having regard to the means of the person so having contributed, is considered by the pension authority to be reasonable." In the agreements made under the Old Age Pensions Act the pension authorities are given discretion 55946-209
to disregard estates where the net value is less than $2,000 or the first $2,000 of any estate.
The amounts recovered by provincial pension authorities from the estates of deceased pensioners and the federal share of such amounts for the fiscal years 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1948-49 were as follows:
Province
Alberta	
British Columbia..
Manitoba	
New Brunswick ..
Total

Federal
share

Nova Scotia	[DOT] 4,384.95	3,288.71Ontario	. 179,880.74	134,271.80P. E. Island	. 2,855.27	2,141.45Quebec 	. 56,066.60	42,049.95Saskatchewan ...	. 38,897.67	29'022.47Province	1947-48 Total	Federal shareAlberta	. $ 20,493.15	$ 15,369.86British Columbia.	. 93,009.60	68,828.28Manitoba 	. 55,496.42	40,795.94New Brunswick . Nova Scotia	. 10,856.67	8,142.50Ontario	. 153,465.75	114,907.46P. E. Island	. 1,726.09	1,294.57Quebec 	. 61,268.43	45,951.32Saskatchewan ...	. 40,298.20	30,209.38Province	1948-49 Total	Federal shareAlberta	. $ 31,950.45	$ 23,962.84British Columbia.	. 77,657.91	57,418.69Manitoba 	. 61,416.03	45,847.11New Brunswick .	. 165.57	124.18Nova Scotia	. 4,389.61	3,292.21Ontario	. 164,609.01	123,235.98P. E. Island	. 1,163.28	872.46Quebec 	. 41,186.40	30,889.80Saskatchewan ...	. 45,634.30	34,189.05


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Catherwood:: 1.	Did the Canadian National Railways cease operations on any of their branch lines during the year 1949?
2.	If so, in what provinces did they discontinue these operations?
3.	How many miles of line were removed from the system in each province?

Questions


Mr. Chevrier:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	9-49 miles in the province of Alberta, operation of which ceased in 1948.


SYDNEY PILOTAGE DISTRICT
Mr. MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Has a master's foreign-going certificate of competency always been demanded1 for the position of superintendent of pilots in the Sydney pilotage district?


Lionel Chevrier: No. However, the former superintendent of pilots at Sydney, Nova Scotia, the late Captain Norman Noel, held a master's coasting certificate issued before the Canada Shipping Act, 1934, came into force. This form of certificate, which is no longer issued, enabled the holder to sail as master of a ship of Canadian registry anywhere on the coasts of North America excepting only voyages through the Bering strait, and anywhere on the coasts of South America as far south as 40 degrees south latitude. The holder of such a certificate retained the rights and privileges thereof after the Canada Shipping Act came into force, but the same privileges required thereafter the holding of a foreign-going certificate.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What were the total revenues received in the fiscal years 1948-49 and 1949-50 respectively, from the sale of postage stamps?
2.	What was the cost to the dominion government in the same years for all contracts for the carriage
of mail by land, sea and air?


Mr. Lapointe:: 1.	1948-49
(a)	Postage stamps	
$56,317,569.86(b)	Postage meters	
26,772,032.53(c)	Postage paid in cash.. 6,543,115.20Total	
$89,632,717.59(a)	Postage	stamps	
$57,249,306.24(b)	Postage	meters	
29,518,534.76(c)	Postage	paid in cash.. 6,774,075.51Total	
$93,542,016.51
2.
Mail services	1948-49	1949-50
Land _______ $20,541,504.03	$21,769,719.71
Sea	
2,512,115.95	2,117,488.80Air	
7,772,492.33	8,298,202.31
!Mr. Catherwood.l



BOUCHARD PLANT, STE. THERESE, QUE.

Mr. Bertrand:: 1.	On March 31, 1949, how many civil servants were being paid on a monthly basis at the Bouchard plant, Ste. Therese?
2.	On April 1, 1949, were any of such persons placed on the list of employees paid by the hour?
3.	If so, how many, and what was the reason for the change?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	104.
2.	Yes.
3.	Fifty-eight employees were placed on hourly rates of pay to bring them in line with other employees engaged on similar duties under approved prevailing rates established for Ste. Therese area on the recommendation of the Department of Labour.


Mr. Bertrand:: 1.	Does the Bouchard plant at Ste. Therese come .under military district No. 4?
2.	What military establishments are under the jurisdiction of military district No. 4?
3.	Is the hourly rate of pay in all these establishments the same as the rate of pay in force in the establishments on the island of Montreal?
4.	If not, for what reasons?


Mr. Blancheiie:: 1.	No. The Bouchard plant is administered direct by army headquarters, Ottawa.
2.	Headquarters Quebec command; No. 4 works company, Royal Canadian Engineers; Quebec command signal squadron, Royal Canadian Signals; Headquarters Royal Canadian Army Service Corps, Quebec command; No. 4 detachment, Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps; Headquarters, Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps, Quebec command; No. 3 area ordnance depot; Headquarters Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Quebec command; No. 4 company, Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers; Quebec command pay office; Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps School; No. 4 personnel depot; "A" and support company, Royal 22e Regiment; No. 4 company, Royal Canadian Army Service Corps; Headquarters Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps, Quebec command; Montreal military hospital; Quebec Command Provost Company.
3.	No.
4.	Hourly rate employees at Bouchard plant, Ste. Therese, are paid at the prevailing rates established on the recommendation of the Department of Labour.



NORTH SYDNEY-PORT AUX BASQUES FERRY SERVICE

Mr. Higgins:: What steps have been taken to provide a motor car ferry to ply between North Sydney and Port aux Basques?


Lionel Chevrier: Representations were made some time ago by the premier of Newfoundland, urging the federal government to make provision for a motor car ferry to ply between North Sydney and Port aux Basques, and the matter is now under active consideration.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Knight:: 1.	What quantity, in pounds weight, of albumen (dried egg whites powdered or crystal), were imported into Canada in 1949 and 1950 to date?
2.	What were the quantities by months, by ports of entry, and by countries of origin?
3.	Has any such albumen been imported into Canada from China during the period mentioned? If so, how much?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Return tabled.


U.S. AIR BASES IN CANADA    EMPLOYMENT OF CANADIAN CIVILIANS
Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	Are Canadian civilians employed at the United States air base, Goose Bay, Labrador, and other such bases in Canada, paid in Canadian funds? If so, for what reason?
2.	Were such Canadian civilians previously paid in American funds?
3.	Are such Canadian civilians required to pay for meals, living quarters, admission to theatres, canteen expenses, etc., in American funds? If so, for what reason?
4.	Do such Canadian civilians enjoy unemployment insurance benefits? If not, for what reason?
5.	How many Canadians are at airports where the-United States authorities are in charge?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Courtemanche:: For a copy of all payrolls showing the names of and amounts paid to all persons employed in connection with the construction of a breakwater in Bonaventure parish, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, along with a list of all materials used in this work!



ST. CHARLES DE CAPLAN, QUE., WHARF

Henri Courtemanche: For a copy of all payrolls and a statement of materials purchased in connection with the repairs to the wharf of St. Charles de Caplan, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, during 1947, 1948 and 1949.


Henri Courtemanche: For a copy of all payrolls and a statement of materials purchased in connection with the work done by the Department of Public Works between January 1 and May 1, 1950, on the protection or wharf facilities in the vicinity of the Henri Leblanc property, otherwise known as the Manoir St. Charles, at St. Charles de Caplan, Bonaventure county, Quebec.
55946-209J
Motions for Papers



PASPEBIAC, QUE., WHARF

Henri Courtemanche: For a copy of the specifications used in connection with the work performed on the wharf at Paspebiac, county of Bonaventure, Quebec, during the fall of 1949.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY  NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. Hatfield:: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, maps, and other documents, from January 1, 1949, to date, exchanged between the dominion government and the province of New Brunswick dealing with the trans-Canada highway.


Mr. Prudham:: There is no objection to
providing these papers, subject only to approval by the province of New Brunswick.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, subject to the reservation made by the parliamentary assistant.



DEFENCE SUPPLIES


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill, cited as the Defence Supplies Act, to empower the Minister of Trade and Commerce to buy or otherwise acquire and deal with defence supplies; construct or otherwise acquire, projects; acquire, store and otherwise deal with material entering into the manufacture of defence supplies or the development, repair or maintenance of projects; arrange for the performance of commercial and professional services; require priority in delivery or construction and to require persons who have received offers, fair and reasonable in his opinion, for supplies, projects or services, to meet the requirements subject to an appeal to the exchequer court on the question of price; also to empower the minister to buy or otherwise acquire defence supplies and construct or carry out projects required by the Department of National Defence; also to empower the governor in council to appoint assistants to the minister and advisers and advisory boards and to fix their remuneration and expenses; with provision also for the approval by the governor in council of contracts except in emergent cases and where the sum involved does not exceed a certain specified amount.
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.


Clarence Decatur Howe: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the operation and maintenance of a
3302	HOUSE OF
Official Residence for Prime Minister residence for the Prime Minister of Canada, out of moneys appropriated by parliament for such purposes.
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.
The resolution and the bill to be based thereon refer to a matter which I am sure hon. members would wish to discuss in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). If I can obtain the unanimous approval of the house I would suggest that the resolution be passed now and the bill moved on to second reading, which would permit the distribution of the bill. Then perhaps the bill could be considered at three o'clock this afternoon. I understand that the leaders of the opposition parties have seen the bill and perhaps they may be in a position to agree that second reading take place later this day. However, I am entirely in the hands of the house.


Mr. Graydon:: Are you trying to surprise the Prime Minister?


Mr. Coldwell:: When will the Prime Minister be back?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Tomorrow morning.


Major James William Coldwell: I am quite prepared to accede to any reasonable request made by the government with respect to this measure, but I suggest that any indication that it is being rushed through might be misunderstood. I rather think what should be done is to pass the resolution and let hon. members see the bill before it is proceeded with.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is what I suggested-that we pass the resolution now and discuss the bill this afternoon.


Major James William Coldwell: Has the bill been printed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, and it will be distributed as soon as the resolution is passed and the bill introduced.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the house would be well advised to follow the normal procedure and give the bill second reading tomorrow.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am in the hands of the house. If that is the wish of the house, I cannot object.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we proceed now with the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Mr. Fulton:: What department will have the administration of the act? Will it be under the minister who is sponsoring the resolution, or under the Department of Public Works?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Two departments will be involved. The Minister of Public Works will have to do with the upkeep of the house, and the Minister of Finance will have to do with the upkeep of the grounds through the federal district commission, and general oversight over the internal arrangements of the house. I think I could explain these matters better after the bill has been distributed.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Could the minister advise what the cost of the residence is to be, and whether or not the building in front of the house to be designated as the residence of the Prime Minister is to remain there or be removed? The question was asked whether this building was to be used as a house for the private secretary of the Prime Minister, and the reply given was that it would be leased to such persons as might be designated by the Prime Minister. Could we have information with regard to those two matters?


Mr. Cruickshank:: I may get an apartment yet.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Chairman, as to
the cost of the whole project, I can only say that the work is under way. I could not give a definite figure. This is an old building which is being torn down. Only the shell will be kept, and it will be remodelled. The work is under the supervision of, and according to plans prepared by, the firm of Allward and Gouinlock, architects, of Toronto. One thing I am sure of is that the work was given to the Garvock firm at a price of $10,000. As time goes on I shall give progress reports to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the estimated
cost? There must be some general estimate?


Alphonse Fournier: Those I have consulted so far dare not give an exact estimate, because in estimating the cost of remodelling an old building we are nearly always wide of the mark. I believe in the main estimates there is an amount of $80,000, but I am sure that will not be sufficient.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the general
estimate?


Alphonse Fournier: I think it will be
somewhere around $100,000-that would only be a personal guess, and if I make a mistake it will come back on me. I would rather not give my opinion. I am not a contractor.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: Allow yourself
a leeway of $100,000 for error.


Alphonse Fournier: If that is the attitude
of my good friends, I would say between $150,000 and $200,000; that is about the closest I can come. That estimate is given in good faith, and in a kindly way.

The next question concerned the coach house, as they call it. At the moment opinion is divided on that subject. Some people believe we should keep that building, while others have been pressing me to have it demolished and keep only the lower part of it for a garage. Within the next few days a decision will be made about that building.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You might
keep it for use as a parliamentary doghouse.


Alphonse Fournier: I would not know
what the present or future prime ministers would think of that. Within the next ten days we expect to have a decision on it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe I can anticipate the
next question. I can assure my friend that it will not be used as a house for the secretary.


John George Diefenbaker: That is somewhat different from the general picture a few weeks ago. What does the minister mean by divided opinion as to the use of the coach house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a proper question. The government assumes the responsibility for this matter. What does the minister mean by that?


Alphonse Fournier: If the hon. member reads the local newspapers he will see that one newspaper advocates demolishing the building, while the other newspaper puts up an argument in favour of keeping it. There are outstanding citizens who are interested in this development of the national capital. I have met people who had one opinion, and others who had a different opinion on the subject. I cannot give names here. I believe the government, in its good judgment-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alphonse Fournier: -will make a proper decision. I shall let my friend know what it is.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Apparently it is the good judgment of the newspapers.


Mr. Fraser:: Can the minister say what the approximate cost of operation and maintenance will be per year, or has that been estimated?


Alphonse Fournier: I would not want to anticipate the debate on the bill. Public works will have control of the maintenance and repair of the buildings; the other part, the maintenance of the grounds, will be under the federal district commission. As to the monetary part, I think that is under the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: What was the original cost of this building?
7, 1950	3303
Official Residence for Prime Minister


Alphonse Fournier: I am informed that the judgment of the exchequer court three or four years ago set the cost at $140,000.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this estimate given by the minister, with the $100,000 leeway given by the member for Calgary West, in addition to the original cost?


Alphonse Fournier: Why, certainly.


Mr. Fleming:: Will the bill cover the cost of furnishings and the maintenance of the grounds?


Alphonse Fournier: We are a little embarrassed as to the furnishings. We have to put up the house first in order to see what furnishings we shall have in it. I have no estimate on the furnishings. The architect is still working on that phase of the project.


Mr. Mitchell:: I just want to say this to my friend-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I asked the minister, Mr. Chairman,-


The Chairman:: Order. The member for Eglinton has the floor.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I asked whether the bill that is to be introduced will cover the cost of furnishings and the maintenance of the grounds. I believe it was made apparent in the previous discussion that it is proposed to provide the minister with a furnished house, not merely the building and grounds. Will the bill cover that, as well as the maintenance of the grounds?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Both will all be covered by the bill. I believe it would be more convenient to discuss these matters when the bill is before the house and the government's proposals are known. It would be improper at the moment, as my hon. friend knows, to give the details of the bill. If the resolution is passed the bill will be distributed immediately, and a full discussion of the details can take place on second reading of the bill.


Mr. Green:: Did the figure given by the Minister of Public Works include the cost of furnishings?


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, just give us a chance.


Howard Charles Green: Let the minister answer the question.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not going to speak for very long. I am not speaking as a minister of the crown, but as a Canadian. What we are discussing now is a residence for the Prime Minister of Canada. Let us be dignified about it. That is all I want to say.
3304	HOUSE OF
Official Residence for Prime Minister


Howard Charles Green: I do not know who is being undignified about this matter, unless it is the undignified rush of the government to get it through without any questions. Will the Minister of Public Works answer my question, whether the figures he has given include the cost of furnishings?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I do not know. I have given a figure as to what I believe this building will cost. Not being an expert on these matters, and not even having estimates from my own officials, I cannot say. The plans are made with the architects on the ground. Demolition of the building has started, and really only a shell will remain. I do not think any contracting firm would give a firm price on such a project. I may be wide of the mark in what I said, and I am a little sorry I did put a figure on Hansard, even though I did have $100,000 leeway. Later my estimates will come up and I shall have my officials here. I hope they are not as ignorant as I am about the figures.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has mentioned the architects. Surely the architects are not providing the furnishings as well. He has just said he based his figures on what the architects were going to do, but my question was whether or not the cost of the furnishings is over and above the figure given by the minister.


Alphonse Fournier: I would not know at this stage.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not think that we deserve the criticism of the Minister of Labour, given not in his usual kindly way.
I should like to say this. We all want a dignified residence for the Prime Minister. There is no question about that. But there is nothing dignified in seeing large sums of money thrown about carelessly. At the present time, when we can get no accurate figures, when the whole thing seems just to be a hit or miss business, I think people will be disturbed by it-that is, the people who do not have residences provided for them.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Howe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 266, to provide for the operation and maintenance of a residence for the Prime Minister of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works in connection with the work to be done on the research council building on the Rideau river. Is it the intention to lower the level of the Rideau river? If so, when is it the intention to begin this work? Can it possibly be delayed in order to allow the beaches to operate this summer?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not think we would take water out of the Rideau river during the summer to do repair work on the national research council building. I will give instructions that these works be delayed until the summer season is over.



MARSHLANDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. MacNaughl (Prince):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Have any plans been made to reclaim marshlands in Prince Edward Island?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just presented me with notice of his question as I was coming into the house. My answer is that we are soon to undertake a diking project on the Johnston river marshlands in Queens county. It will take about three months to complete this work, and it will protect about 250 acres.



INSECT PESTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has he had any complaints about the army worms that are attacking the trees in the Muskoka and Kawartha districts of Ontario? They are destroying the trees all through those districts, over hundreds of acres. Is his department doing anything about it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Complaints have not been
brought to my attention. I would not say that means that those in the department do not know about the matter. But that kind of effort is directed by the province rather than by the federal government.



OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: In the
absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if the government has yet reached a decision with reference to the suggested introduction of an amendment at this session to the Official Secrets Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am unable to answer that question. I will make inquiries and answer it tomorrow.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: again want to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State the fact that the return which was ordered over six weeks ago with regard to travelling expenses has not been brought down. Yesterday or the day before he said there were a couple of departments that were still held back. Surely that should be available; and I would ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I am raising a question of privilege, sir. These returns are too long overdue. Will the Secretary of State bring down the returns for all but the two departments that are holding back these returns? Will he bring the others down?


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: do not think that on any occasion I said that these returns were being held back.


John George Diefenbaker: No?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I said that they were not
ready.


John George Diefenbaker: All right.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I will make inquiries and do what I can to facilitate the matter.



OFFENCES UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: On
May 22 a question asked by me was passed as an order for return. It was a simple question. I wonder if the answer has been prepared. The question was this: Have there been any convictions in Newfoundland since
Inquiries of the Ministry April 1, 1949, for offences under federal statutes? I understood that instructions had been given by the attorney general's department in Newfoundland that no prosecutions were to be taken; and I understand that prosecutions have been taken under federal statutes, although the Criminal Code was not in effect.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: will look into the matter.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Can the Minister of National Health and Welfare now give me an answer to the question 1 asked him yesterday?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The hon. member yesterday asked me whether or not payments made to old age pensioners by way of compensation for destruction of home as a result of the Manitoba flood would be treated as income under the Old Age Pensions Act. As he knows, of course, the decision with regard to the calculation of income, as well as with regard to the amount of the pension in any individual case, is a matter which under the act rests with the provinces. The compensation paid to an old age pensioner for loss of home by fire is not treated as income. So far as the federal government is concerned, we would treat compensation to an old age pensioner for reconstruction of his home as a result of flood damage as an analogous situation.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development, or, in his absence, to the parliamentary assistant. Has the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation made any representations to insurance companies asking them to permit evacuees to forgo monthly payments while their families are evacuated?


George Prudham: In the absence of the minister, Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and bring down the information tomorrow.

Inquiries of the Ministry southern Manitoba-softball game on Bill No. 265, respecting the units of electrical parliament hill in aid of relief fund and photometric measure.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, on a question 'of privilege, on behalf of the flood relief fund of Manitoba I should like to express appreciation to those who called off a parliamentary dinner tomorrow night, thus giving hon. members an opportunity to come to the softball game on Thursday and bring their pocketbooks.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he expects the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew)-I would have directed the question to him, but he is not here this morning-to be able to give the house a report on the Sydney meeting?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I am not quite sure. I will consult with my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, and see if we can get his report to the house at an early day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Arthur Ross: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will see that the third reading of the amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is called at a time when the committee on agriculture is not sitting, because that matter is interlocked with the Canadian wheat board report. The other day these amendments were being dealt with in the committee on agriculture in another room while we were debating amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act here in the house. Many members are interested in both matters.


James Garfield Gardiner: The chairman of the agriculture committee spoke to me a moment ago, and I think his intention is that if this legislation comes up in the house he will adjourn the meeting of the committee while it is being discussed.



ELECTRICAL AND PHOTOMETRIC UNITS


Clarence Decatur Howe: the third reading of
[Mr. Prudham.l
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



INCOME TAX ACT


Alphonse Fournier: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 177, to amend the Income Tax Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister make a statement on these amendments?


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: These amendments, which the Senate made, were made at the request of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) because of instances which had been drawn to his attention between the time of the passage of the income tax bill in the house and its introduction in the Senate.
I can describe them generally as being in two groups. First of all, there are the Senate amendments relating to charitable foundations. There was a provision in the bill, as passed by the house, namely, section 21, which required that ninety per cent of the income of a charitable foundation had to be paid out as donations to charitable organizations. It was found that some of these charitable foundations themselves carried on charitable activities. The Senate amendment provides that the ninety per cent requirement may be fulfilled either by direct expenditure by the foundation itself on its own charitable activities or by gifts to other charitable organizations, or by both. The purpose of the original amendment passed in the house is unchanged; that is, the requirement that a charitable foundation cannot unduly accumulate its income but must pay out at least ninety per cent of its income on charity each year.
I will give an example of one of the foundations which was affected. The Canadian Cancer Society is a charitable foundation within the meaning of our act. This society, however, spends considerable of its income itself on educational propaganda with regard to cancer, and also makes a direct contribution to the Canadian Cancer Institute, a charitable organization which finances research. There is an example of a foundation which engages in charitable work itself, and also makes gifts to other charitable organizations.
The main purpose of the amendment with regard to charitable foundations is to permit a charitable foundation to make not only gifts to charitable organizations-that is, the organizations described in subsection (ea) of this

section-but also actually to engage in charitable work itself. The provision that ninety per cent of its income must be spent on charity each year still applies.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the parliamentary assistant permit a question?


James Sinclair: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The illustration which he gives is clear, and I see no difficulty arising under it, because it is obviously an organization having wholly to do with charitable purposes. Is it considered that the definition of charity will be so clear that where you have an organization which itself is, let us say, not exclusively charitable, the gifts which it may make, and which will qualify it under the ninety per cent, will be to organizations so well defined that no question can arise as to their charitable nature?


James Sinclair: I can assure the hon. member that it is the intention to spell out so clearly what is to be regarded as charity so far as the direct application of the funds is concerned that there will be no difficulty or possibility of evasion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When it is spelled out, where will it be spelled out?


James Sinclair: By action of the Department of National Revenue, so far as the acceptance of the expenditure as being a charitable expenditure is concerned.
Then we come to the section with regard to trusts. Our original section covered charitable foundations which are corporations. There are, however, some trusts that are charitable foundations, broadly speaking, but they are not incorporated. It was drawn to the attention of the minister that these charitable trusts should also be covered. For that reason we have this amendment expanding this legislation on charitable foundations to include a charitable trust, with exactly the same provision, however, that at least ninety per cent of the income of the trust in any year must be spent on charity.
Then the other Senate amendment is with regard to the section on controlled companies; that is clause 11 of the House of Commons bill. This section provided for the disallowance of tax-free dividends from a corporation paid to a controlling corporation where control was acquired after May 10. There was no suggestion of this being retroactive. It was to apply only to corporations which became controlled by other corporations after May 10. It was found, however, that there were two ordinary business transactions of this nature well under
Income Tax Act
way at the time of introduction of the bill in the house, where a corporation had acquired the right to purchase control of another corporation, where the latter's shares were on deposit with a trust company, but the actual deal had not been entirely completed. There was no desire to have any suggestion in the bill of retroactive legislation, but these cases were not known until after publication of the bill. Therefore instead of keeping the deadline on May 10, which was the date of introduction of the bill in the house, the Senate amendment reads:
Notwithstanding subsection (2) subsection (1) is not applicable in a case where control of the payer corporation has been, pursuant to a right which existed on or before May 10, 1950, acquired before June 30, 1950.
As a consequence of the amendment, bona fide transactions which were almost completed before May 10 can go ahead to completion, provided it is done before June 30, 1950.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I ask one
question on that? I agree with the intention that is sought to be carried out. But suppose we have a charitable foundation trust corporation, or something of the kind that is used, as we know, as a method of avoiding taxation which normally would be paid by individuals in charge of that organization. I think we all agree with catching up with that. Income tax should be payable. But when you let that organization make these gifts to other persons it strikes me that great care will have to be taken to see that we are not just carrying on the old chain reaction that we had before. It should be made certain that instead of catching A you catch B where B is in fact the alter ego of A. I think the assistant to the minister appreciates the care that must be exercised. We do not want to interfere with real charity. What we want to do is to catch those who are parading under the name of charity and who are in a moneymaking business.


James Sinclair: I agree with the hon. member. I think there is wide approval in the country of this legislation, which will permit a genuine charitable foundation to carry on its work, but at the same time will stop the type of income tax evasion which fortunately up to now has not been prevalent in this country but which has developed to an alarming extent in some of our neighbouring countries.
We have taken two steps. First of all, it is provided that at least ninety per cent of the income must be spent each year on genuine charity, before the foundation can qualify as a charitable foundation under section 21 of the present bill. Second, we have prohibited the passage of funds from a charitable foundation to a charitable trust or trustee for other
3308

Income Tax Act
charitable foundations. A charitable foundation today can make its gifts only to the charitable organizations described in clause (ea) of section 21, which are full-time charitable organizations not in the form of foundations- and this would include the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, cancer and other medical institutes, and other organizations of the kind. Or, within the amendment today, if the foundation itself has a charity which is approved by the Department of National Revenue as coming within that section, they may spend money on their own charity. But they will not be allowed to pass money back and forth between so-called charitable foundations and trusts, and thus attempt to evade the spirit of the section.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What I am
going to suggest may not follow-and it may be that I have not read the amendments carefully enough-but let us assume that we have an organization already in existence. The parliamentary assistant to the minister says that these things may come from another country. One organization I have in mind was advised by a firm of lawyers -carrying on business in New York. Suppose this organization, in using up its ninety per cent, said: "We are making a gift to enlighten the people about Seretse Khama, of Africa"; what would be the position there? I am referring of course to the African who married the white woman. Where is the judgment to be used in determining the bona fides of these gifts? Has the legislation gone so far as to name individual charities to which such gifts may properly be made?
Charity begins at home. Let us suppose someone makes a gift to a so-called charity in some other country, where we have no means of examining into its bona fides. It seems to me the statute might be evaded in circumstances of that kind, unless there is some specific provision against it.


James Sinclair: That is true. We already have such protection due to the fact that we now give up to a ten per cent tax exemption to an individual and up to a five per cent exemption to a corporation for approved charitable contributions. These charities are approved as genuine charitable organizations within the meaning of clause (ea) of the present section 21 by the taxation officials of the Department of National Revenue. There must be also a receipt from such charities as are within the meaning of the act, and the taxpayers are thus entitled to the prescribed exemptions. It will be recalled, for example, that four or five days ago the Acting Minister of National Revenue said that Manitoba flood donations would be regarded by his department as charitable

donations within the meaning of the act, and so can be claimed as exemptions up to the limits prescribed. All we are doing is to apply the same principle to moneys which foundations might wish to use in respect of their own specific charities. It will be determined in the same way by the Department of National Revenue, Which already has experience in classifying our present charitable organizations, and naturally is anxious to secure as much in the way of taxation -as possible, which it cannot do if it gives indiscriminate approval to doubtful charities. They have to be bona fide charities before the department will accept income deductions claimed because of such donations.


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


James Garfield Gardiner: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 209, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.


James Arthur Ross: Will the minister make a statement?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the bill is being reported from a committee.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is not debatable.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-No award.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably absent when the amendment was discussed before, because at that time I was attending committee meetings. Therefore I should like at this time to make a few remarks.
As I followed the discussion before the bill was sent to committee, I understood the general agreement to be that the act should no longer apply to submarginal lands. I believe that was the general agreement. It was pointed out by some that P.F.A.A. funds were really working against the splendid work being done under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, and it was agreed that that should not continue.
I should like at this time to put on record a return I received on March 16, although it was recorded in committee. It is as follows: Question:
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 including1939 (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?
Answer of Department of Trade and Commerce:
1.	(a) Manitoba	
$ 7,282,403,06(b)	Saskatchewan	
24,607,978.74(c)	Alberta	
13,109,306.60
Unallocated as at December
31, 1949	 9,198.91
Answer of Department of Agriculture;
1.	Answered by the Department of Trade and Commerce.
2. Manitoba	 $ 2,547,590.77
Saskatchewan	 94,884,155.58
Alberta	 26,444,884.05

3.	Manitoba, 82; Saskatchewan, 1,731; Alberta, 1,126.
4.	Manitoba (a) 23; (b) 9; (c) 8; (d) 5; (e) nil; (f) nil; (g) 1; (h) nil; (i) nil.
Saskatchewan (a) 42; (b) 114; (c) 136; (d) 193;
(e)	294; (f) 329; (g) 294; (h) 162; (i) 44.
Alberta (a) 152; (b) 109; (c) 64; (d) 58; (e) 71;
(f)	71; (g) 121; (h) 177; (i) 41.
I believe that is useful information which has a bearing on the matter before the committee.
At the last session of parliament many resolutions were sent to me as a result of the aphid infestation. Owing to extremely wet weather, seeding in some areas was delayed until late in the year, and the aphid infestation affected some of those crops. In many instances the crops were completely destroyed. However, a number of townships had a fair average yield, with the result that certain people located within these townships at different points in southwestern Manitoba could not qualify for assistance under the act.
As a result of this grievance I received resolutions from several municipal councils in my riding, in which they asked that, where they were' trying to diversify their farming methods and to get into the production of livestock, the acreage or yield of oats or barley should be used to a greater extent as a basis for qualification, replacing wheat acreage. I understand that under the regulations that can now be done-and probably it could have been done then. Anyway that provision now appears in the regulations, and I suggest this point should be made clear and publicized. In an area where oats or barley are grown to a greater degree than wheat, it should be permissible to use oats or barley as the basis for qualification. Last 55946-2104
Prairie Farm Assistance Act fall I had many resolutions from municipal councils asking for that. I want to make that point clear.
I am sorry that the administration did not see their way clear to bring it down nearer to an individual basis, because there are many cases of hardship. I am bound to agree that I can see difficulties in administration if it were brought down to an individual basis; nevertheless a lot of hardship has been caused throughout the years because that cannot be done. Many people scattered right across my constituency had practically a total crop failure last year and cannot qualify under the act for any assistance. I am sure the minister will agree that because of diversification in those areas, the raising of more stock, when they desire in a particular year to produce more oats or barley than wheat they should be allowed to qualify on that basis in the event of a crop failure.


James Garfield Gardiner: In view of the discussion that I understand is to follow, there are only one or two words I should like to say now with regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Souris about submarginal lands.
There has been considerable discussion in the press of the west, and I presume it arises as the result of a loose use of terms in the debate in the house. Reference has been made to abandoned lands, as though the legislation were intended to make it impossible for abandoned lands to be brought back under cultivation. This legislation has nothing to do with abandoned lands. They do not come under it at all, and never have. From some of the discussions that have been taking place I am afraid that some abandoned lands have crept under it. It is partly for the purpose of rechecking that and making sure that abandoned lands are not under the act that we are anxious to have the amendment. They never were and never were intended to be under the act. Abandoned lands were not supposed to come under the act at all, even if they were later cultivated; therefore the amending bill has nothing to do with abandoned lands. They are barred by the act as it was originally drafted, and by the regulations.
Then there is the suggestion that we are trying to bar all submarginal lands. Some people would say that if you barred all submarginal land you would bar all lands that are under the act if you gave a proper definition to submarginal lands. The bill does not bar submarginal lands as such, and has no effect upon them. At present the act provides that people on land that does not yield a reasonable crop are paid assistance during the time they remain on the land. We are
3310	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act making efforts all the time to enable them to move from that land to some other location. Once we take people off that land and put them on other land, the land from which they are removed never comes back under the act, no matter who has it. It is not intended to.
We are not dealing with such lands at all under the bill. The only thing the bill is intended to deal with is lands that were not under cultivation at all when the Prairie Farm Assistance Act was put on the statute book. By the terms of the amendment made by the standing committee on agriculture and colonization we put the date not at the time when the act came into effect, but at the 31st of December, 1940, at the end of the first year of its operations. That gave people in that section of the country an opportunity to observe the operation of the legislation before doing whatever they did do. What we say in the bill is that any lands that were not under private ownership at 31st December, 1940, are not to come under the act when they have been taken over from the government by some private person or organization. Lands that were still held by governments on the 31st day of December, 1940, do not come under the act as amended.
The intention is that any lands still owned by the government after some forty or fifty years of homesteading, and almost as many years when the lands were open for purchase and nobody thought they were sufficiently good either to be homesteaded or purchased during that period of time, are not good enough to be brought under this legislation after it is passed. That is the only principle underlying the bill.
I still say that we should not assume in our discussions that when we finish dealing with the bill, all submarginal land is going to be excluded from the provisions of the legislation. I would say at least fifty per cent of the land still under the act is submarginal, and that provincial governments, individuals and the federal government are doing the best they can to get as large a percentage of that land as possible out of the present form of cultivation altogether and put to some other use. The particular uses we are trying to bring about are to get such land under irrigation or under pasture. Those are the two things we are trying to do with it. Even at the present time these lands are rated as submarginal by people who know land. They go out and look at them and say: "I do not want that land; it is submarginal." The act now provides that if a government body says the lands are submarginal, they do not come under the act, no matter who is on them.
I want to make it perfectly plain that the bill does not deal with submarginal lands as such. It deals with lands which up to a


certain date everybody considered were not good enough either to homestead or to buy. It is true that having set the date at December 31, 1940, there will be a few pieces of land in Saskatchewan particularly that were homesteaded after that date, and there will be a few parcels that were purchased after that date but they are largely in areas where the act would not apply in any case.
Mr. Cold well: Of course there are lands held by the provincial government which have not been cultivated because they were not thrown open for homesteading or for sale, and yet they are good lands. I am thinking particularly of an area in my own constituency, on the Matador ranch, where there is some very heavy land which was not cultivated until quite recently. The point I am raising concerns land that is bought and broken; then the following spring the weather is dry, and although the land is prepared for seeding the people do not seed it because they believe the weather is too dry. Does land of that kind come under the legislation? It is cultivated land. It is not summer fallow. It was broken and prepared for seeding but not seeded on account of the unusually dry weather.


James Garfield Gardiner: Any properly cultivated land is defined under the terms of the act as summer fallow if it was not seeded.


Major James William Coldwell: That might be the difficulty under the act. You say summer fallow?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. If it meets the other conditions of the act, that would not prevent it from coming in.


Mr. Argue:: I know the minister was correct when he said a few moments ago that the purpose of the amendment is not to remove submarginal land from the benefits of the act. Instead of what the minister is doing, and even with the changes that he proposes to make in the original bill, I believe he should give consideration to taking away the benefits of the act from submarginal land, and then doing something else to provide a livelihood for the people affected. When the legislation was first introduced it discriminated against all lands, with few exceptions, leased by the crown. Since that time the minister has proposed further amendments which will increase the exemptions of provincial crown land and therefore allow a greater amount of provincial crown land to remain under the act. But he has discriminated against all land sold by the crown, whether by a province or by a municipality, since December 31, 1940.
I might make the same point now that I made in the agriculture committee, that it is not fair to make this legislation retroactive

and remove from its benefits those who purchased land during the time when it was eligible for prairie farm assistance. It is not sound agricultural practice to have a section such as this, and that is the greatest fault to be found with it. All it says is that with regard to certain crown land, that land will not be under prairie farm assistance.
The next thing wrong with this amendment is that while certain land is removed from the act, in certain instances that land may be highly productive. I know of such parcels of land. It is not right that farmers should have paid one per cent year after year for prairie farm assistance and then be denied all benefits under the act. An amendment such as this must be discouraging to provincial governments that have been endeavouring to follow a sound land use program.
For example, the Saskatchewan government owns over 6 million acres, of which some ten per cent or a little over 600,000 acres has been leased for cultivation purposes. In other words, the department of agriculture of Saskatchewan has been most careful to lease for cultivation purposes only land that is suitable for grain growing. I do not think it is right that farmers who have purchased land from a municipality or the provincial government should be discriminated against by this amendment, when people who purchased land or who are leasing land from mortgage companies, railway companies or the Hudson's Bay Company are still eligible under the act.
I have a land use survey which was made in 1941 by the dominion Department of Agriculture. It shows that in 56 rural municipalities in south-central Saskatchewan at the time the survey was made there were
159.000	acres owned by the Hudson's Bay Company, some 23,000 acres owned by the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National, and
480.000	acres owned by mortgage companies. The minister is saying that any man who purchased land from a mortgage company or the Hudson's Bay Company, no matter if it is just sand, it will be eligible for prairie farm assistance if he cultivates that land. The same would apply if he leases that land.
For the life of me I cannot see any reason for this amendment. The minister says he wants to make a check, but the act has been in force for some ten years, and the proper economic and soil surveys have been made and all the information as to submarginal land is available. As I said, I expressed these same opinions in the committee, but I just wanted to emphasize them and say that while other things done under the act are advantageous, I am opposed to the first clause.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
The hon. member for Souris mentioned what might be done under the act to help the people who have been flooded out in the Red river valley. I am afraid that even though the board switched from wheat to coarse grains in determining the yield for the purpose of deciding whether benefits would be paid, it would not result in any different decision from that which would apply if wheat alone were taken as the basis.


James Arthur Ross: I agree with the hon. member.


Hazen Robert Argue: The maximum for wheat is eight bushels to the acre, and, according to the regulations, the maximum for oats and barley is twelve bushels to the acre. In other words, a farmer must have a yield of less than twelve bushels to the acre of oats or barley if he is to get any benefits under this act. But if one farmer out of a hundred is able to seed part of his land, he may get a yield of 100 bushels to the acre of oats, sixty-five bushels to the acre of barley or forty bushels to the acre of wheat, while all the rest of the farmers in the township would have no crops because they could not seed or had seeded so late that the yield would be suitable only for feed purposes.


James Arthur Ross: That happened along the Souris last year.


Hazen Robert Argue: I imagine the hon. member is better acquainted with the details of that situation than I am, and it probably will happen again up there. I do not think it will make any difference to the farmers concerned. If these people are not able to seed, they should be brought under the act, even though an exception be made. They have paid a good deal into the fund under the act, and now when they are faced with adversity some exceptions should be made to bring them within its provisions.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no necessity of making any exception, because the provision is already in the act. Oats and barley could be brought in if the board decided that that was the proper thing to do, if these people have seeded this year. If these people have not been able to seed because of water, they will go on summer fallowing. If there is any wheat in the district I am sure that they would much rather take wheat as the basis than substitute something else. You do not need any amendments to bring them under the act, because the administration has always been on that basis.


Hazen Robert Argue: If there were a hundred acres of wheat, that would be the yardstick and the production there might be forty bushels to< the acre.

Prairie Farm Assistance Act


James Garfield Gardiner: You would find it difficult to spread a little bit of wheat over a whole township and have it amount to more than eight bushels to the acre. It does not work out that way. I do not think you will have any great difficulty about that.
My hon. friend has repeated what was said in the committee, namely, that this government is expected to do something to help that district. They have said they are going to give financial grants to the province. Then they have said to the province, "You will have to deal with the municipalities and the municipalities will have to deal with the farmers." What I said in the committee was that if this act does come into effect down in that area I believe the first thing the committee will do will be to deduct anything the farmer gets under this act, when they are making a general distribution. I think that would be the sensible thing to do. If we are to have a special grant to take care of that area, there is no reason why this act should apply at all. If it did apply, it would apply only up to a certain point, and anything beyond that would be applied from another source.


Mr. Charlton:: What appears on the order
paper under item No. 5 is:
House in committee on Bill No. 209, an act to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939 (as amended).
Those of us who were members of the agriculture committee know what is in the amendment, but for the benefit of those who were not I would suggest the minister have the bill reprinted.


James Garfield Gardiner: The bill has been printed
for three weeks, and we do not usually reprint it to take care of amendments. I shall read the amendment to subsection (c) which is the provision that has been discussed up to the moment. It reads as follows:
(c) with respect to lands not sold or granted, or not agreed to be sold or granted, by His Majesty prior to the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty, and for the purposes of this section such lands shall not be included in computing the cultivated land of a farmer, and the grain grown thereon shall not be included in computing the average yield in a township, but this paragraph does not apply to
(1) lands disposed of to a settler or veteran under the Soldier Settlement Act or the Veterans Land Act, 1942,
(ii) lands in a special area in Alberta as constituted by or under the Special Areas Act, 1939, of Alberta,
(Hi) lands approved by the board and held by a co-operative farm association,
(iv)	school lands, or
(v)	lands with respect to which an agreement has been entered into between the government of Canada and the government of a province under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
IMr. Argue.]

The meaning of that section, for the benefit of those who were not in the committee, is as follows:	In the provision which says
that the act is not to apply to certain land, there is (a), (b) and now (c), which is this one. It says the act does not apply with respect to land not sold or granted or not agreed to be sold or granted, and that means lands that were not sold to someone outright or were not homesteaded; that is really the meaning of it. It does not apply to those lands if that had not taken place prior to December 31, 1940.
Then the latter part of subsection (c) says the first part of subsection (c) does not apply to certain lands within a group, such as lands disposed of to a settler or veteran under the Soldier Settlement Act or the Veterans Land Act in 1942. Those lands come back in under the act. Lands in special areas in Alberta, as constituted by or under the Special Areas Act of 1939, come under the act. Then there are lands approved by the board and held by a co-operative farm association-that covers the land to which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was referring a few moments ago, which is in the old Matador ranch. That land is now under a co-operative farm association, and by virtue of this amendment it would be under the act.
The member for Assiniboia has brought up the question of school land and Hudson's Bay land. He did not mention the school land so often today, so I presume the explanation given on that has satisfied' him that it is an exceptional case. The school lands' are lands that were set up to be disposed of by auction, and the funds so obtained put into the school fund. We are not interfering with those lands. We are assuming that the old provisions made for the school fund are still operative, and still should be operative. We are not doing anything about those.
Then there are the lands with respect to which agreement has been entered into between the government of Canada and the government of the provinces under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. We sit down with the government of Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba, and say that certain lands which were not disposed of prior to December, 1940, we would like to use to set up a pasture organization. The province says that is all right, so we make an agreement to move the men off the area we want to put into pasture and onto a piece of land which is owned by the province and that land is eligible for payment under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The discussions the other day had to do with the lands up in the northeastern section of Saskatchewan which are still owned by the provincial government, because the timber has never been taken off

them. They have never been cleared. The land is not owned by the government merely because it may be poor land, as much of the land in the south is. The provincial government have already come to us and asked us to assist in getting that land cleared, in order that they can move settlers onto it. It has been suggested to us that the settlers they want to put onto it are the settlers we want to take off this submarginal land in the south. We have gone so far in the discussions as to say that we would not be interested under any other circumstances. If the province merely intended to open this land up for different settlers, such as people coming from Europe, Britain or the United States, we would not be interested in making any special arrangements about it which would involve this legislation.
We say, if you are going to consider moving people off the submarginal land in the south upon which we are now paying prairie farm assistance, and taking those people up to that area, then we are prepared to talk about an agreement. This provision says that if that kind of agreement is entered into, provision can be made for this land being subject to prairie farm assistance; that is the meaning of the section. I believe that covers every case except one.
The member for Assiniboia has suggested that we are discriminating against some people. I do not think the act discriminates for or against anyone at all, unless it be the veterans. It discriminates in giving them an advantage over other people and it discriminates in giving persons who have gone into co-operative farms an advantage over other people.


Hazen Robert Argue: It did not take away any advantage they would have.


James Garfield Gardiner: They did not have any advantage when they took that land. This act did not intend that land to be under cultivation.


Hazen Robert Argue: It did not say that.


James Garfield Gardiner: It did not say that, but if we had been asked for our opinion, that is what we would have said. Then they come along and say: "Here is a veteran who wants to settle near his people. There is a piece of that land there. Surely you are not going to deny this veteran the right to settle on it." The Alberta government will tell you that is the sort of appeal that has been made to them, and the Saskatchewan government will tell you the same thing. I know it is the kind of appeal that has been made to us. We have discriminated against other people in favour of the veterans, and I think quite properly so. We may feel he has made a mistake in some
Prairie Farm Assistance Act cases, but I think he has the right to make a mistake. We have simply left him under the act, and there is discrimination there.
The only other case is that of men who have bought land from the government since December 31, 1940. So far as I have the records, only about 12,000 acres have been dealt with in that way. There may have been some more recently of which I have not the record, but if so it is a small amount. Then there are others who have leased land. We do not know how large that group is. They have leased it on exactly the same basis as the returned veteran has been asking for land. They say their parents live near there, and they would like to get a piece of land. In spite of the fact that their parents have been on prairie farm assistance every year since this act was put into effect, except one, they have taken that land and broken it up. They are trying to live on it. We are not objecting to their trying to live on it; that is their own choice. Under these circumstances we do not think they should come under this act.
So far as making a check is concerned, I suggested in the committee that we wanted this to be retroactive so that we could check those cases. I stated that the matter had already been discussed with the government and that the government had agreed that after we have checked these cases, if we find that there is any great hardship on persons who have not just entered into the hardships Of their own free choice, we would consider bringing down an amendment next year. But we would like this legislation as it is now drafted so that we can go out and make a check and satisfy people in other parts of Canada that we are not bringing people under this act who should not be brought under it.


Hazen Robert Argue: After the minister makes the check, would the criterion, with regard to anyone he might then bring back under the act, be whether or not the land being farmed was suitable for farming-in other words, that people were not misusing this act in order to bring in poor lands, but were farming land that was good. After the check is made to find out if that is the case, would he give consideration to that point?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am satisfied that any area down in that section of the country in which the people have had to draw under this act for ten years out of the last eleven is not a good enough area in which to break up new land. I think the sooner they are told that, the better for them; otherwise they are just going to live there and half starve to death for the rest of their time. That is the thing that we want to check-whether these people

Prairie Farm Assistance Act are taking up land of that kind or whether their circumstances are better after they have taken up the land.


Hazen Robert Argue: Of course that is the very thing the minister will not be checking, because he is not taking in railway lands or Hudson's Bay land. I am all for checking the submarginal land. Within those townships in which payment has been made for nine years or so, there is bound to be a good deal of submarginal land.


James Arthur Ross: Ten years in some cases.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, ten years in some cases. But even in those townships there can be land that is good wheat land and that is supermarginal, according to the economic surveys, just the same as you can go into a township in which there has never been any payment made under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and yet you may still find some submarginal land which is being used for wheat production. The only thing is that in one township it is a large percentage of the land and therefore shows up in the average yield; and in another it is a small percentage of the land and therefore does not show up in the average yield.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I am for the veterans preference at all times; but I would point out that any preference that is being given to veterans under this new clause is a preference which is given only because other people had a preference taken away from them. It is not an additional preference for veterans. You say: As to veterans, we will not touch them, but we will go after some of the others.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not correct.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would not want the impression left that it gives all veterans farming on crown land a preference, because it does not. It gives a preference only to veterans who have taken up land under the Veterans Land Act. I see that the Minister of Veterans Affairs is here, and I think he will agree with me when I say that in the larger part of western Canada a half section of land is not an economic unit for a veteran, a civilian or anyone else. The Saskatchewan government believe that, as I am sure do other provincial governments. What the Saskatchewan government is doing in a great many cases is taking veterans who have obtained provincial lands under the Veterans Land Act and then saying to them: If there is another quarter of crown land available for you in the immediate vicinity and you make an application for that land, we will give you a preference. If that veteran has three quarters of crown land, two quarters of which he has


obtained under the Veterans Land Act and the other quarter he has obtained only because he made application to the Saskatchewan department of agriculture and obtained a veterans preference, then he will not receive prairie farm assistance on the additional quarter. While there is a veterans preference, it does not go all the way for all veterans on all land they may farm.


Mr. Jutras:: In view of certain statements that were made with regard to the act as related to the flood area, I should like to revert to that subject for a minute or so. I do not intend to go over the discussion we had in the committee on that section. I want to make it clear, however, that when I raised the question in the committee it was purely for the purpose of getting clarification of the regulations in view of a particular circumstance that may affect the Red river valley this year. I pointed out that this situation existed in the past in other areas. I quite agree with the Minister of Agriculture that we should not look for special relief treatment under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. In this regard I would disagree, as a matter of fact, with the hon member for Assiniboia, who suggested that we should in some way evolve a special method of getting relief assistance through the P. F. A. A.
When I raised the question my intention, as I said, was purely to get clarification. In other words, there is an act that provides assistance when there is a crop failure. There is a possibility that there might be, for once, a crop failure in my district. My intention was to find out if we would get our due. I was merely trying to get the regulations clarified in order to make sure that we would get what was coming to us. It was on that basis that I went into this matter.
In view of the statement made by the minister today, I am afraid that I shall have to say that I respectfully disagree with the second part of it, to the effect that assistance through the P. F. A. A. is in a way similar to relief assistance that might be given by the government. The P. F. A. A. is a statute, and therefore if the district meets the conditions of the act, we are entitled to payment under the act; and as such we are entitled as of right under the act. Consequently the share of the relief assistance that will be assumed by the federal government is in an entirely different category.
As a matter of fact, from the practical point of view if we are paid any money under this act, I do not think it will be deducted from the relief fund, because I would hope that any relief money will be paid long before any cheques under P. F. A. A. are received. If there is a crop failure, I do not

suppose chere is any likelihood of getting those cheques in before late next year. By that time we hope that the rehabilitation will have been completed. I think we should keep the two things separate and not confuse them. As I said, one thing is an act under which, if we qualify, we get payment he same as everybody else, irrespective of the cause. The cause may be flood in Manitoba. It may be drought. It will be drought in many parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta, because every year there are some parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta which get benefits under the act. I do not therefore see why the question should be brought in that there will be a deduction.
Some hon. members said that it did not make much difference whether the relief came from P. F. A. A. or whether it came directly from the treasury. I contend that there is a big difference between the two. As I said, one we are entitled to and we get. We are not asking-at least I am not-or advocating any special treatment under the act. What I want to make sure of is that we get what is coming to us. The other thing is an entirely different question, and I do not propose to go into it at this time. I refer to the money which will be contributed to the province by the federal government on a percentage basis.
So far as this amendment is concerned, I agree with the minister that the underlying principle is a good one. However, I repeat that in Manitoba we have had very minor benefits from the Prairie Farm Assistance Act over the years since its inception. So far in committee exceptions have been made to take care of particular situations in Saskatchewan and Alberta. We have proceeded more or less on the assumption that this amendment would not affect Manitoba. It is quite likely that it may not affect Manitoba; I do not know for sure. Apparently we have no way of finding out what effect it will have on Manitoba. I should like to put in the reservation that if it does cut down further the benefits that have been coming to Manitoba it may well cut them to such an extent that the usefulness of the act may almost disappear in that province.
The minister has given us the assurance that he wants to give this amendment a trial. That is quite agreeable to Manitobans as a whole. I am quite sure that we should give it a trial, and in that way we shall find out whether it affects our province or not. As I say, with the principle of the amendment I am in agreement. I think it is a good one, and we are prepared to see it tried out at least for the coming year.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act


Mr. Wright:: There appears to be agreement on all sides as to the desirability of withdrawing submarginal land in certain areas in the south of the province from participation under this act. In my opinion, though, the best way to accomplish this is to spend a little more money under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. During the early years when the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was in operation large numbers of settlers were moved from dried-out areas in the south of the province to better farming areas within Alberta, Saskatchewan particularly, and in some instances Manitoba.
I should like to get some information from the minister, if he has it, with respect to the number of settlers who were assisted under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to move out of these marginal areas into other areas during the years before the war. As a matter of fact it seemed to me that very few moved. I do not think any were given assistance during the war years to move to other areas. Since the war the movement of those settlers from the southern areas into the northern areas of the prairie provinces has not again started. In my opinion that is the only way in which we can meet the problem of reducing the payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The way to do it is to see that the settlers in those areas who took up land forty or fifty years ago, and some since that time, are given opportunity to move into better farming areas, either areas in which irrigation projects are being developed, or areas in the northern part of the province where we are not subject to drought and where land is still available.
There has been difficulty, I know. There has been a shortage of land in the northern areas of the provinces. Large areas in the northern parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan particularly were held in forest reserves until the timber had been cut. In a great many instances most of the valuable timber has been removed from those areas, and the land is now being opened for agricultural settlement.
As I said before, the best way to solve our problem with respect to reducing the Prairie Farm Assistance Act payments in the southern portions of Alberta and Saskatchewan is to see that these settlers are assisted in moving into better farming areas, either the irrigation areas or the northern areas which are not affected by drought.
Can the minister give the committee the numbers that were moved or assisted to move during those years into other parts, particularly in the two or three years prior to the war and since the war, if that movement has been started again? I mean assisted by the federal government through the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act since the war.

Prairie Farm Assistance Act Mr. Gardiner: Approximately 1,400 families moved just prior to or in the early part of the war. Not many moved during the war period, for the obvious reason that the people who would want to move were not there. They were overseas, or somewhere else. It was mostly the young people who moved. They were not around during the war. They are back now. One of the things we should be very careful about is settling them in the area that they left rather than settling them somewhere else. We have been very careful about that. As I recall it, the first ruling that was made by the veterans organization was that people could not go into those areas at all. They would not agree to a favourable return with regard to applications that were made for lands in those areas.
Some of the members who have been speaking, including myself, have urged upon the Department of Veterans Affairs that they consider the fact that these people want to settle alongside their parents. Most of the places are in that category. Many members -not all of them are here now-who were in the house at that time would write me about it. I would take it up with Veterans Affairs, trying to insist upon their agreeing that these lands were good enough for the men to settle on. Some of us had to draw on our imagination in order to say that, but we were being kind. We were trying to be as kindly as we could toward them, trying to make it possible for them to get settled again near home. I say that we do not object to that, but it did interfere with the possibility of getting resettlement of these people. We have made arrangements under which we thought we would be right in the middle of resettling people. We purchased the Canada Land and Irrigation holdings in Alberta. The law is slow enough in this country, but we find that it is much slower over on the other side of the ocean. We have been moving heaven and earth to try to get titles to that land cleared, but we cannot speed up the courts over in that country. We do not know when we are going to get them cleared. It may be about the middle of this summer. If we had them cleared we would have been moving people right from the day in the spring that the work could be started. We want the settlers to do all their own work on this land. We do not want to hire a contractor to go in and level the land and do all that kind of thing; we want these people to go there and do it themselves. People appreciate much more a farm that they build themselves than they do one that somebody else has built for them. We want to do that. The delay in securing title is the 

only thing that held it up. We want to be in a position, just as soon as we possibly can, to move more of them.


Percy Ellis Wright: What the minister has just said is that since the war practically no assisted movement under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act has taken place. We are only now getting to the point where the movement that was in fact taking place prior to the war is again becoming operative. He mentioned that with regard to the irrigated area in Alberta agreements are being reached. Will people now living in Saskatchewan in these submarginal areas be given the opportunity to move to Alberta, or will the irrigation project be used entirely for the people of Alberta from the drought areas? Has progress been made in reaching an agreement with the Saskatchewan government with respect to the area in northeastern Saskatchewan of some 200,000 acres that is being removed this year from forest reserve and being made available for settlement and agricultural purposes?


James Garfield Gardiner: Replying to the first question, the Alberta government itself is opening up an area a little larger than that of Canada Land and Irrigation. It is all part of one scheme. We are assisting by widening the ditch and making it possible for them to get water. They are going to utilize that for the Alberta people, giving a preference to returned men. In the other area we can bring in people from anywhere. Our intention is that they will come only from submarginal areas, but they may come from Saskatchewan, Manitoba or any part of Alberta.
The answer to the last question is that no agreement has been entered into up to the present.


Mr. Fair:: What is the position with respect to land homesteaded twenty, thirty or forty years ago, disposed of by sale by the government, and then, for non-payment of taxes, reverting to the government and being disposed of since December 31, 1940?


James Garfield Gardiner: Any land that was homesteaded or sold prior to December 31, 1940, is eligible under this act, unless it was cultivated and abandoned. If it was once cultivated and abandoned it is not eligible. But this amendment does not affect that; that provision is in the act as it was.


John Alpheus Charlton: What is the position of a co-operative farm which was established prior to the passage of this act but which will not be approved by the board?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is already provided that those co-operative farms are in. That has

been agreed by letter, and in every way. The lands that are under this are practically all similar to the Matador ranch. They are suitable so far as the lands are concerned. Those co-operatives are under now and will remain under. If they have not been passed upon, they will be.


John Alpheus Charlton: In other words established co-operative farms will be automatically approved by the board?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


James Garfield Gardiner: the third reading of the bill.


John Alpheus Charlton: I do not think it is fair to read the bill a third time when it has not been printed.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been printed. That has been repeated over and over again, and it is not so. Scarcely a bill goes through the house without some amendment. We do not reprint a bill because there is an amendment in it. One section in this bill has been amended, and that is all. That amendment was read and discussed for days in committee. My hon. friend sat there all the time it was being discussed, and helped draft the amendment. To say it has not been printed is not correct.
Bill read the third time and passed.



DEFENCE SERVICES PENSIONS


Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 134, to amend the Militia Pension Act and change the title thereof.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Title of Militia Pension Act changed.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, this bill was referred to the committee set up to consider Bill No. 133, respecting national defence. Careful consideration having been given to the bill by that committee, I do not think it is necessary to repeat the objections raised at that time to some of the sections.
National Defence
All these sections concerned money matters; therefore the committee really had no power to make any material change. During the course of discussion in the committee certain recommendations were made by some members, particularly by the hon. member for Nanaimo, and those recommendations are set out in the proceedings of the committee.
I understand that there will be further amendments to this act, either at the next or the following session. I draw these recommendations to the minister's attention ana express the hope that they may be given serious consideration when further amendments to the act are suggested.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, I can give the hon. member the assurance that those recommendations are already receiving consideration. It was found that a number of them would involve consequential amendments, and also might involve new principles which would have to be considered. However I can give the hon. member the assurance he wishes to have.
, Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Brooke Claxton: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 133, respecting national defence.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, before the house takes up consideration, of the bill I should like to express my appreciation to the members of the committee established especially to consider this and the other two defence measures. I think it was their experience, as well a,s that of others concerned with these important measures, that during their thirteen meetings they met together and discussed objectively the matters contained in the bills, with the sole purpose of having just as good a set of legislation relative to national defence as was possible.

National Defence
Bill No. 133 is the largest single bill put before the house and this committee since 1934, I believe. It contains 251 sections, incorporating in their text the provisions of a number of statutes relative to defence, totalling approximately 600 sections in all. This is far more than a consolidation. It is a new act which unifies and consolidates all the legislation having to do with defence.
I am sure I express the views of other members of the special committee when I say that the expeditious and thoroughly conscientious way in which their work was carried out was in no small measure due to the excellence of the chairmanship of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. In that regard I am sure he would be the first to say that he had the support of members of the committee representing all parties in the house.
The bill contains some forty-seven different amendments made by the committee, of which about thirty were proposed by representatives of the department, and the remainder originated in the committee. I do not think the general trend of the amendments is controversial. If they had any general pattern it was to provide measures which would be even more uniform in respect of the three services than those in the bill as it was referred to the committee. Also the changes in the provisions generally tended to favour the position of the accused, but they are entirely acceptable to the department and to the government.
I commend the bill in its amended form to the consideration of the committee.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the minister has said that the bill was carefully considered in the special committee. We received fine co-operation from the representatives of the three service departments which are particularly concerned with the administration of justice in the services, and I should like to thank them for their co-operation. As a result of the contact that members of the committee had with them, I am sure we were all convinced that administration of justice in the services will be well looked after by them.
The minister has said that the committee suggested a considerable number of amendments. Of course some were suggested which were not adopted, and I presume that is always bound to be so. Everything suggested is not acceptable to the services concerned or to the government. By and large, however, I think the amendments adopted improved the bill to a considerable extent. I think the useful work done by the committee is an indication of the fact that a committee to deal

with defence matters in a broader manner would be a useful instrument for investigation of all matters concerning defence.
All members of the committee expressed their views fully as to changes that should be made in the various sections of the bill, and so far as I am concerned I will have very little more to say now. The amendments were numerous, and in the committee we passed a motion that the bill be reprinted before it was brought back to the house. I do not know whether or not that has been done. I have not had a new copy of the bill, and I think it might be a little difficult for members who were not on the committee to follow it without having the reprinted bill before them. I presume we can go ahead with the old bill, however, and have the amendments read as they arise.


Mr. Gillis:: As one of the members who had the privilege of serving on the special committee, I have a few observations to make. The first is that the title of the bill may be misleading. We may think we are starting to discuss a measure concerning national defence as such. My conception of the present bill is that we are not devising ways and means to build forts, an air force, and so on. The main objective of the bill is to bring about some uniformity in the matter of military law so far as the army, navy and air force are concerned. In the past the army was largely guided by the old British army act. Being a relatively new organization, the air force had their own rules and regulations in matters of discipline. The navy has its own formulas. The main objective of this bill is to arrive at some uniformity in matters of discipline, and I think in that particular the bill has achieved its objective. I do not think you will ever be able to have a workable arrangement that will tie the navy, the army, and the air force together; the navy should have some latitude because of the difference in its operations. Looking at the record of all three services I think we must admit that during the last war there was an excellent job of administration by all services.
I had the opportunity to go over this bill section by section, and I am satisfied with it; I think it is as good a job as could be done under the circumstances. I found the committee to be a most efficient committee, and its meetings were well attended. The chairman did an excellent job. He was cool-headed and seemed to have a lot of common sense, something which is rather rare today.
If there is any particular credit to be given to anyone in connection with this bill I think it should go to the officials of the different branches who were called as witnesses. There were three young men before

the committee who were very well qualified, most efficient, and had all the answers at their fingertips. The dispatch with which the bill went through the committee was due largely to these men from the navy, army and air force who came before the committee with a bill which they had drafted themselves and which they thoroughly understood. Each one accepted the responsibility in his own field. If amendments were suggested that were not considered reasonable, our minds were soon clarified.
As we consider the bill section by section there may be other matters that I shall deal with, but, I repeat, it is about as good a job as could be done under the circumstances.


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee I want to say that I think a real job was done with this bill. The work of this committee proves the necessity of having a committee on national defence, which would be to the advantage of the three services as well as to Canada as a whole. From the work of this committee we have seen that matters of national defence can be studied by cool heads and real progress made. I do not see that any argument can be offered against the setting up of a committee on national defence.


Mr. Blackmore:: I had the privilege of representing the Social Credit group on this committee. First of all I should like to commend the chairman. I do not believe I have ever served under a finer chairman, and I doubt if I have ever served under as fine a chairman as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Considering the fact that this was his first experience, he deserves the highest praise.
One thing that was observable in connection with the work of the committee was the fine spirit of sincerity and objectivity Which prevailed generally among the members. I found no member of the committee who was not prepared to listen to suggestions from other members and weigh them. Generally speaking the members would hold on until everybody came to a sort of unity of faith as a result of considering the opinions of others.
We were fortunate in having on the committee so many men with such wide experience. I mention the hon. member for Nanaimo as only one, and when I say that there were several members on the committee who seemed quite as much at home with matters concerning the fighting forces as that hon. member, it will be realized that we 'had a genuinely fine committee which rendered the best of service to our country.
We are not saying that the bill as it now stands is the acme of perfection, but I think
National Defence
under the conditions under which we laboured it constitutes the finest contribution that we in our generation can make to a finer and better military service.


Arthur Leroy Smith: After listening to these paeans of praise I hesitate to say anything which might be regarded as a discordant note, particularly as I was not a member of the committee. There is a good reason for that. As I told the house on another occasion some years ago, my total military experience consisted of having been a lance-corporal in the boys' brigade of a Methodist church in Regina.
Ever since I came to Ottawa I have been interested in courts martial. I want someone to explain to me why in peacetime serious crimes are to be dealt with by courts martial within the armed services. I know that there is an amendment dealing with murder, rape and other crimes, and I know that the attorney general of any province may direct that the matter be tried in a civilian court on the basis that the civilian authorities must always be paramount. But I have yet to hear it satisfactorily explained why serious crimes such as robbery with violence, or armed robbery, things which are becoming too prevalent in this country, should be dealt with by courts martial. Why is it that the armed services insist on having what is practically exclusive jurisdiction in matters of that kind?
We must remember that in the administration of justice generally all prosecutions begin by the laying of what we call an information. Sometimes an investigation is carried out by the police or the protective authorities before an information is laid, but when a crime is openly committed no further investigation is needed before the laying of an information. What I have in my mind is this. We say that the attorney general may remove a case from service jurisdiction to a court; yet that seems to me to be a nebulous thing to say when civilian officers of the law have had no part in the investigation of what may result in a charge under military law or an information in our civilian courts.
I accept the word of hon. gentlemen who have spoken as to the excellent job that was done, but it does seem to me, if I am correctly informed as to what the law, even though amended, is, that the civilian court jurisdiction is practically ousted, except in cases of rape and murder; and there is one other which escapes my memory at the moment. Let us consider robbery with violence, or breaking and entering. When someone makes up his mind to break and enter a dwelling house, you often see violence. In

National Defence
fact just the other day I was reading in one of the Ottawa papers about a householder shooting a housebreaker dead. The judge, in an Ottawa court I presume, directed the jury that there was nothing for them to decide, because the individual was acting within his rights. Someone died as a result of that incident. I wish, therefore, the minister or someone would explain to us why we have narrowed these serious crimes and confined the jurisdiction within the service.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, while the observations of the member for Calgary West might properly be made under section 62 of the bill, I am sure that hon. members will allow me to follow him and deal with his remarks, because I agree with him that they have a rather wider connotation than their relationship to section 62 and following sections.
I should like to point out, with respect, that the hon. member is clearly under a misapprehension as to the state of the existing service law, and also as to what is proposed under this bill concerning the relationship of service law to civil law. In the first place, it is part of the existing law of the land, whether it be service or civil, and it is fundamental to our system of law, that the civil authority is supreme.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I said that, of course.


Brooke Claxton: That is stated in section 62, subsection 1:
Nothing in the code of service discipline affects the jurisdiction of any civil court to try a person for any offence triable by that court.
Quite contrary to the service courts ousting the jurisdiction of the civil courts, this provision, and indeed the common law, expressly provides that the civil courts shall be supreme. In any cases which service courts or service law purport or attempt to deal with, it is stated that that is exclusive of civil jurisdiction.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I agree with
that, of course.


Brooke Claxton: Service courts have no exclusive jurisdiction in respect of civil offences. In fact, they do not try civil offences where the civil courts try civil offences, because if a civil offence is tried by a civil court then the service court has not jurisdiction. Under no circumstances does the service court oust the jurisdiction of the civil court. If the offence is in fact tried by the latter, in consequence of the civil attorney general laying an indictment or commencing other civil procedure, then the service court by that very fact has not any jurisdiction.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes, that is right.


Brooke Claxton: The reason, therefore, for
providing that a number of civil offences shall also be service offences is to take care of the case where the civil court does not act or cannot act. It is for that reason that our statute makes the express provision that civil offences are also service offences. In that respect it is similar to the service law of the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as every other country of which I know. There is no other way of doing it. We must provide a complete system of law which is ready to go into effect if the civil law authorities do not act.
The reasons for that, I think, are threefold. In the first place, in the event of war, service personnel may be serving overseas where no civil court is set up. That was true of a large part of the areas in which our forces were during the second world war. In the second place, even in peacetime service establishments are set up at places where there are no organized civil courts, and if a man commits an act of assault against a fellow soldier there is no civil court operating there to deal with the case. The case should be dealt with. Then there is a third reason, and that is that the civil authorities themselves, in a considerable number of cases, prefer to have the matter dealt with by the military authorities. Take as an illustration the case I mentioned a moment ago. If within the confines of a camp a soldier commits an act of assault against another soldier, ordinarily the civil authorities prefer that we deal with it. We do deal with it. But if the civil authorities deal with it, then we cannot deal with it and we have no means of indicating to them our preference. The civil authority is always supreme.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If the minister looks at section 61, he will see it is headed "Limitations with respect to certain offences." It reads:
A service tribunal shall not try any person charged with an offence of murder, rape or manslaughter, committed in Canada.
May I say also that I agree with everything the minister has said about the law as it is or has been. But here we have those three things specifically excepted from the jurisdiction of service courts in Canada. My only suggestion is, and will continue to be, that other major offences should be added to section 61, such as those I mentioned a moment ago-robbery with violence, and breaking and entering. In these days those are the most serious offences which are committed. Obviously I was referring to

peacetime; I was not suggesting that in wartime the army should not have all the jurisdiction in the world.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, there is a matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the committee. In doing so perhaps I shall need something more than the latitude which we are allowed on the first section of a bill. I hope the minister will be patient with me, because I shall take only a minute or two.
I should like to take this occasion to bring to the attention of the committee a matter which I have often thought of since I was in the army and on service myself. That is the fact that in the British army a chaplain is a commissioned officer and a non-combatant. In the French army I understand that chaplains are non-commissioned officers and are combatant. My observation was that being an officer and a non-combatant put a chaplain in our army under the greatest possible disability. First of all, he was separated from the men. He was associating with the officers/ A man who wanted to consult with him about the state of his soul had to be paraded before him by a noncommissioned officer; and that always struck me as an extremely odd way to enter upon an intimate conversation.
In the second place, my observation was that only those chaplains who persistently disregarded what was supposed to be the conduct laid down for them were able really to have influence among the troops; by that I mean only those chaplains who persistently went into the danger zone and who, to all intents and purposes, wfere combatants-that is, at any rate, to the extent of sharing the dangers of combat. But in a great many cases chaplains through no fault of their own, found themselves relegated to rear areas. Perhaps the most serious work they did, apart from conducting funerals-there were no marriages-was to act as secretary of the officers' mess. In general, this disability seemed to me to be a great pity. It seemed to me to deprive nine out of ten chaplains of the great influence which they might have had. I suggest that it might be well for us to consider whether what I understand to be the practice in the French army is not sound and worthy of consideration.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Before proceeding with the bill, may I suggest that we call clauses 1 and 2, and then that I might call the bill by parts instead of calling each clause. We have twelve parts of the bill and 251 clauses. Is it the unanimous wish of the committee that we proceed by parts?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
National Defence


Some hon. Members:: No.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall clause 1 carry?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am through, Mr. Chairman; but to suggest that we are going to call a bill of this length by parts and not by sections would immediately allow the critics of the House of Commons to say, and with some justice, that we were completely disregarding our duties here. Let us go through the motions anyway.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
On section 16-Regular forces.
Percy Ellis Wright: This is the clause which regulates the size of our forces in the army, the navy and the air force. I should like to draw to the attention of the committee the fact that in this clause we are departing from a principle which has a long tradition in British history; that is the tradition that the numbers in our armed forces are directly under the control of parliament as distinguished from the governor general and the minister in charge of that department. Formerly, by act of the House of Commons, a limit was placed on. the numbers of our armed forces in the army. Under clause 16 this matter is left entirely to the discretion of the governor in council. Formerly the air force and the navy were left to the governor in council, but the number of the men directly in the army was provided for by act of parliament. It is an old tradition in British history, dating back to the time of Cromwell if not before that time, that parliament itself should control the size of the army in the country.
I just wanted to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that here we are making a distinct departure from the customs that have prevailed down through history in Great Britain and in Canada. It is all right to say that we control the size of our armed forces through the vote we pass here each year for the carrying on of our armed forces, but this is an indirect way. In Great Britain today each year there is passed the army act-and I understand there is also passed every year what is called the mutiny act-which directly controls the pay and allowances of the armed forces. Thus parliament itself keeps within its control the size of the army at any time in that country.
I do not want anybody to misunderstand me and say that I am trying to restrict the size of the armed forces we may wish to have in Canada at any given time. Under conditions as they exist in the world today, I think we must be prepared to meet any

National Defence
emergency. Nevertheless, this is a distinct departure and leaves within the control of the governor in council the size of our armed forces. That is a matter which is fairly important in a democratic country, and is a departure from traditional procedure in the British commonwealth of nations.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member for Mel-fort is of course completely correct in both his statement of the position as it has been and of the change proposed. I think the justification for it is that, under existing arrangements for defence, the number of men actually involved in the defence of any country at any time is only one of a great number of factors that constitute the control of defence. At the time when the annual army act was brought into effect, in consequence of three uprisings in Britain in which the army had taken a leading part, the number and size of the army really determined what its effect would be on the state. The provision to which the hon. gentleman has referred, under which the size of the army in Britain is controlled by the annual army act, was introduced some two hundred years ago in order to prevent the army, through its size, from being a threat to the state. In Canada there never has been such a possibility, and I am sure there never could be such a possibility. With forces such as we envisage, of the magnitude of 50,000 for all three services, the army could not toe a threat. But in modern times what is more important really than the size of the forces is the kind of equipment they have. In order to effect control it would be desirable not only to control the number of men but also the number of aircraft, tanks and so on. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that that is done most effectively today through the control of the estimates and the appropriation bill. We believe that parliament in that way has, from year to year, complete control over the armed forces. That is certainly our intention.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am interested in this section. I recall that we had a similar discussion two or three years ago when the minister's predecessor was minister of national defence. My recollection is that at that time a similar change was incorporated in one of the acts, removing the actual control over the limits of numbers of the army from parliament and vesting it with the governor in council. My recollection, although not clear, is that as a result of the discussion some modification was made in the proposed removal of control from parliament. While I quite appreciate the force of the minister's explanation, what

I am wondering is whether it would not be possible, without making it inefficient or cumbersome from the point of view of administration, to set the maximum number in the statute itself, and leave it still open to the governor in council to set the ceilings which from time to time may be authorized within that maximum number. Would that make it a matter of great difficulty in administering the forces or in bringing about the necessary changes from time to time?-because if not I would think that consideration should be given to that suggestion.


Brooke Claxton: The only time when any government would feel it desirable to go beyond the limits imposed in consequence of the last appropriation bill enacted would be in the event of an emergency that was anticipated in the immediate future.
If an emergency were anticipated in the immediate future, certainly if I were minister of defence and had the powers available under the War Measures Act, I would not hesitate to increase the forces over the statutory limit, if it were in the national interest and it were legally permissible. Therefore in the only case-


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is true in an emergency, yes.


Brooke Claxton: -in which we would wish for a second, or conceive it possible, to go beyond the limits of parliamentary control as exercised the last time an appropriation bill was passed would be in the event of an emergency. Then, if it were justified, we would have to take action contrary to the limitation.


Major James William Coldwell: Is not the emergency which the minister visualizes an emergency which would require the calling of parliament, in any event? Parliament would then immediately be able to authorize the necessary extension, if an extension were necessary. I think under the Atlantic agreement it is understood that each country will decide what it will do for itself. I take it that will involve, as it did in 1939, the calling of parliament, and parliament authorizing the necessary action in the event of an emergency of the kind which I think the minister visualizes.


Brooke Claxton: If my recollection is correct, no effort was made by parliament in 1939 to fix the number of the forces. I would think that parliament would hesitate to put any limits on the activities of the government at that time.


Major James William Coldwell: This is peacetime; it is a little different.


Brooke Claxton: Yes; I say that in peacetime no government would find it possible to go

beyond the limits imposed by the appropriation bill. In the event of an emergency parliament would not wish to impose any restriction.


Major James William Coldwell: Parliament would be called and could deal with the emergency and authorize the maximum-


Brooke Claxton: Yes, but I do not think parliament would even authorize the maximum except to say there shall be no limits.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is right.


Major James William Coldwell: Parliament would decide it in wartime. It seems to me to be unnecessary in peacetime to have this provision in the act.


Brooke Claxton: My point is this; in peacetime it is not possible because there will not be that money available. There will not be any more money available than parliament agreed to at the time the appropriation bill was passed, you see.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, I see.


Brooke Claxton: In wartime parliament itself would not want to impose a restriction. Therefore, from the practical point of view we are better without it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-Continuation of existing constitution.
Arthur Leroy Smith: I heard something said about reprinting the bill. Has it been reprinted?


Brooke Claxton: It has not been reprinted. It is being rushed through just as fast as it can be.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am not criticizing. It just is not available?


Brooke Claxton: It will be available late tonight or early tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 18 to 20 inclusive agreed to.
On section 21-Commissioned officers.
Mr. Herridge:: I should like to say a few words in support of the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood with respect to the question of chaplains having commissioned rank. What I have to say I say from a certain amount of experience with the armed forces and from observations during the last war, and from conversation with veterans of all three services. I think the suggestion made by the hon. member was a good one. It has always appeared to me that by giving a chaplain commissioned rank you are separating him to a great extent from the rank and file of the regiment, the group, company or ship. I could never imagine one of the apostles
National Defence
having a batman to clean his boots, or somebody springing to attention, and saying to them, "Sir". I have comments made to me on many occasions by troops in various places and in various stations on this question. I realize the necessity of army discipline but I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, it would be good enough if the chaplains had warrant rank instead of commissioned rank. That would not separate the chaplains as officers from the men probably so completely as it does at the present time. I would like the Minister of National Defence to inform the committee what a chaplain receives as an honorary colonel, as an honorary major, and as an honorary captain; what allowance he receives per diem and what services he is entitled to, such as batmen and so on.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, the point raised by the hon. gentleman who has spoken is of course one of considerable interest, which obviously does not come under this bill, but I should be very glad indeed to make some comment on it now.
In the first place, the point of view which hon. gentlemen have expressed is one which has often occurred to many of us. I must say that when I came into this office three years ago and was seeking to unify the forces as much as possible I discussed with representatives of the various churches and services the possibility of having a single chaplain service for all three services, and of having no ranks for all chaplains. I took this up with representatives of the Catholic and of the Protestant churches who are represented by a special committee dealing with the armed forces. I consult with the Vicar Apostolic of the armed forces and the representative of the Protestant churches with regard to all matters regarding the chaplain service and religion in the armed forces. I should tell you that their view unanimously was opposed to the view set forth by the hon. members. They felt that in the military organization rank is of importance. People know where they stand in relation to each other. For the chaplains to exercise their functions properly they must have not only the respect which is attached to their cloth and to their service, but the status which comes from their having that rank. Further, if the directorate of military engineering or of infantry training is to be headed by a full colonel the chaplain service, being equally important, should be headed by an officer of the rank of colonel or equivalent. I can assure hon. members that I voiced the same point of view as they have. I found the representatives of all the churches and of all the services unitedly opposed to me in that contention.

National Defence
With regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Greenwood that it was necessary that men be paraded by an N.C.O. before chaplains, that simply is not so in the armed forces today. The men and officers have access to their chaplains in exactly the same way as they would have access to their spiritual advisers in private life. May I add that I have met almost all the chaplains in our armed forces. We had none in the permanent force before the war; we now have nearly a hundred. They are chosen in consultation with their churches. These are men who have fine records, usually both academic and in the services. They perform an exceedingly valuable and continuing service from day to day not only as spiritual advisers but also acting as they would in their normal pastoral capacity as applied to the service personnel, their dependents and children, at the service camps. I can assure hon. members that this matter has received consideration; and on the basis of all the information received and recommendations made I believe we should leave things as they are.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 22 to 27 inclusive agreed to.
On section 28-Attachment and secondment, within the Canadian Forces.
Arthur Leroy Smith: What is the difference between a member of the armed forces being attached and being seconded?


Brooke Claxton: The terms are defined in service regulations. When anyone is "attached" to another organization he continues to be paid by his own service and to form part of it. When he is "seconded" he is paid by the other organization and is really totally though temporarily detached from his own service.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 29 to 31 inclusive agreed to.
On section 32-Active service, placing forces on active service
Arthur Leroy Smith: This section states that the governor in council may place the Canadian forces or any service, component, unit or other element thereof, or any officer or man thereof on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof at any time when it appears desirable so to do by reason of an emergency.
Does the word "emergency" refer to defence measures, or is the word broad enough to cover, let us say, the recent Winnipeg flood? From a reading of the section I should not think it would be. Does the

authority reside within the army itself when forces are sent to meet emergency conditions such as those which developed in connection with the floods? I ask the question only to be sure that we have some authority for doing that splendid thing which was done at Winnipeg.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member is quite right in his assumption. The meaning of "emergency" is set out in section 2(1), as meaning war, invasion, riot or insurrection, real or apprehended. So that the word would not cover the Winnipeg flood. That would be covered by clause 35 in the bill. The legal justification or authority for using the armed forces in the Winnipeg flood, the Fraser valley flood or similar disasters, is in the power of the government to employ forces on training or exercises, or for any other national purpose.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then the minister is satisfied that the authority is there? Then, what is the proper definition of the word "component" as it is used in this section? Has it any specific meaning?


Brooke Claxton: By clause 15 the Canadian forces shall mean-
-the naval, army and air forces of His Majesty raised by Canada and consist of three services, namely, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Clause 16(1) states:
There shall be a component of each service of the Canadian forces consisting of officers and men who are enrolled for continuing, full-tune military service.
Then we have another component consisting of those enrolled for part-time military service, and a third component consisting of those who may be called out on active service. The word "component" is equivalent to the word "part".


Arthur Leroy Smith: It refers to the individuals?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: Is it customary, where the army performs such splendid work as it did in connection with the Winnipeg flood, to charge up the cost of that work for the time being to the province affected? Is it customary to charge up the pay and allowances of the entire personnel who, in this instance, did such a splendid job in Winnipeg, to the provincial government for the time being, until a later adjustment is made?


Brooke Claxton: That is a matter for arrangement. In respect of the Fraser valley and Winnipeg floods it was arranged with those provinces before service personnel went in that the provinces would cover the cost. In the case of the Fraser valley flood, the cost of

that personnel was one of the matters which entered into the negotiation of the contribution to be made by the federal government.


James Arthur Ross: But for the time being it is charged to the province.


Brooke Claxton: We are keeping accounts on that basis.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 33 to 40 inclusive agreed to.
On section 41-Presumption of death; authority to issue certificate.
Arthur Leroy Smith: May we anticipate any complications in view of the conditions surrounding presumption of death in civil life? In civil life, after an absence of seven years, the onus is on the person seeking the order of presumption of death to show that all steps had been taken to find the missing person. Then the court will issue an order of presumption of death. However, under our law, the wife of an absent person who has married again is still guilty of bigamy.
The last part of the section contains these words:
-in relation to his status and service in the Canadian forces, be deemed to have died on that date.
Has any consideration been given to the civil position where there is a presumption that a person has died on a certain date?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. Of course this has relation only to his status as serving in the Canadian forces. We are endeavouring only to deal with the matter from the point of view of a man's interest, and his dependents' interest, in having some determination as to his death so that, for example, a pension may become payable to his widow. We do not purport * to make any declaration or presumption of death that will have any bearing	on his estate from the
point of view of the civil jurisdiction of the provinces. I should add, however, that the provinces have found it very convenient indeed to have a declaration made by us. In the case of several of the provinces they have said by statute that a declaration or presumption of death made by us shall for provincial purposes be deemed to be a declaration or presumption of death. There is no conflict, and in fact there is a good deal of complementary action.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It strengthens the position instead of weakening it.


Brooke Claxton: That is right.
Section agreed to^
Sections 42 to 53 inclusive agreed to.
National Defence
On section 54-Powers of the defence research board.


Percy Ellis Wright: In speaking a few moments ago the minister stated-and I think quite rightly-that the type of equipment and armament with which our forces are supplied is more important today than the numbers in the forces. Under section 54(c) the defence research board may, with the approval of the minister:
Enter into contracts in the name of His Majesty for research and investigations with respect only to matters relating to defence.
Under this section the defence research board is given the power to conduct the various types of research necessary for the armed forces today, and that is entirely under the control of the minister. The type of research necessary today to develop radar, atomic and other weapons which may be used in a future war requires several years to complete and the expenditure of vast sums of money. There is very little use in commencing a research project involving new weapons unless you are prepared to carry it on for a number of years until you arrive at a successful conclusion. I think the power to institute this type of research is a pretty wide one to place in the hands of one minister of the government. I have every respect for the present minister, and I am sure if he were instituting a new research project the matter would go to the governor in council before it was started.
I understand there is a regulation providing that where an expenditure for research is to be more than $15,000 the matter must be taken to the governor in council. Nevertheless that is not in the act. It is a regulation which can be changed from time to time without the consent of parliament. It is true that parliament will be notified of any change in the regulation when it is made. It seems to me, however, that the initiation of major research projects should be undertaken by the governor in council rather than the minister. At the present time I cannot conceive of the power being abused, but if one stops to think about it this is a permanent act. It will be on the statute books twenty-five years from now when we have passed on and other people will be concerned with it. With the world constituted as it is today it is possible that such a wide power placed in the hands of a minister might be abused. I would have preferred to see a provision in the act stating definitely that the governor in council should be the body to institute matters of major research rather than the minister on his own initiative.
!Mr. Claxion: I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member. I think the situation here is the same as in the case of the national

National Defence
research council. The national research council can inaugurate research without reference to the governor in council but with the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to whom it reports. The national research council is a most successful organization. It has operated very well and has never given cause for anything but congratulation and praise. In setting up the defence research board we followed closely the general set-up of the research council. We have set out here the constitution of the defence research board. In subsection 2 of section 53 the members of the defence research board are named and include the president of the national research council and representatives of universities, industries and other research interests. Our thought was that the defence research board would have powers corresponding roughly to those of the national research council, and that they would use the moneys made available by parliament for defence research in the way they thought desirable, but subject to the approval of the minister.
I can assure the committee that I have of course checked every recommendation they have made, and in major cases have secured the consent of the cabinet defence committee or of cabinet itself. I think the hon. member's proposal would unnecessarily hamstring the activities of the board and load cabinet with a great deal more work than would be justified by any results that would be obtained. I do not think the hon. member appreciates that we probably have in existence now somewhere between 500 and 600 contracts of this kind. Sums of money ranging from $250 to $50,000 a year are paid to virtually every university in Canada and a great number of industries to assist them, or an individual, to do some bit of defence research. To require that each one of those, or even any of them, should go to the cabinet would, I think, burden a body that is already pretty heavily burdened with an amount of detailed work which is greater than in any other country that I know of.
Of course somebody else should say this, but our experience is that it has worked very well indeed. I think you will find that other countries have regarded our set-up for defence research as being more desirable, more workable, and better controlled than theirs. It also has the advantage of being very closely tied in with other government activities and with the services.


Clarence Gillis: I listened to this argument in
the special committee, and I have listened to it again now. Under the circumstances existing ten or twelve years ago I think perhaps the hon. member for Melfort would be absolutely right. There is a lot of merit in
[Mr. Claxton.l
the argument advanced by the minister. As things are now I think even this provision in the act is going to cause some shifts within the cabinet itself in matters of research. For example, the act provides that in the event of an emergency there can be set up army, air force and naval ministers. If that is so the powers delegated to the minister would then be delegated to the new ministers. I think the minister is in a better position than anyone else to know the requirements of the services. The governor in council is a rather abstract thing in the mind of most of us, and this would presuppose that the government as a whole was responsible. I would rather have somebody in this house that I could see, some minister, whether it was army, navy or air or a joint ministerial post such as the present minister holds. There should be somebody coming into the house who was responsible for the appropriations being asked for, for the contracts being made and so on.
I think for the purposes of administration and clarity in the minds of hon. members the arrangement provided by this section is the best. The governor in council leaves nothing but a blank in my mind. There is nothing you can fasten to. The buck can be passed in nineteen different directions.
Take the matter of defence research. Atomic energy research is definitely defence reesarch, and will be for a long time. It will involve a lot of money. At the present time the Minister of Trade and Commerce is administering that particular research job. If it is continued as a matter of defence research I think that will have to be transferred to the Minister of National Defence to whom it rightly belongs. The same thing applies to the purchasing of stores and all that kind of thing. I notice there is a resolution on the order paper providing for powers to be given to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in this connection.
I am satisfied with the section as it is, and I say that with all due respect to my hon. friend. This indicates the flexibility of the C.C.F., how it is possible for us to have different problems. This may involve some shifts in the cabinet, but that would not be a bad thing.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not want the impression to go abroad that I think that every little piece of research should go to the governor in council, because that was not my intention. I was referring to major projects or the development of new weapons or new methods of warfare, which I consider are important enough to be dealt with by the governor in council rather than by the minister. I am sorry the hon. member for Cape Breton South thinks so little of our governor in

council. I think it is a pretty important body in our democratic procedure and it certainly has more responsibility to parliament than any single minister.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 55-Expenses of the defence research board.
Douglas Scott Harkness: This section makes it possible to appoint persons to the board without reference to the civil service commission. Will these employees come under the benefits of superannuation, pension and everything else?


Brooke Claxton: They are appointed in the same way as civil servants, and the salaries are closely related. They have all the benefits of the Civil Service Superannuation Act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: But all appointments can be made without reference to the civil service commission?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That may be necessary as far as scientific and technical employees are concerned, but I cannot see the need for it in connection with cleaners, clerical workers and others.


Brooke Claxton: The provision is the same as that in connection with the national research council, with which we have close working relations. It permits of more flexibility in the carrying on of research work in isolated centres.


Gordon Graydon: What yardstick is used by the cabinet to decide whether appointments will be taken away from the civil service commission?


Brooke Claxton: The national research council and the defence research board are intended to co-operate closely with universities and industry and have close working relationships with them. As a matter of fact, they have salary scales that are worked out in conjunction with the universities and industry so as to arrive at a fair figure. I do not think there is much room for argument in the case of scientific and technical personnel, but in the case of others it has frequently been found that a Stenographer may have some scientific training-I know of many in the service-and be more valuable because she is familiar with scientific terms or may be able to do a bit of research work herself. Such a girl does not fit exactly into the categories set up by the civil service commission. We think this works much better than it would if these people came under the civil service commission.
National Defence


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 56 as amended agreed to.
Section 57 agreed to.
On section 58-No limitation.
Arthur Leroy Smith: Is there anything in the act or the regulations to indicate where within Canada an offence shall be tried?


Brooke Claxton: Section 59, just over the page, reads:
Every person alleged to have committed a service offence may be charged, dealt with and tried under the code of service discipline, either in Canada or out of Canada.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If an offence were committed in Alberta the offender could be tried in Ottawa?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do you think that is advisable?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 59 to 63 inclusive agreed to.
Sections 64 to 66 inclusive, as amended, agreed to.
Section 67 agreed to.
Section 68 as amended agreed to.
Sections 69 to 78 inclusive agreed to.
Section 79 as amended agreed to.
Sections 80 to 82 inclusive agreed to.
On section 83-Scandalous conduct by officers.
Arthur Leroy Smith: This section reads:
Every officer who behaves in a scandalous manner unbecoming an officer is guilty of an offence . . .
I am asking whether or not that word "scandalous" has always been in the act?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, sir, that is in the existing naval service act, the army, and navy and air force acts.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 84 to 87 inclusive agreed to.
On section 88-Drunkenness.
Arthur Leroy Smith: I should like to ask the minister if he is satisfied with this section which refers to drunkenness. The same language is used with respect to other offences. It says:
Drunkenness, whether on duty or not on duty, is an offence and every person convicted thereof is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment . . .

National Defence
I am wondering about the use of the second word "less" in that line. A man could be convicted and sentenced to two years less one day. He could be sentenced to one day's imprisonment or one hour. Now, what is less than that? The point I am trying to make is this, and once more it is merely to ensure that these things shall be clear. Let us say a man receives one hour's imprisonment, and another man, for the same offence, might have his pay and allowances stopped for a month. Now, would anyone say that the second man's punishment, because he was not imprisoned, was less than the first man's? I merely thought, sir, that it might need some clarification. I know there are many punishments which may be meted out other than imprisonment, and I was wondering who would decide on what punishment would be less than two years or something of that sort.


Brooke Claxton: What is less than each superior punishment is set out in section 121, subsections 1 and 2. In subsection 1 there is an order of punishment running from paragraph (a), death, to paragraph (n), minor punishments. Each one of those, in order, is less than all those prior to it in the enumeration.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The word "less" is defined there.


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Léon Balcer: If this is the proper time, I should like to ask the minister whether his department is contemplating a change in the rum rationing to the navy, such as substituting beer for rum? Does the minister intend to apply rum rationing to the three services in a spirit of unification?


Brooke Claxton: This is a very complicated matter, and I do not want to say too much about it because I might get into some trouble. I will say that no immediate change is contemplated in the navy rum rationing. A man may take money, of course, in lieu of the rum ration.


Léon Balcer: Has there been any change in substituting beer for rum in the navy?


Brooke Claxton: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 89 to 165 inclusive agreed to.
On section 166-Trial of issue of insanity.
Arthur Leroy Smith: This section reads as follows:
Where at any time after a trial by court martial commences and before the finding of the court martial is made, it appears that there is sufficient reason to doubt whether the accused person is then, on account of insanity, capable of conducting his

defence, an issue shall be tried and decided by that court martial as to whether the accused person is or is not then, on account of insanity, unfit to stand or continue his trial.
The section states that whenever at any time, after a trial commences this appears, then the issue shall be tried. Is that just the usual criminal procedure, making a distinction between insanity at the time of the trial, which will affect the continuation of the trial, and insanity at the time the offence is committed? I gather that somewhere, perhaps subsequently, that other branch of it is taken care of.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, the hon. member's assumption is quite right. This section 166, subsection 1, is practically identical with section 967 of the Criminal Code, and is intended to perform the same function. Section 167 deals with a case where the accused was insane when the offence was committed.


Arthur Leroy Smith: As to the question of whether or not he is sane enough to stand his trial at the moment, are there any special provisions for the examination of witnesses? In other words, all military units have medical officers or M.O.'s, as I think they are called. Is there anything in the act with respect to the evidence necessary to come to that conclusion of insanity at the time of trial?


Brooke Claxton: The provision is exactly the same as in the Criminal Code.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It is just the same?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. It has to be tried as an issue. The usual practice of course is to have specialists in that kind of medicine give evidence in addition to the ordinary medical officers.	.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That, of course, is so. But I was asking if there is any special provision, for this reason. With regard to a man on an insanity plea-that would be at the time the offence was committed-our courts have said that there is no occasion whatever, and I mean that it is not a "must", to call expert or medical evidence with respect to the question. The English judges have gone so far as to say that if a man is crazy, to use their expression, no one knows it as well as his friends and neighbours, and that they rely greatly on conduct as observed by his friends and neighbours. What I have in mind is this. The other day we were discussing something in the house at the suggestion of the hon. member for Lanark. We put into the act-and I have just forgotten the name of the act which was under discussion-a provision that certain things might

happen on satisfactory evidence of insanity being given. Perhaps . the minister may remember the incident. It took place only a few days ago in the house here. My memory is so bad that I cannot remember just what it was. In any event, the authorities have not seen fit to specify in any way the kind of evidence upon which you might act?


Brooke Claxton: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They have left it the same?


Brooke Claxton: Any evidence that may be relevant.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 167 to 191 inclusive agreed to.
On section 192-Substitution of new punishment where illegal punishment set aside.
Arthur Leroy Smith: I just blew my no:e, Mr. Chairman, and lost twelve sections. Is this the new appeal board that has been created?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, sir.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 193 to 251 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
Brooke Claxton: the third reading of the bill.
He said: I should like to express to hon. members what I think everyone must feel, and that is appreciation of their co-operation. I should also like to acknowledge the fair and appreciative remarks made by hon. members with regard to the officers of the services, and I am sure they will include the officers of the Department of Justice also who, as I think all hon. members will agree, have done a really great work in preparing this monumental piece of legislation. I shall be glad indeed to convey to these officers the messages of appreciation that hon. members have voiced, and to add my own on this occasion as on others. In addition, I should once more like to thank the members of the committee, and particularly the chairman, for the excellent job they did in preparing the bill for our consideration which, I think, was probably record-breaking in view of the fact that we have been one hour and five minutes on the 251 sections.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Indian Act INDIAN ACT



CONSOLIDATION AND CLARIFICATION


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend, consolidate and clarify the Indian Act, and to provide, inter alia, for band funds and expenditures therefrom, and for other appropriations in case of deficiency or lack of band funds.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Low:: Is the minister not going to make a statement?


Walter Edward Harris: The only statement that I think I should make at this stage is to say that I think all parties in the house agree that it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend, consolidate and clarify the Indian Act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is a great desire on the part of the Indians and many other people interested in them to have this act come out so that people can take a look at it, and so forth. In view of that fact, I should not like to delay the appearance of the act by making any remarks on the matter this afternoon, except to say that I am extremely glad that after this long period of time the act is finally going to come out and get consideration here.


John Horne Blackmore: I have no desire to delay the passage of the resolution but I hope that the bill, when it comes down, will make some provision for two or three things which I consider to be paramount essentials in any attempt to deal with the Indian situation as it exists in Canada today.
In the first place there should be an Indian claims commission. If the bill does not provide for such a claims commission then it will be defective to that extent. In various parts of Canada Indians have experienced some of the grossest injustices by reason of the fact that conditions since the signing of their treaty have changed so materially that they do not at all resemble what they were like in former days. May I illustrate. Suppose an Indian tribe had free access to fishing on a great river which teemed with fish at the time they signed their treaty. At that time it was recognized that they would have free access to the fish in that river and no particular stipulation was made concerning their having perpetual access to the fish; but meanwhile the fishing at the mouth of that river has been commercialized, as it has within the Fraser river. The result is the

Indian Act
Indians find that when they go to the river to get their annual supply of fish, the fish do not appear in the river. Clearly something has happened as a result of the white man's management of that river which has changed the conditions of life for the Indians beyond all possible estimation.
If something has not been done by His Majesty's government to recompense the Indians for the losses which they have sustained by reason of this commercializing of the fishing in that river then the Indians are suffering from a handicap which is very painful indeed, and can be ruinous. They have a claim against the government which ought to be investigated, and in consideration of which they should be compensated.
Conditions similar to that prevail in respect of, I would imagine, 60 per cent of the tribes throughout this country. In the reservation which I myself have the honour to represent, for example, when they signed their treaty in 1877-I believe it was treaty 7-it did not seem possible within the time that one could imagine that there ever would be a period when the Indians would not have limitless grazing land for their ponies and for their cattle. There were no fences in any direction; there was no settlement in any direction in the province of Alberta in 1877 where the Blood reservation now is.
The result was the Indians had limitless paslure. They could get all the wood they needed for their fires. There is not a plentiful supply of wood in that area, but there was enough for the Indians; where they could not get this wood from stream beds, rivers and creeks, they could go to the mountains. Now, what has happened? Mountain reserves have been made parts of forest reserves and parks, and the Indians have been fenced in in reserves so that they cannot get wood at all to supply their needs. A set of conditions has been built up as a result of that alone which has inflicted upon these Indians losses of tremendous extent. If we allow them to go on suffering from these disadvantages, without making any compensation or any investigation into the nature of their disabilities, we surely are not making for success in advancing our Indians.
Therefore I suggest there must be a claims commission similar to the one set up in the United States. If that claims commission is not provided for in the bill coming down, or in some bill soon to come down, I suggest to the minister in all earnestness, as one sincere Canadian to another, that he must look into that matter without any further delay.
There is another matter which I think must be talked about, namely, the matter of

education. I am sure the minister has had much representation brought to his attention about Indian education. If the bill provides-


Walter Edward Harris: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but the estimates of my department on Indian affairs have not yet been discussed. I wonder whether the hon. member would discuss education when they come up either later this week, or early next week. I realize that he wants to make a point that we should provide for the education of Indians, but I think that when he sees the bill he will find that it does that.


John Horne Blackmore: Very well, but it would not do any harm to outline it in a few minutes. I do not propose to talk very long, but I do wish to say just a word or two about the situation in respect of the Indians. I believe in preparing the minister for what I may or may not say in discussing the estimates, but it will do no harm to mention this question of education. We know very well that in a number of ways education on the Indian reservations has been taken care of largely by religious organizations. I have no complaint against religious organizations as such, but there are Indians who do not desire to have their children attend religious institutions in order to obtain education. On the reserve which I have the honour to represent there are two splendid schools, one Roman Catholic and the other Anglican. I believe they have been managed with the utmost proficiency in so far as the people controlling them have access to facilities; but there are many Indians on that reservation who do not desire that their children shall be under the religious influence of either of those organizations. And as Canadian citizens they surely have the right to have their children educated in a non-sectarian or secular school. Up to the present time there is no provision by which they can obtain that. That is a serious matter.
I wish to say only a word or two about it If we are going to prepare the Indians to be the citizens of tomorrow in Canada, along with our own boys and girls, we simply must be positively sure that we are making full provision for the adequate education of the Indian boys and girls. That is the second point.
This is the third point, and I hope it is in the bill. We must make provision without further delay for adequate nutrition among the Indians on the reservations. This more properly comes under the direction of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I am sure that he is giving it careful attention, but at the same time if the two fine young ministers co-operate and have the full support of the house and of the government on this program they will not have any more

than just barely enough support to enable them to discharge the responsibilities they assumed when they undertook to see that the Indians of Canada shall be properly nourished. If the Indians are not properly nourished then they develop all sorts of deficiencies. Men now are nutrition conscious. We all know how important it is that we should be well nourished. What chance has the ordinary Indian to be well nourished when it is almost impossible for him to obtain enough food in Canada to keep body and soul together? The result of all this is that a very carefully designed provision must be made as to nutrition if the Indians of tomorrow are to be able to discharge their responsibilities as citizens.
Such measures as old age pensions, and all that sort of thing, should be provided the Indians. Some sort of provision must be made for adequate nutrition.
I have just one more thing to say. I trust that this bill is making provision for what might be called the rehabilitation and establishment of the Indians economically. We are having a hard enough time in our generation, we, the ordinary ones of us. We find it hard enough to fit into the life around us and to make a living; yet we have been admirably prepared as compared with the preparation given to the Indian. We are admirably equipped in both body and mind, as compared with the Indian who has been undernourished all his life. What chance has an Indian when we find it difficult to compete? What chance has he to compete and establish himself so that he can make adequate provision for his family?
I do not propose to go into the details of this matter, but we must take it into consideration and we must have results right away so that the Indians can establish themselves economically, so that they can use their reserves to the best advantage, and take part in the economic life of the community surrounding their reserves.
I trust that these provisions may be made in the act. I shall watch with great care to see whether they are or not; and if they are not, then the minister must naturally expect to give an accounting to me when he brings his estimates before us.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not propose to discuss the resolution for the simple reason that it gives no indication as to the nature of the bill to be introduced to amend the Indian Act. However I should like to make two suggestions to the minister.
Certainly nothing more important than these amendments to the Indian Act could have been introduced to the House of Commons, affecting as they do the rights, opportunities and 55946-211
Indian Act
privileges of the Indian population in our country. The minister will know, as I do, having on a number of occasions acted as counsel for the Indians-believing that one should assist them at all times, and doing it in a spirit of assistance and for no other consideration-that the Indians as a whole are suspicious of any legislation that will be introduced without their receiving at least an opportunity to examine, consider and recommend.
My suggestions to the minister are made with a view to removing many of the objections now being voiced in the Indian reserves across the country. These are objections in the nature of fear that full consideration of their hopes and aspirations will not be reflected in the legislation to be introduced. They have the fear that in too many cases the recommendations and suggestions will be the result of consideration by Indian agents and the officials rather than by the body of Indians as a whole.
After all, the Indian Act has been on the statute books for about seventy years, and it does require revamping, changing, and the removal of obsolete sections and sections which have no regard for present-day world conditions, sections which do not recognize what the Indian says is the right of all people today who during the years have been wards of the government. They say they have the right to a degree of self-determination which through the years they have been denied.
In that spirit I place these two suggestions before the minister, and I do so after having met with many of the Indian chieftains in western Canada, and also with the outstanding leaders of the Indians on the prairies. My first suggestion is that as soon as this resolution is passed by the House of Commons the bill should be "printed, and that it should be distributed not only to Indian agents and Indian officials but also to the Indian chieftains and head men in the various reserves across the country. If the minister goes no further than to distribute copies to the officials, then in my submission he will not be removing one strong ground for objection which has found its way into the minds of many of the young Indians who today are asking for full consideration of their rights, and an opportunity to achieve their ambition and aspirations.
When I say that, I mean that all they need is opportunity. I could point to one family that appeared as delegates at a meeting of the Saskatchewan Indians held at Saskatoon some weeks go. One of these Indians named Eli Wuttunee-and I give his name because I think it should be given-pointed out what happened in his own family when a brother of his decided that in order to give his sons and daughters an opportunity for education,

Indian Act
improvement and advancement he must voluntarily withdraw from the reservation. This shows what can be done if opportunity for education is given to our Indian population. In that family William Wuttunee is today a law student at McGill university; one of his sisters studied nursing until ill health prevented her continuing; another sister is in Prince Albert studying to become a psychiatric nurse.
All they ask is to be given the opportunity which too often is denied on the reservation. Therefore I ask the minister to send this bill out-broadcast it; print a few extra copies, and send them out to representative Indians, in addition to those copies sent through the regular channels of Indian Act administration.
My second suggestion is one I had made previously and which I reiterate. In the building and restoration of a new concept of dealing with the Indians, give them an opportunity to be builders. Give the leaders among the various tribes, the chieftains or whoever may be chosen in a democratic way among the tribes, an opportunity to come to Ottawa to meet with the minister and to discuss the bill. He may answer that the expense of bringing fifteen or twenty Indians to Ottawa would be heavy, and that the same result would be achieved if they were permitted to meet with Indian agents and officials. My answer is that the same results would not be achieved, because the presence of the Indian agent or official in its very essence has a coercive influence upon the Indians under his control and jurisdiction.
Since I first made the suggestion in the house I have seen a number of these Indian chiefs, and they have repeated their desire, their wish and their hope that the minister will give them an opportunity to deal directly with him, so that anything they may advance by way of amendments to the act and criticism of some of the officials will not have any detrimental effect so far as they are concerned. In other words, what they ask for is an opportunity to meet the minister, who represents to them what they so frequently refer to as the benevolence of the queen. They refer to Queen Victoria as though she were living today. Two of these Indian chiefs, both grandsons of the chieftains who signed the treaties in 1830 and sons of the chieftains who signed the treaty in 1873 that ceded the western plains to the British crown and to Canada, have asked that they be given the opportunity they used to have to come to the foot of the throne and discuss their complaints with the minister himself. After all, we have a responsibility to these humble people, and if he will do that he will receive from them a wealth of suggestions and that

wisdom, evidenced by them when they discuss their affairs, which will go far to remove many of the causes of complaint that today activate and arouse the younger members of the various reservations.


Major James William Coldwell: I am sorry that the standing committee on agriculture is sitting this afternoon and that many hon. members who have taken an interest in this particular problem are otherwise engaged. I am thinking particularly of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) who during the last parliament was most interested and active in endeavouring to improve the conditions of the Indians and to see written into our statute books an act which would assist us in helping the Indians to find their proper place in Canadian life. When we review the history of our country we realize how originally Indian lands have been taken away from them from time to time until today there are really insufficient means on some reservations to provide a decent living for many Indian tribes. Consequently we should realize that we owe a debt to them which we have so far failed to honour, a debt which should impel us to write a new Indian Act that will give the Indians an opportunity of becoming a part of our national life in every sense of the word.
The hon. member for Lake Centre made a reasonable plea for the circulation of the new Indian Act to the heads of the various tribes. He also made a plea that the minister should receive representations regarding the provisions of the act from leading Indians in the country. I have a great deal of sympathy with that suggestion, but at the same time I recollect that when the Indian affairs committee sat opportunities were provided for leading Indians to appear before it, and it was very difficult to get a consensus from those who took advantage of the opportunity. If this suggestion is put into effect I hope it will meet with better results than the committee was able to achieve when they invited representative Indians to appear before them during the last parliament.
I cannot see why Indian youth should not receive exactly the same opportunities for education and advancement as are available to our own children. As a matter of fact, when we look at the aborigines of New Zealand-and we call the original inhabitants of any country aborigines-and compare the Indian with the Maori we must feel that there is something wrong with the manner in which we have handled the Indian problem in Canada. As the hon. member for Lake Centre pointed out a few moments ago, given the opportunity Indian youth will achieve

the same standards of education as Anglo-Saxon children acquire. They have not had that opportunity. I have visited reserves at various times, and engaged as I was in education some years ago I visited some of the schools on the reservations. When I looked over the work of the children from six to ten years of age I found that it compared quite favourably with that of children of the same age and in the same grades in the ordinary rural schools of Canada. Beyond that age, no attempt was made to get the children to remain continuously in school when the berry picking season was on, or the fishing season on the Pacific coast, and bit by bit they seemed to slip behind and later returned to a primitive mode of life.
I am of the opinion that when the new act is introduced it Should be carefully scrutinized by the house from the point of view of the means we are going to provide for the better education of the Indian. I think that is the fundamental consideration we should have in mind. I do not believe that the educational system or systems that have been in effect on Indian reserves have been either suitable to modern needs or efficient. I should like to see Indian schools placed on the same level of educational requirement as the ordinary common schools in the provinces where Indian reserves exist. They should be placed under the same system of inspection with the same high qualifications for teachers engaged in educational work. I think that is fundamental. I know that there are those who emphasize the sectarian or non-sectarian aspect of the problem, but I do not wish to do that. I think a plan can be worked out which will be'satisfactory to those who have been and are truly interested in the welfare and education of the Indian population, and who desire to see some better form of educational facilities provided than has been the case in the past. I say that a fundamental requirement is the reorganization and improvement of educational facilities for Indian children.
Given opportunities comparable to those provided for Anglo-Saxon or white citizens, whichever term you care to use, you will find that Indian youth will acquire just as good an educational standing as their white brethren. I am most anxious that this aspect of the proposals to be introduced by the minister shall receive the most careful and sympathetic consideration of the house.
I want to compliment the Minister of National Health and Welfare upon the fact that much has been done in the last few years to improve the health facilities on the Indian reserves and among the Indian population in our Northwest Territories and 55946-211J
Indian Act
other places. But a great deal remains to be done. Living on the outskirts of civilization as they do, with uncertain means of life at their disposal, makes it necessary that we take steps to improve their economic condition and to see that adequate supplies are available. After all, the basis of good health and good physical condition is an adequate and proper food supply.
Hospitals are being provided and examinations for tuberculosis have been undertaken. I hope that the scourge of tuberculosis among Indian tribes will soon be stamped out. I have not seen the more recent statistics, but I was shocked at the statistics published a few years ago with regard to tuberculosis among the Indians and the northern residents of Canada. I welcome this particular piece of legislation and I hope that when the bill is before us we shall find in it all that we hope for.
I want to say something that I might not be able to say on the estimates because with so many committees sitting one cannot always be here when the proper item comes up. In my own province of Saskatchewan, and I imagine this is true of other provinces, considerable difficulty is encountered in connection with roads through the Indian reserves. I know that the government of Saskatchewan does not expect the federal authorities to do anything about provincial highways that happen to pass through Indian reserves, but we must remember that many cross-country roads are municipal roads. While it is true to say that , the road allowance is part of the Indian property and has been turned over to the municipality or the province for the purposes of communication, it is equally true to say that the maintenance of these roads constitutes a considerable drain on some of the municipalities.
When the minister is considering his estimates-that is when this matter should really be considered-I ask him to consider the payment to the municipalities of something toward at least the maintenance of these roads. In some parts of Saskatchewan the Indian population use the roads for marketing purposes and I am glad to say that some of them have automobiles. Consequently communication across the reserve is as vital to the Indians as it is to the municipalities and the people of the province who live off the reserve.
I do not want to delay the passage of this resolution but I did want to let the minister know that anything he can do to improve the condition of the Indian population, to improve educational facilities, on the reserves particularly, to assist also their economic circumstances and, in co-operation with the

Supply-Veterans Affairs Minister of National Health and Welfare, to improve health facilities and general conditions in regard to health of the Indian population will receive the unqualified support, not only of myself and my colleagues but of the political movement which we represent in this house.


Mr. Applewhaite:: Mr. Chairman, it is hardly necessary to say that I welcome this resolution. There are many things in connection with the Indians I should like to discuss and there are many subjects on which the Indians would like to make representations to this government and to this parliament, and I suggest that the most efficient way to handle this matter would be to have the bill introduced and then we and the Indians could use it as a form of agenda or guide as to what should be done. If the Indians have an opportunity to consider this bill I am sure they will want to make representations, both on the omissions and on what is contained therein. I not only welcome the speedy introduction of the bill but I should like to see it widely distributed so that the Indians may know what it contains. If that were done both this house and the Indians would be saved the necessity of skipping around and discussing all facets of the Indian question instead of only those which in our opinion need consideration.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 267, respecting Indians.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OP VETERANS AFFAIRS Soldier Settlement and Veterans Land Act-
547.	To provide for the cost of administration of Veterans Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $4,563,514.


Mr. Hansell:: The minister will recall that I asked some questions last night with regard to the veteran who had not served overseas, who was not pensionable or who had not served for 365 days and was thus unable to come under the provisions of the statute in order to obtain a loan. I have to be satisfied with his answer and I am not going to be over-critical, but I should like to ask him two additional questions. The first is: has he any idea how many veterans have applied and have been refused by reason of the fact that they did not come under this particular

section of the act? My second question is perhaps predicated on the probable answer to the first one. If there are not very many veterans who have been refused, would it not be possible to bring in an amendment to the act so that the veterans might be able to receive the benefit of these loans?


Mr. Gregg:: Mr. Chairman, we have no
record, exact or otherwise, as to the number of applications that have been made. If we had the number, I do not think it would answer my friend's question, because a great deal of publicity was given to the fact that a veteran had to have one year's service in order to qualify. Consequently, quite a number who would have liked to apply did not apply because they knew that. From the records a general estimate could probably be obtained as to the number of service people who had served less than a year. Those are the ones who are not permitted to come under this provision. I believe the number might be larger than the hon. member expects, but I shall try to get it for him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, the main concern of a general nature which I have in connection with the Veterans Land Act is still a concern over the limitation in the size of the small holding. It is still too large for many veterans to take advantage of the act. I refer specifically to the limitation which says that a small holding must be a minimum of three acres unless the value of the land is more than $500, in which case the small holding may be 2.1 acres, I believe, if recommended by the administration. I realize that the purpose of the small holding scheme was not to allow the veteran to have a country home. I know that is the reason for the limitation as to the size of the holding. It is designed *to assure that a veteran who is settling on a small holding will genuinely be engaged in at least part-time farming.
I know that the administration makes every effort, where a veteran genuinely desires to settle on a small holding, to interpret the regulations in such a way as to assist him. I know the mere fact that there is a statute, and regulations made under it, sometimes precludes the department from helping deserving cases. The fact is well known, Mr. Chairman, that land values, particularly in and around settled municipalities, are not going down but are continuing to rise. The result is that in many cases the cost of three acres, or even 2.1 acres, of land is much in excess of the maximum assistance available under the act, that is $6,000. This means that the veteran has to put up the money over and above this $6,000.
Take the type of small holding around a municipality where a veteran would be

expected perhaps to engage in part-time orchard operations or a berry farm, something of that nature: three acres is actually too much for a veteran who has another job, such as working on the railway. Three acres is too much for him to handle on a part-time basis. On the other hand, three acres is too little for a veteran to make a living from it on a full-time basis. It seems to me the limitation on the size of the holding is, in effect, defeating the initial purpose of the act when it was introduced, which was not to ensure that veterans got country homes but that they got places upon which they could carry on parttime farming. The size of the holding he must have now makes it impossible for him, in many cases, to do that. I am not going to make reference to a specific request which I forwarded to the minister involving some veterans working for the Canadian National near Kamloops, because that is being considered at the moment. I bring forward this general consideration, because I think it is important that the act be reviewed to see whether that limitation as to size cannot be eliminated.
While I am not one who generally approves of leaving things to the discretion of the minister, I think this is a case where, if the limitation is insisted upon, the only proper solution is to leave it entirely to the discretion of the minister. The act should merely provide that, in approving a scheme for settlement or an individual application for settlement, it must be borne in mind that approval will only be given if it is for bona fide small holding operations. By removing that figure of so many acres from the regulations, then genuine cases, which at the present time cannot be helped, could be helped.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member has expressed very well an opinion which is held on all sides of this house. This subject has been fully discussed in my department. The hon. member makes some important points. I would, however, like to mention that the idea behind the small holding of two to three acres is finding expression this last year more fully than it did at the beginning. Early after demobilization there was an urgent need for a roof over the veteran's head. All hon. members will recall that before my time, 1946, there was a period when the subdivision came into being for that specific purpose, and to utilize half-acre patches of land. The subdivisions were built, and after a year that practice was. discontinued and we went back to the original intention.
This year the applications for small holdings are greater than they were immediately after demobilization. It appears as though
Supply-Veterans Affairs the interest is going to continue. I do not give that as an answer to the suggestion made by my hon. friend, but I do say that the intention behind that section of the act is being carried out. To put it plainly, that intention was to bonus the veteran to get out of the big cities, and to establish outside the large cities a new, pleasant way of life. After the war, when wages were high, that extra patch of land was looked upon as waste. I can tell my hon. friend that in the last year, when there have been sections of approaching unemployment down in my part of the country and in other parts of the country, the lad who had that patch of land was beginning to look upon it with a good deal more pleasure and satisfaction than he did before. If we do run into a recession in sections of Canada, I believe these men will be glad they have this land. That is that. I am going to add to that the statement that my colleague the Minister of Resources and Development under the bill which passed last year, in association with the provinces, is getting his plans under way. There comes up under that the question of what degree of veterans preference there will be in it. His officials and my officials, and he and I, have had a good deal of discussion on this matter. The director, supervisors and field men of V.L.A. have been carrying out winter courses for great numbers of veterans in the building of houses and acting as their own contractors. We have discussed whether we might not capitalize on that work as an auxiliary both to his scheme and to our own.
As is known we hold-it is in the estimates here and we have to pay taxes on it-patches of land, near centres of population across Canada, areas which have not been developed. It is just lying there as an asset of the crown. Some of these the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could use and arrangements have been so made. Some of them have been taken into expanding cities but we have quite a number of others. I do not want to make this announcement yet, but I want to state that we are seeing if we cannot find out whether V.L.A. could assist, guide and direct the veteran in the construction-rolling his own, as the lads call it- buying a patch of that ground of an appropriate size but not getting the conditional grant at the end of ten years, and then under an arrangement with the National Housing Act administration getting his loan. If he can do that on these pieces of property that we own, it might lend itself to help to solve the problem which I know is in my hon. friend's mind as it is in mine. In a small town such as Campbellton, New Brunswick, which will never enter into an arrangement

Supply-Veterans Affairs with the province of New Brunswick and the Dominion of Canada under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation plan, an individual veteran or two or three veterans might be able to utilize the value under the Veterans Land Act and also the value under the National Housing Act. That might also be a means of assisting to solve the problem of what degree of veteran preference could come under the act of the Minister of Resources and Development.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate the fact that the minister, in what he has just told us, is revealing something which is under consideration and which is not final. I will therefore not press him to go further into details, except to ask whether that arrangement which he indicated1 or hinted at would not be subject to the limitation as to the size of the land to which the present small holding scheme is subject. Could a veteran take a piece of land of any size that he himself wished?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is what we are attempting to work out.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to have that information. I hope that the arrangements which the minister has in mind will come to fruition because, if I may say so, it sounds to me like a good scheme and the answer to a great many problems.
I just want to say this in addition. I fully agree with the minister that the land under the small holdings scheme is valuable now and will be increasingly valuable as conditions develop; we hope they will never become serious but nevertheless they may become more serious than they are now. My suggestion was not that the small holdings scheme should not be directed toward encouraging veterans to settle on and to work a small plot of land. My thought was rather that of the types of land which so many of these schemes must use, types suitable mainly for fruit farming, the growing of small fruits, berries and so on, three acres is actually too much for a man to handle on a part-time basis.
If he were unemployed-and we hope he never will be-then admittedly it would not be too much. But as long as he is employed or if he is, on the other hand, in the other category that this scheme was designed to help, namely a veteran in receipt of a disability pension, again three acres is probably too much for him to handle. That is why I say:	Do not do away with the idea of a
small holding for a genuine part-time farming operation. Merely give your directors and regional supervisors more discretion to recommend that in this case, because it is an


orchard operation, because it is a berry farm or because the price of the land is extremely high, we think that this veteran should be allowed to settle on perhaps one and a half acres or two acres or 1 [DOT] 9 acres. That was my only suggestion.
May I now ask some specific questions with regard to the expenditure. Can the minister tell us what was actually expended last year on travelling expenses, on purchase and replacements of motor vehicles and on legal fees?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Travelling expenses, $574,340; legal fees, $124,116. What was the third one?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Purchases and replacements of motor vehicles.


Milton Fowler Gregg: 


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why are the legal fees continuing at such a high level? I know that when a veteran purchases privately under his own arrangements with the administration he is obliged to pay the legal fees for perfecting his title. I can appreciate the fact that, when the scheme was first being worked out and the department was buying tracts of land to be open to development, there would probably be extensive legal fees in connection with the searching and the conveyancing. But by this time I would think that those fees would be rather tapering off and that from now on it would be more a matter of the individual deal. That being the case, I am not quite able to understand why these extremely high legal fees are continuing to be necessary.


Milton Fowler Gregg: There has to be payment to the lawyers for the searching of titles. We are fairly well at their mercy. While it is true that some of these properties were purchased some years ago, nevertheless, when the new veteran takes over, the title has to be searched in each individual case and registered.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister not think that possibly he is overestimating a little bit? I notice that in 1948-49 the estimate for legal fees was $250,000 and the actual expenditure was $129,000, or just over half. I notice also that in 1948-49 the estimate for motor vehicle purchases and replacements was $125,000 and the expenditure was $19,778. Last year the estimate under that heading was $35,000 and the expenditure was $29,000. Does the minister not think that we could perhaps reduce the estimate a little bit under these headings?


Milton Fowler Gregg: With regard to the legal fees, in 1949-50 the estimate was $125,000. Our estimate for this present year is $100,000. What I said with regard to the small holdings

also holds good with regard to full-time farming and commercial Ashing. The demand for properties there is on the up and up. It is not declining as are university training and vocational training. Of course that applies also to the necessity for supervision and transportation, travelling, and motor cars.


Mr. Cardiff:: I have a few questions in regard to small holdings. I understood there was some change since the act came into force as to the amount of land that a man had to have to come under the regulation. Is it still three acres, or can he come under the act with a lesser amount?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I wonder whether my hon. friend was in when the hon. member for Kamloops and I discussed this at length a little while ago. It is now exactly as it has been since 1946, namely, two or three acres, unless the man is a pensioner, depending upon the value of the land in the vicinity; but we are exploring plans, which my hon. friend will see in Hansard, which we discussed about a half hour ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
548.	To provide for the upkeep of property, Veterans Land Act, including engineering and other investigational planning expenses that do not add tangible value to real property; taxes, insurance and maintenance of public utilities, $132,500.
John Horne Blackmore: Before the item carries I want to say to the minister that I did not expect he would make as much progress last evening with his estimates as he did. I wanted to have something more to say about the McCann commission on one of these items. It became necessary for me to be out of the house. Since these items have passed I shall have to defer to a later time my remarks concerning the McCann commission.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
551. To provide for the payment of grants to Indian veterans settled on Indian reserve lands under section 35A of the Veterans Land Act, 1942 (as amended by order in council P.C. 2122, dated 13th April, 1945), $500,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Can the minister tell us what success has been secured up to date in the settlement of Indians on their own reserves under the Veterans Land Act? I see that there was a vote of $600,000 for this purpose last year. Was that expended, or to what extent was it expended? How much was put out in the form of grants last year for this purpose?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Last year $479,838 was spent.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can the minister tell us how many Indians have been settled up to date under the Veterans Land Act under this provision?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The number to date is just a bit over a thousand, about 1,012.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Up to date have any of these people failed on their holdings, whether they be small holdings or more or less full-scale farming, or have they been coming along fairly successfully?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That comes under the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall be glad to answer that question on my estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
553. To authorize and provide for necessary remedial work, to be approved by the governor in council, on properties sold under the Veterans Land Act, under individual firm price contracts, to correct defects for which neither the veteran nor the contractor can be held financially responsible, $30,000.
Mr. White (Hasiings-Pelerborough):: I should like to ask the minister a question about items 553 and 554, which more or less come together. Does item 554 refer to the development at Windsor? If so, will the minister tell the committee how much has been paid to date in repairing these properties and what legal action, if any, his department took to recover any part of the money from the contractor?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, Mr. Chairman, neither of these estimates has moneys earmarked for the subdivision at Windsor. I believe that that is history. We have attempted and we did carry out in the last two years a good deal of remedial work in that subdivision. I have not before me just now the amount of money involved, but I do know that the results of the work were reasonably successful and that the subdivision is now going forward quite satisfactorily. These items before us-for instance, item 553-are for a few remaining places about which we have to do something. They are to repair the roofs on 14 Faircraft houses, $2,500; to demolish and replace the foundation walls, footings and basement Aoors in 6 houses in Vernon, British Columbia, $12,000; to provide drainage ditch at Baie d' Urfe, province of Quebec, $2,000; to provide for contingencies. On the basis of past and the current year's experience, the director will be unable to escape accepting certain liabilities to remedy defects where the contractor cannot be held legally responsible or where he will not be financially capable of making repairs, $13,500.


George Stanley White: With regard to the item of $104,000, and dealing

Supply-Veterans Affairs strictly with the situation at Windsor, was there any legal claim against the contractor for the several hundred thousand dollars that the department had to expend to repair these houses?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No; a settlement was arrived at. It was felt that there was no legal claim that could be carried through, and it was settled.


George Stanley White: How
much longer does the minister think he will be spending over $100,000 a year to repair and keep these houses in shape?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not want to make any prophecies but I will express the pious hope that it will not be much longer. One reason why I am certain that it will not apply to the main number of the new houses that are being built is the plan that is being adopted. When the veteran builds his own house it is a much better house in reality, and particularly in his opinion, than one that the contractor builds for him.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister mentioned the Faircraft houses. Are they all repaired now and settlements made on them?


Milton Fowler Gregg: They will be when this-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There were 35 houses altogether, were there not, or was it more than that?


Milton Fowler Gregg: About 35, as I remember. This is to repair the roofs on a few of them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I understood that there was to be a settlement. What was the average settlement made on those where the veterans repaired them themselves?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I will get that for my hon. friend. It was worked out satisfactorily.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the relationship
between these two items, Mr. Chairman, and the write-down of the selling price which was authorized, I think, in 1948-49 and 1949-50 as well? Were these houses in which the price was written down also subject to repair under this vote? If so, what is the total that has been expended to date under the two headings?


Milton Fowler Gregg: These are not related to that. That was a different job by itself. But I may tell my hon. friend that in round figures the total of write-down and remedial work will be, with these two smaller items, in the vicinity of $3 million.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has anything been recovered from any of the contractors in respect of those repairs?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Recoveries have been made in some cases by settlement, and there are still some holdbacks on some of the contracts.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the minister the total of recoveries to date from contractors?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have not got it today. I shall try to get it for the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
555. Post discharge rehabilitation benefits including out of work allowances, university and vocational training, including the training of merchant seamen and salt water fishermen pensioners, awaiting returns allowances, temporarily incapacitated allowances and unemployment insurance contributions, $14,045,500.
Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak briefly on this item, even at the risk of delaying the passage of my estimates. However, this vote from now on will decrease rapidly; before many years it will disappear altogether.
First I wish to express the federal government's appreciation of the cordial and capable co-operation of all provincial governments in the tremendous vocational training effort for veterans during the past six years. This has been a great example of effective teamwork between the two federal departments of Labour and Veterans Affairs, and the appropriate departments within all provincial governments.
Before the effort is over something approaching 100,000 young men and women will have gained special skills through this vocational training. As far as can be observed, so far the results of that training have been effective in bringing the veterans into working skills in every phase of our economic life.
And so within a year of our Canadian history which, I hope, will be marked by wider dominion-provincial co-operation, I point to this effort as a shining proof that it does work.
The other special point I wish to make is related to the other wing of our veteran training program, namely the university training effort. I do not think it is widely realized how great was the task that loomed up before all our Canadian universities in 1945, as demobilization got under way. Within a period of twelve months some had to double or triple their accommodation. But the universities turned the approaching task and the apparently impossible problem into a great opportunity.
The way they entered upon that opportunity is now becoming a matter of history. It is a magnificent period of achievement in the history of all of the universities, and it will enrich their traditions and experience in such a way that it will be reflected down through the years ahead.

In all the relations between the university authorities and the officials of my department the highest degree of cordial good will and devoted effort has been shown. I wish to thank the universities for their part in the rehabilitation effort, which has helped to make much more than a mere reestablishment job, but rather a rich investment for Canada.
Finally, all these efforts would have been futile, if it had not been for the determination of the veterans themselves to take advantage of the opportunity presented. It is not my intention at this time to enlarge upon that, because it has been said many times, and well said. From my files I could produce many personal letters from veterans who finished their training and who are on their way. They have written to express their thanks to the government and to the people of Canada for giving them their chance.
As the campuses teemed with veterans, there existed within the universities veteran-student organizations. They had a national body which they called the national council of student veterans. This last year a young man named J. Peter Kohl was president of that body, and I should like to read to the house a letter which he asked me to present on behalf of his organization. The letter is as follows:
Hon. Milton F. Gregg,
Minister of Veterans Affairs,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Gregg:
The national council of student veterans is in the process of disbanding. Before its final dissolution, the council wishes to express the appreciation of Canada's veterans for the educational opportunities provided under the Veterans Rehabilitation Act.
The commendable foresight of the Canadian government in providing such an excellent university training program has proved, and will continue to prove, of inestimable value to our nation.
The council extends its warm thanks to you and your colleagues in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Your sincere efforts and spirit of co-operation have contributed to a great extent to the success of the program.
And this is the important part of the letter:
The student veterans of Canada are sincerely grateful to the people of Canada for their sympathetic and generous support of the rehabilitation scheme.
I would appreciate your conveying these sentiments to all those concerned.
Yours very truly,
J. Peter Kohl,
Past President, National Council of Student Veterans


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, it is most
appropriate that the minister should have referred to the extremely satisfactory results of the courses given to veterans both in rehabilitation and in technical training at the 55946-212
Supply-Veterans Affairs university level. Those arrangements which were carried on between the dominion government and the department of education in each of the provinces do present a most striking example of what can be done when a spirit of co-operation is demonstrated, as it was in that case.
Actually, for strictly departmental reasons within the dominion government, the agreements were between the Department of Labour and the provincial departments of education. The Department of Veterans Affairs provided the very necessary payments that went to the student veterans, and of course co-operated in respect of the details of the courses.
One point however which I suggest might well be borne in mind in connection with this extremely interesting period, when many universities had their enrolments increased to two or three times what they had been before the war, is that while the arrangements were made to give training specially suited to veterans with some years of overseas experience, it definitely advanced the whole knowledge of education in this country. In discussing this matter I suggest it is appropriate to mention the fact that in these cuurses which were given in the training centres for veterans who were studying for matriculation, arrangements were made whereby the ordinary, rigid, annual examination period was changed, and veterans could proceed as rapidly as they were capable of taking the examinations. This produced some very remarkable results. There were veterans who had not even passed their entrance examinations before the war who, in only a fraction of the ordinary time that would be devoted to high school or collegiate work, were able to qualify for entrance to universities.
I believe that in every province much has been gained in the knowledge of educational procedure itself. Therefore not only have these courses which were provided under agreements between the two federal departments already mentioned and the departments of education in the provinces given to the veterans those educational opportunities they so richly deserve, but those veterans in turn, by the work they have done, have contributed to the educational knowledge of this country.
One of the most interesting aftermaths of that training is that today some of the places where technical training was given to veterans under these agreements are now being used to give special technical training below the university level to those who are anxious to have special qualifications.
All that grows out of this experience. It has been a fine demonstration of effective co-operation, prompted by a desire to assist

Supply-Veterans Affairs the veterans as they should be assisted. It has also demonstrated what can be done in the field of education where provincial authorities are given that measure of financial support which they need to carry on Sipecial educational activities of that kind. I think there are suggestions along the very lines that have been discussed on other occasions during this session where, without any interference whatever with the jurisdiction of the provinces, arrangements can be made whereby the provincial departments are able to broaden the base of technical and other education in this country. At this very time of year there are passing out of the universities thousands of graduates who have benefited from these educational opportunities. I think it can safely be said that Canada never had finer graduates from its universities than these young men and women, and that they are going to make a great contribution to the future of the country as a result of the education they have received.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If I may say
one word, speaking as a university trustee I should like to say that these young men and women were felt by the university authorities to have addejl a degree of seriousness to the work. I actually heard one university president say that for the first time in his life he had been tempted to ask students not to work so hard.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take up Bill 266, an act to provide for the operation and maintenance of a residence for the Prime Minister of Canada. Then we will go into supply and take up the estimates of the Department of National Defence.
It being five minutes after six o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Soldier Settlement and Veterans Land Act-
547.	To provide for the cost of administration of Veterans Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $4,563,514.
548.	To provide for the upkeep of property, Veterans Land Act, including engineering and other investigational planning expenses that do not add tangible value to real property; taxes, insurance and maintenance of public utilities, $132,500.
549.	To provide for the payment to the government of the United Kingdom on account of losses under the 3,000 British family agreement of August 20, 1924, and the New Brunswick 500 British family agreements of August 4, 1927, and August 27, 1935, $10,000.
550.	To provide for the payment of grants to veterans settled on provincial lands in accordance with agreements with provincial governments under section 35 of the Veterans Land Act, 1942 (as amended by order in council P.C. 2122, dated 13th April, 1945), and payment of grants to veterans settled on dominion lands, in accordance with an agreement with the Minister of Mines and Resources, under section 35 of the Veterans Land Act, 1942, as amended (P.C. 1550 of 18th April, 1946), $1,700,000.
551.	To provide for the payment of grants to Indian veterans settled on Indian reserve lands under section 35A of the Veterans Land Act, 1942 (as amended by order in council P.C. 2122, dated 13th April, 1945), $500,000.
552.	To provide for the reduction of indebtedness to the director of soldier settlement of a settler under the Soldier Settlement Act, in respect of a property in his possession, the title of which is held by the director, by an amount which will reduce his indebtedness to an amount in keeping with the productive capacity of the property and his ability to repay his indebtedness to the director, under regulations approved by the governor in council, $150,000.
553.	To authorize and provide for necessary remedial work, to be approved by the governor in council, on properties sold under the Veterans Land Act, under individual firm price contracts, to correct defects for which neither the veteran nor the contractor can be held financially responsible, $30,000.
554.	To authorize and provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council in each case, for the completion of necessary remedial work to houses and services constructed under the 1945 building program, $104,600.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 8, 1950