1952-05-05

[Stage Direction]
Second report of sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.-Mr. Cleaver.

['Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house that an order in council has been passed, effective tomorrow, suspending all the regulations made under the Consumer Credit (Temporary Provisions) Act.\nThis act was passed by parliament in September, 1950, and the first regulations under the act came into force in November of that\nyear. The regulations were considerably stiffened in March, 1951, and generally speaking required down payments of one-half of the selling price in the case of motorcars and motorcycles, and one-third for all other commodities, with the balance to be paid within the succeeding twelve months. Last January the regulations were relaxed by permitting payments of the balance to be spread over a maximum period of eighteen months.\nThe situation with respect to consumer credit is now such that I believe we can safely suspend the operation of these regulations. However, if conditions made it necessary, I would have no hesitation in recommending the reintroduction of consumer credit controls, and in view of existing uncertainties I believe the present legislative basis for such control should be maintained. For this reason the government will invite both houses of parliament to present addresses to the governor general praying that the Consumer Credit (Temporary Provisions) Act be continued for a further period. Hon. members will recall that this act is purely an enabling act authorizing the governor in council to make regulations respecting the control of consumer credit, and that under its own terms it will expire on July 31 next, unless the action I have suggested is taken.']
Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved:: That votes Nos. 485, 486 and 493 of the main estimates for 1952-53, approved and reported upon this day by the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, be referred back to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. A. Mutch (Winnipeg South) presented the first report of the special committee on veterans affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I should like to lay on the table of the house two copies, in English and in French, of order in council P.C. 2306, passed on May 2, 1952, under the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, respecting changes in the great lakes seamen's security regulations.


CONSUMER CREDIT
Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house that an order in council has been passed, effective tomorrow, suspending all the regulations made under the Consumer Credit (Temporary Provisions) Act.
This act was passed by parliament in September, 1950, and the first regulations under the act came into force in November of that
year. The regulations were considerably stiffened in March, 1951, and generally speaking required down payments of one-half of the selling price in the case of motorcars and motorcycles, and one-third for all other commodities, with the balance to be paid within the succeeding twelve months. Last January the regulations were relaxed by permitting payments of the balance to be spread over a maximum period of eighteen months.
The situation with respect to consumer credit is now such that I believe we can safely suspend the operation of these regulations. However, if conditions made it necessary, I would have no hesitation in recommending the reintroduction of consumer credit controls, and in view of existing uncertainties I believe the present legislative basis for such control should be maintained. For this reason the government will invite both houses of parliament to present addresses to the governor general praying that the Consumer Credit (Temporary Provisions) Act be continued for a further period. Hon. members will recall that this act is purely an enabling act authorizing the governor in council to make regulations respecting the control of consumer credit, and that under its own terms it will expire on July 31 next, unless the action I have suggested is taken.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 185, respecting the board of elders of the Canadian district of the Moravian church in America.-Mr. Decore.


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Are homes furnished in part or in full for service officers transferred from one area to another in or outside Canada?
2.	Under what circumstances are these supplied?
3.	Do furnishings remain the property of the crown?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1 and 2. In general all permanent and temporary married quarters provided by the Department of National Defence are furnished with stoves and refrigerators. At some isolated stations such as Goose Bay, where the costs and difficulties of transportation make it impossible or uneconomical to move personal furniture into

Questions
and out of the stations, furniture is supplied according to an established scale. Also in a few quarters which have been for a long time in the possession of the department, additional furniture is provided and in a few cases furniture which was provided prior to world war II has been permitted to remain when no particular economy would result in removing such furniture. Privately owned or rented houses are not supplied with any public furniture.
3. Yes.


ARMED FORCES-MEDICAL SERVICES AND NURSING SISTERS
Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Is any action being taken to consolidate into one the three medical services of the armed forces?
2.	Is any action being taken to consolidate into one the nursing sisters of the three armed forces?


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: A high degree of coordination is now being accomplished through the inter-service medical committee which was set up to correlate the medical services
in the armed forces and to conserve medical resources both professional and material, by eliminating duplication of effort.
In all areas where this is practicable the hospital or hospitals of one service provide for the hospitalization of personnel of all three services in that area. In addition all service hospitals and medical installations take men from all three services. Close cooperation is also maintained with the hospital services of veterans affairs. Further steps towards co-ordination have been considered and are being actively examined at the present time.


CHEESE IMPORTS
Mr. Fraser:: 1.	How much cheese was imported into Canada during (a) 1950; (b) 1951; (c) the first three months of 1952?
2.	From what countries was this cheese imported, and what amounts from each country, in each of the years (a) 1950; (b) 1951; (c) the first three months of 1952?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Jan. 1 to
1 and 2.	Year 1950	Year 1951 Mar. 31, 1952Country	Pounds	Pounds	PoundsUnited Kingdom	
12,054	11,973	3,781New Zealand	
6,611,300	6,471,394	3,797,971Argentina	
336,440	123,254	..Belgium	
1,208	Bulgaria	
2,940	Denmark	
402,663	811,483	150,828Finland	
1,440	France	
49,046	42,281	15,067Italy	
447,305	565,196	199,780Netherlands	
136,557	416,845	140,150Norway	
40,849	48,021	3,797Sweden	
7,313	6,825	1,086Switzerland	
1,591,526	2,427,295	839,610United States	
525,402	758,313	177,053Totals	'	
10,160,455	11,688,468	5,329,123



MANITOBA


Mr. Dinsdale:: What steps are being taken to allow moneys which have been paid by Manitoba farmers under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to be used to compensate farmers whose unharvested crops have been destroyed by deer and elk, after inspection has been made of the damaged grain?


Mr. Gardiner:: Compensation under the
Prairie Farm Assistance Act can be paid to farmers suffering damage to crops by deer and elk, but only on the same basis and under the same conditions as to those farmers suffering a crop loss for any other reason.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Murray (Oxford):: 1.	How many registered pharmacists in the province of Ontario have received benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, during the years (a) 1949; (b) 1950; (c) 1951?
2.	How much money was paid out in benefits to registered pharmacists in the province of Ontario during the years 1949, 1950, 1951?
3.	What professional groups other than registered pharmacists pay into unemployment insurance in the province of Ontario?


Mr. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: 1. The unemployment insurance commission does not make an analysis of the

occupational characteristics of applicants for unemployment insurance benefits.
2 and 3*. See answer to No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Argue:: 1.	What overages or shortages of wheat, oats, barley, rye and flax were shown by each licensed elevator company operating in the prairie provinces in the crop year 1950-51?
2.	What overages or shortages of wheat, oats, barley, rye and flax were shown by each elevator company in its terminal operations at Fort William-Port Arthur and Vancouver?
3.	How were the shortages in country elevators disposed of?
4.	On what basis did the wheat board pay for any overages it purchased: (a) country elevator operations; (b) terminal elevator operations?
5.	What was the value of any overages paid to Her Majesty (a) on country elevator operations; (b) terminal elevator operations?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.


SUBSIDIES
Mr. Murray (Oxford):: 1.	What amount has been the average government subsidy payment during the fiscal year 1950-1951, to non-agricultural groups?
2.	During the same period what amount by way of government subsidy payment did agriculture receive?



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Has the rate for tourist camp space at Wasa-gaming, Manitoba, been increased recently?
2.	If so, by what amount and what is the reason for the change?
3.	Are tourist camp rates being raised at all national parks across Canada?
4.	If so, by what amount?


Mr. Winters:: Return tabled.
PENSIONS-R.C.M.P. AND JUDGES Mr. Thatcher:
How much money has the government paid for pensions to (a) retired members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; (b) judges, in each of the fiscal years ending March 31, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952?



OBSCENE LITERATURE

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	What are the names of the books, magazines, or other publications forbidden entry into Canada because of the immoral or obscene nature of their contents?
2.	Have any seizures taken place since March 12, 1952, and have any prosecutions been taken as a result of same?
3.	Have any prosecutions been taken against persons for having these forbidden articles in their possession, and if so, where and with what results?
Motions for Papers MOTIONS FOR PAPERS



INVERNESS COUNTY, N.S.    COAL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Mr. Gillis:: For a copy of the report made to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys on possible coal development and economic conditions in Inverness county, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.


Mr. Prudham:: Mr. Speaker, when this motion was before the house on April 30 last the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) suggested that there was in existence a report compiled by Dr. Haites.
Until a few months ago Dr. Haites was an employee of the geological survey of Canada, a branch of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. During the course of his duties he made many routine progress reports through the coal research laboratory at Sydney, Nova Scotia. Dr. Haites assisted in the preparation of a report submitted to the Nova Scotia department of mines by Dr. Lewis E. Young, a well-known mining engineer who had been engaged by the province of Nova Scotia as consultant on the Inverness coal fields.
After his work on the report for Dr. Lewis Young, Dr. Haites was authorized to visit other coal fields in Inverness county in order to assist Mr. W. M. McDonald of Sydney, who was conducting exploration in these fields to assess the needs, if any, for further geological work in these areas. However, as Dr. Haites could devote only a limited time to this further work in Inverness county, he produced a progress report only for the information of his divisional chief and the director of the geological survey. This report is not available yet for distribution, as it is proposed to carry out further investigation this coming summer before any opinions on possible coal reserves and developments in Inverness county can be formulated.
If this progress report is the one which the hon. member has in mind, I would suggest that he can see it if he cares to call on Dr. W. A. Bell, director of the geological survey of Canada, Royal Victoria Museum building.
Because of our inability to produce the report asked for at this time, I request that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Clarence Gillis: The explanation is satisfactory to me. I understand, from what the minister has just said that, based on the examination made at that time, there is a report available in the mines department in Nova Scotia. I am quite willing to accept his explanation and ask that the motion be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Withdrawn.
See also page 1954.
1858	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of circular letter No. 18 and also a copy of circular letter No. 19, issued by the unemployment insurance commission with reference to the work and functions of the commission's advisory committees.


Mr. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: I wish to table the return now.



CIVILIAN WAR PENSIONS


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act to provide increases in the scale of pensions under this act comparable to those in the basic scale of pensions under the Pension Act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the federal government been asked for financial assistance to restore damaged property, including that in Eastend, Saskatchewan, resulting from the break in the P.F.R.A. dam on the Frenchman river? Will such assistance be granted?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman sent me notice of his intention to ask this question. On April 29 the premier of Saskatchewan telegraphed me about floods in southwestern Saskatchewan, and stated that Hon. J. H. Sturdy, minister of social welfare, was then in Ottawa, and asked if he could not see me, or some other member of the government, in that connection. I replied at once as follows:
Re your telegram concerning floods in Saskatchewan. All the information that we have comes to us through the P.F.R.A., and because the P.F.R.A. reports to the Minister of Agriculture, arrangements are being made for Mr. Sturdy to see Mr. Gardiner.
I understand that Mr. Sturdy and the deputy minister of his department, together with the mayor of Swift Current and the mayor of Eastend, did see the Minister of [Mr. Speaker.)

Agriculture, and perhaps it would be more convenient if the Minister of Agriculture informed the house as to what took place during their meeting.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has stated, I was interviewed by Mr. Sturdy, the minister of social welfare in the Saskatchewan government, and the mayor of Eastend, together with the mayor of Swift Current, and as well the deputy minister of the department of social welfare in Saskatchewan. They presented the case for assistance both to Swift Current and to Eastend. I discussed the question with them and indicated that I did not think it came under the class of national calamities, and therefore suggested that the matter be dealt with in some other manner.
The procedure that has been followed by provinces generally., and always has been, at least since the days of the calamity in Nova Scotia and the cyclone in Regina, is for the provincial governments to make representations to the effect that the damage done is so great that they themselves are not in a financial position to deal with it, and that the federal government give some assistance. I said I doubted very much whether either of these cases of damage would come even within that class; and then we went on to discuss the matter further. I intimated to them that there had been some damage as a result of irrigation operations in certain areas, and that the matter should be dealt with as between Dr. Thomson, our man at Regina, and the deputy minister, who was along with Mr. Sturdy and the mayor of Eastend. The matter was left there; and from that time to this I have not had any further representations; but I expect there will be representations made.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask this supplementary question:	Does not this damage
result from the collapse of a federal works project, namely a dam under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, and therefore come into the category for which the federal government is responsible, as defined by the Prime Minister to the House of Commons on April 7?


James Garfield Gardiner: In the opinion of our officials it is not damage that results from the breaking of the dam; some others, however, may think it is. That is a question which will have to be dealt with and determined as between the two parties.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of National Defence make a statement to the house concerning the reported theft of live hand grenades from Valcartier camp, and also the laying off of 120 civilian employees who were working in engineers stores?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: The commanding officer of the camp on Friday afternoon, April 25, caused the ranges that had been used during the winter, with live ammunition, to be examined to see if there were any grenades that had not gone off. Eleven grenades were found that had not exploded. They were marked with markers, and the area has been wired off. As it is in a danger area, there are of course danger signs.
The engineers were sent for to deal with this ammunition, and they arrived on Monday from Ottawa. Ten grenades were missing; no trace of them has been found. The area commander, Brigadier Fleury, has caused wide publicity to be given to the matter, and has urged that whoever has the grenades should return them.
With regard to the other matter, in connection with the annual stocktaking of the engineers stores, some 150 civilian employees working with the engineers have been laid off temporarily so that the stocktaking can be proceeded with, with all possible expedition, by service personnel.


Howard Charles Green: How long will it take?


Brooke Claxton: A matter of days or weeks, rather than months.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 2, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and *the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood).
Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned on Friday evening I had begun to make a few remarks concerning the business now before the house. At that time I dealt with the question whether second sessions were necessary on the two occasions on which they were held, and whether the remuneration
The Budget-Mr. Gillis for members of parliament was adequate or otherwise. I made my position clear, and I am not going to pursue the subject further.
There is another matter about which I want to say a few words at this time. The press and members of the house have commented on a speech made in the house by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). I make my observations now because I know that when the next election rolls around there will be a united front of Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, and any others who may be opposing us, supported by a copy of that little bible, Hansard, in their hands, trying to prove to the people of Canada that the C.C.F. generally is opposed to social security.
I want to make this clear, that the member for Moose Jaw as a citizen of Canada has a right to say what he likes; but when the member for Moose Jaw accepts the responsibility of running on a ticket and supporting a program that has certain basic principles, he is expected to conform as closely as he can to those basic principles.
There is all kinds of room for quarrelling on many matters-and I think I am a pretty good example of it myself, because I have stood in the house on many occasions and discussed matters concerning which other members of the group did not see eye to eye with me. But those matters did not have to do with the basic principles of the movement.
I do not expect the hon. member for Moose Jaw to think as I do, and I do not expect to think as the hon. member for Moose Jaw does. We are all more or less creatures of our environment; we are conditioned by it. There is considerable difference between my background and early environment and that of the hon. member for Moose Jaw. And when we see two people thinking exactly alike we know that there is only one of those people thinking, anyway. So this kind of controversy does not do any harm.
I am not concerned about what the hon. member said; he has a right to say it. But when a member gets up in the house and makes a speech such as that made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, setting forth certain proposals that presuppose a reduction in expenditures, and so on, then that speech is at least subject to analysis by other members. It is the analysis he made, and the economies it was supposed to bring about, with which I am now concerned.
On Friday night I dealt with his proposal that no second session was necessary. While the hon. member did not give many reasons why there should not be a second session, on
1860	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Gillis Friday evening I gave many reasons why I thought a second session could hardly be avoided.
His second proposal to save money is one with which I completely disagree. For example, he said in no uncertain terms that broadcasts to points behind the iron curtain should be discontinued, and in that way we would save a couple of millions of dollars. In my opinion the broadcasts being sent to points behind the iron curtain are one of the most important parts of our national defence setup. In my view of Europe today, Russia is in much the same position as Hitler was in when we invaded Europe. It has expanded to a point where I am pretty sure it will find it difficult to police the whole territory while continuing to maintain its machinery of production. I believe Stalin is in the position of the fly that has captured the fly paper: he is there, but he is stuck with it.
The only assurance millions of people behind the iron curtain have is that which is conveyed to them in these broadcasts, indicating that there are people on the outside of the curtain who have an interest in them.
Some day, either by means of negotiation or otherwise, there will be deliverance for them. I think it would be one of the most disastrous things that could happen if these broadcasts to points behind the iron curtain should be discontinued.
The hon. member made some other miscellaneous recommendations which did not amount to very much. I am just going to deal with the major ones where he thought that some money could be saved. He said that post offices, wharves and drydocks should be cut to the extent of some $20 million. I can understand the hon. member making that recommendation because there are not many docks or wharves on the prairies. I am sure we have all heard the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley) stressing the necessity for improvement, expansions and extensions of the facilities at Saint John, and I have no doubt Halifax is in the same position as well as other eastern Canadian ports. The renovation and improvement of post offices right across the country is badly needed at the present time. I do not think the hon. member thought the matter through very much when he chose those particular items as offering a saving of $20 million.
Then he proposed that the civil service should be cut by five per cent. I suppose anyone could get up here and say that there are too many civil servants and therefore they should be cut by ten, fifteen or twenty per cent, but the hon. member did not present any valid reason why any reduction should 

be made. To cut the civil service by five per cent would mean a reduction of about 10,000 right across the country, but the major reductions would be made here in Ottawa. Those reductions would not be made at the top levels; we would find junior clerks, filing clerks and perhaps some stenographers being relegated to the streets. What would happen to them? They would have to go on unemployment insurance. I certainly would not recommend the cutting down of any service which would mean the throwing into unemployment of those who are barely making the means of livelihood, barely making enough to pay their rent, buy some clothes and get a bite to eat. I am certainly not prepared to accept the recommendation that a particular classification in the civil service should be reduced unless I can be presented with facts and figures to show what money will be saved and what is going to be done with the money saved. I am opposed to that recommendation.
The hon. member also suggested that transport be cut by five per cent. We have the board of transport commissioners, and in addition we find that this department handles aids to navigation, telegraph lines, telephone lines, airports, and many other things. I cannot see how the personnel of that department could be cut. In my own end of the country I would think that the different branches of this department need more employees. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Moose Jaw picked on that particular department.
The hon. member proposed that there be set up a commission similar to the Hoover commission for the purpose of pruning government expenses, and all that kind of thing. Anyone who remembers the Hoover commission will recall that in summing up their recommendations they merely said that they were opposed to certain things because they added up to nothing more or less than liberal recommendations and liberal policies. I am sure that the hon. member for Moose Jaw does not want that kind of commission set up here for the purpose of pruning the civil service of this country and cutting expenditures. That is a job for the members of the House of Commons, and I for one am not prepared to hand it over to any commission.
Then the hon. member referred to old age security. We have had many statements to the effect that old age security should not be paid to people in the higher income brackets. However, I think the present arrangement is the best one. It would need a great number of additional personnel to cull out month by month those who were ineligible because of income; you would practically

have to duplicate the present number of employees in the department. The present set-up is the simplest one you could have. Much of this money comes back in taxes, in some cases more than is paid out.
The payment of $40 a month in many cases puts the recipients in a higher income bracket and when they are taxed on that basis you will perhaps get more than the $40 back. The present arrangement cuts down on the needed personnel and avoids many mistakes that would be made in checking and rechecking. I am completely opposed to that device for saving money, because I do not think any money would be saved. I think the hon. member for Moose Jaw was ill advised in picking on that particular thing. Exactly the same argument could be advanced in connection with his suggestion for reducing family allowances. If you placed the payment of those allowances on a "look and hunt" basis, as suggested by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, it would mean increased costs of administration.
That is all I want to say on that, but I thought it was necessary to say it. Practically every newspaper from one end of the country to the other has played up this theme during the last couple of weeks. We have Conservative members to our right, with Liberals to their right as well as in front of us, and they would all offer a united front at the next election in trying to prove that the C.C.F. did not believe in old age security, family allowances, and so forth. If I did not say something about it the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) would say, "You were in the house and you did not say anything; silence gives consent. Why did you not express your opinion then?" I am not expressing my opinion for the purpose of injuring the hon. member for Moose Jaw-he will learn as he goes along-but I did think it was necessary to make the points I have in connection with the recommendations he placed before the house.
In the time remaining at my disposal I want to say a few words with regard to a statement made by Mr. Donald Gordon, president of the Canadian National Railways, to a committee which was set up a few days ago and which has finished its work. Its formal report will be presented to the house within the next day or so.
The coal industry of Nova Scotia has been having a pretty tough struggle over the years. The government set up a coal board to supervise and assist the industry. Money has been lent for the purpose of mechanizing the industry in the Atlantic provinces. With all these things one would have naturally
The Budget-Mr. Gillis assumed that there was a future for the coal industry. Then Mr. Gordon came before the committee a few days ago and when I asked him some questions with regard to the use of diesel engines on the main lines east of Montreal he told us that they were going to use them one hundred per cent and that no steam locomotives were to be purchased.
The coal industry of the maritime provinces sells some 1,200,000 tons of coal annually to the Canadian National Railways. Mr. Gordon made it quite clear that that market for coal was going to shrink year by year. He said that at the present time they have a five-year program in effect, which began in 1951, and which will mean shrinkage of some 280,000 tons a year in that industry. I asked Mr. Gordon if that figure represented an annual reduction, and he said that was so, but the next day he amended his statement somewhat. However, to my mind he did not amend it in such a way as to alter his first statement. His last statement was rather ambiguous. It was not very clear, and I am still sticking to the figure of 280,000 tons as the annual amount of shrinkage, beginning in 1951, in the market for maritime provinces' coal.
This situation has caused a lot of apprehension in those provinces. I have in my hand an article that appeared recently in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald containing a statement of Mr. L. A. Forsyth, president of the Dominion Steel and Coal Company, with respect to the year 1951. Mr. Forsyth says that there has been a steady decline in the production of coal, and that the coal industry is facing a crisis at the present time. On the other hand there is an encouraging feature about his report. He said that while the production of coal was going down, the production of steel was improving. He said that the steel position was much better from the standpoint of profits and production than it ever has been in the history of the corporation.
It would appear that there is going to be a swing in the base of the economy of Nova Scotia from coal to steel. In my opinion that is a good development, because the coal industry not only faces the loss to oil of the Canadian National Railways market for coal, but also faces the threat of natural gas from Alberta. Last year the house passed a bill giving a pipe line company the right to pipe natural gas from Alberta into Quebec city and greater Montreal. Natural gas can replace coal in the domestic field, and in the whole industrial field, with the exception of the production of basic steel. Therefore, in addition to the shrinkage in coal production because of the loss of the C.N.R. market to oil,
1862	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Gillis in a few years' time we are going to be faced with the problem of meeting the competition of natural gas.
I said that I thought the swing in the economy from coal to steel was a good one. As the production of steel increases, it will create an additional demand for coal, because basic steel cannot be made without coal. I think the whole future of that industry in eastern Canada depends on the extent to which the government is prepared to assist the industry and encourage it in the creation of that new base for the use of Nova Scotia coal. In addition, a lot of consideration should be given to the establishment of subsidiary fabricating and steel plate industries. Such industries, as we lose markets to oil, as in the case of the Canadian National Railways, and to natural gas from Alberta, which will cover the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, would then be able to take up the slack of what we lose in these other fields.
I have no illusions about the period through which we are passing. Anyone who has watched the situation closely will realize that the world is in a transitional period of a new industrial revolution. I believe that ten years from now we shall be having similar discussions in the house about the threat of atomic energy to fuel oil, natural gas and other fuels. We are now in the transitional period of swinging from one basic fuel to several others that are more economical, and I think there are things that the government can do during that period to lessen the shock to the areas that will be affected by new technological advances. Do not make any mistake about it; I am not arguing against technological advances. They are inevitable, and I hope that as a result of them every miner who has to work underground in order to earn the means of livelihood will be able to come up to the surface and secure employment where he will be able to get some fresh air and sunshine and prolong his life for a good many years rather than have to work underground, whether in a rock or coal mine, where he is subject to health and accident hazards.
I am not arguing to keep the coal miners down in the mines, but I recognize the fact that these men now have a means of livelihood there, and that money is invested in these operations that are being displaced. There should be a transitional program when markets are being lost because of such advances, and people living in these areas should be given a chance to protect their investment. They should be given the opportunity to secure employment in order that they may live, eat, wear clothes, have homes and pay


taxes. The man in the street, who could contribute to the pool of wealth, is not much good to the country if he is just walking the street and drawing something from the pool without contributing to it.
Considerable encouragement is to be found in the research that is now being carried on. I noticed another article in the Chronicle-Herald with the heading, "Coal Research Program Reviewed by Experts, Progress is Reported." A search is being made for other uses for coal rather than just burning it and letting it go up the chimney in smoke. That is encouraging. One never knows what may come out of it. The Halifax Chronicle-Herald suggests, and I think rightly so, that in the transitional period it may be necessary for the coal board and the government to get together and decide whether more assistance is not necessary for the industry until such time as the picture is clearer. The subventions were fixed some ten years ago. They are statutory, and in the light of the new circumstances, the drop in production and the worsening of the position with respect to markets, it may be necessary to sit down with the coal operators, have a look at the subventions and see whether additional assistance is not necessary.
There is another encouraging feature, as pointed out by Mr. Gordon before the committee. I refer to the good future in Canada for gas turbines, as reported by a Vickers engineer. Research is going on, and it may be possible that the diesel will be displaced by the gas turbine engine which will burn coal. All these things are encouraging. I raise the question at this time because the government has a huge investment in the coal industry. For instance, the government has made a loan of $375,000 to the Avon Coal Company. The Dominion Coal Company has a program of mechanization under way at the present time which will cost $13 million when completed. To that end a loan of $7,500,000 has been advanced by the dominion government to this company. Four Star Collieries Limited has a loan of $100,000 from the dominion government.
If the industry is as shaky as indicated by Mr. Gordon and Mr. Forsyth when reporting to his board of directors, I find it hard to understand why the government would lend such a large amount of money to an industry whose future looks so bleak. I do not think it is as bleak as it looks, and if there is a proper approach to the problem by the government, the coal board, the operators and the miners themselves, the industry has a future in the production of steel. The logical place to expand the production of steel is in that part of the

country. The logical place to do some fabrication and to have some subsidiary industry built around steel is in that part of the country. All the ingredients necessary to make steel are there, with iron ore ninety miles away, coal within ten miles of the steel plant, and a huge establishment there with many trained personnel in the community, many of whom are unemployed at the present time. I hope the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) with his coal board will keep in touch with those responsible for the operation of the industry and with the miners themselves so that while this transition is taking place during this new industrial revolution the shock of displacement will be lessened as much as possible.
I am sorry I had to take this much time for the second time in this debate, but I did feel it necessary to deal with the two subjects on which I have spoken.
(Translation):


Mr. P. L. Dube (Resligouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I avail myself of the occasion offered by the debate on the budget to inform the government that I have received a large number of representations from my constituents, asking me to take steps with the proper department so that the sums paid out under the Family Allowances Act as well as the Old Age Security Act be increased to compensate for the high cost of living.
I do not hesitate to declare, Mr. Speaker, that family allowances and old age pensions should be raised in proportion to the cost of living-as was done for the whole salary scale-so that these social services, so well initiated by the present government, may be appreciated as fully by every Canadian mother as they have been in the past. Family allowances, after all, are given to mothers as a salary, to help them improve their children's food and shelter.
I sincerely believe, therefore, that family allowances should be increased, since it is food especially-milk and meat, for instance, which are essential for a proper diet-and the price of rents and heating that have gone up the most.
A single person can find a room close to where he or she works. The head of a family cannot. He has to find a house-children are no longer admitted in apartments-and he must pay heating and transportation, the cost of the latter having almost doubled these last few years. A single person can balance his or her budget, but the head of a family cannot, with prices being what they are. One
The Budget-Mr. Dube need only inquire at the banks and loan companies to know or to find out in what state of anxiety some householders are living today.
I also ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to give consideration to heads of families who send their children over 21 years of age to a university. I do hope the minister will take into consideration the remarks I am now making and that he will see to it that an exemption is granted to the heads of families who are doing their utmost to have their children educated and thus give Canada a pick of young people who will be a credit to our country. Many fathers are obliged to withdraw their children from schools and colleges because of a lack of co-operation on the part of the authorities of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude by saying that I was very much surprised to learn that family allowance and old age pension cheques are bilingual only in the province of Quebec. I think it is my duty to draw the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) to the fact that I have already received several requests from people in my province asking me to urge the minister to have all cheques issued in both official languages.
I believe they are entitled to demand this, for it is one of the prerogatives recognized and granted by the British North America Act of 1867. In the name of all my constituents, I therefore ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to remedy this situation which has been in existence for quite a time, in order to be fair to all without prejudice to anyone.
(Text):


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Before this debate concludes, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations, particularly after listening to the speech of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) Friday afternoon, during which we heard his humorous auctioneering of midVictorian tax policies. The hon. member said time and again that the power to tax is the power to destroy and in that connection I want to bring to the attention of the house the position of this group in respect to taxation; for this group believes the power to tax is the power to distribute.
Before proceeding I do want to say for the information of the parliamentary assistant that I for one appreciated receiving the
1864	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Herridge booklet, "Budget Papers", giving an explanation of the budget. It is a most useful document for members of this house who want to understand clearly the implications of the budget, many of which they would be unable to understand without the assistance of the explanations given in the booklet.
As I said a moment ago, I wish to make a few observations on the point of view of this group with respect to taxation; the philosophy of taxation, shall I say, from the point of view of this group. As we see it the purpose of all income taxation is to obtain a redistribution of the national income and to pay socially for certain services which cannot be properly provided by the individual. I think a review of history will show that larger budgets have almost always provided a greater redistribution of income for the lower income groups through some form of social service, welfare service or government service. As socialists we have no hesitation in saying that we believe income taxation the fairest form of taxation yet devised by the parliamentary system. As socialists we are concerned that expenditures shall be useful and socially desirable. Secondly, we are very much concerned that the money voted by parliament shall be spent efficiently and without waste. I think that is evidenced by the desire at all times on the part of members of this group to examine and inquire carefully into the expenditures provided for in the estimates. I am pleased to see that we have at least half the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) in the chamber at the present time.


Mr. Gibson:: It is a pleasure. I was wondering if the hon. member was speaking for the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) in connection with these questions of taxation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not intend to reply to facetious remarks. Regardless of the fact that the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe emphasized that taxation is the power to destroy, I am sure no one would wish to return to the days of small budgets and no income taxation in this country. Just for a moment or two I want to review the history of income taxation as it has evolved in Great Britain, the United States and Canada over the last hundred years.
Great Britain has had some form of income taxation for over a hundred years. It was given effect to at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It was dropped. It was given effect to again, and again dropped. As a matter of fact there was no effective


form of income taxation in Great Britain until the concluding days of the nineteenth century.
What did we have when we had these small budgets, when budgets were supposed to provide only for the army, the navy, the police and the bare necessities of government? We had the industries of Manchester, with the Lancashire cotton mills making the largest percentage profits in history in relation to the total capital investment. At the same time we had poverty and slums. We had the coal mines in Lancashire and in Wales also making the largest profits in modem commercial history in relation to the investment, and at the same time we had child labour, hovels and squalor. At the same time we also had the great landowners in Great Britain, with their large returns, their elegance and their security, with farm labourers being paid a wage that provided a bare existence. The adoption of a measure of income tax in Great Britain in the latter days of the nineteenth century was also the beginning of the first form of social welfare legislation in that country.
If you read the records of the British parliament, of the American congress or our own Hansard you will find that large corporations and wealthy individuals fought the imposition of the income tax and described it as unethical and financially unsound. Repeatedly was heard the slogan that taxation is the power to destroy. You find that in the records of the British parliament. Another slogan was that the income tax was a method of soaking the rich. Those slogans have been in existence since the first liberal or reformthinking people conceived of an income tax as a fair form of redistributing the wealth.
When we come to the United States, what do we find? Income tax proposals were advanced in the congress of the United States in the latter days of the nineteenth century and they were fought vigorously. Prior to the bringing in of income tax legislation we had the meat packing industry and the steel industry, making enormous profits, slums in Chicago, slums in Pittsburgh, and poverty, fortunes in railroad building, fortunes in land speculation, fortunes in grain speculation while farmers were robbed of their fair share of the national income and left in a most insecure position.
As I read the record, in the United States congress in 1894 attempts were made to pass legislation providing for income tax in that country, and the same people who say that taxation is the power to destroy, when income tax is mentioned, were the people who termed that legislation as a "communistic socialist march". I am exceedingly glad that we have

gone a long way since that time. However, as a result of the efforts of the people who really saw that income tax provided an opportunity to redistribute wealth under capitalism, on July 12, 1909, a joint resolution was passed by both houses of congress recommending a law to levy an income tax. Yet we find even in the United States during the depression, former President Hoover still pleading with congress for a' small and balanced budget and for a paring of expenses to the bone in an effort to protect investments and to protect capital. At the same time the standards of living in the United States fell to a disastrous level.
What is our Canadian experience? I think the income tax was first given effect to in Canada during the first world war, owing to the necessity of raising an unusually large amount of revenue with which to prosecute the war. From that time on it has been more or less generally accepted, although the rates were fairly low until recent years. But what happened in Canada? The point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that a person's attitude towards taxation reflects one's attitude to life.
We can remember the depression budget of Lord Bennett in 1931, and what happened. Still in the belief that taxation is the power to destroy; still in the belief that one must reduce expenses, must pare them to the bone and must consider investments before human beings, in the budget of 1931 income tax was increased in the medium brackets but was reduced in the higher brackets, sales tax was increased from one per cent to four per cent, and there was an increase in postal charges in Canada.
What was the result of that taxation philosophy? We had thousands of single men unemployed in this country and receiving twenty cents a day in relief camps. Many farmers across Canada lost their farms to mortgage companies and many small businesses went into bankruptcy. All of that happened just because of that approach to the question of taxation and the desire to protect investments. That was done sincerely because those in control believed that investments were the bedrock of security in the country and therefore there was this policy to protect investments.
The Budget-Mr. Herridge depression. It was a world-wide depression and it affected our external markets and so on. But I think that a different taxation policy, with the use of the national credit, would have made it possible during the depression to employ people-at building houses and doing constructive things in Canada which would be useful, and which would be much appreciated at this time- rather than to pay men twenty cents a day in relief camps.
That is all I am going to say in that respect, Mr. Speaker, except that recently I was reading a book on taxation-and I thought it was a good one-entitled "Taxation for Prosperity", by Randolph E. Paul. I want to quote briefly from that book, because I think in one paragraph is to be found an excellent statement of a philosophy so far as the purposes of taxation are concerned. At page 207 of this book I read:



vv UcU IS

[Stage Direction]
, .	.	. reciuirea is that we build a tax system
which is intelligently directed toward creating and maintaining the kind of world we want. The basic struggle hinges on our choice of worlds. The later and more technical, struggle is concerned with means to the desired end. that is, the specific taxes we select. The battleground of conflict will not always be sharply delineated. The critics of particular taxes frequently say one thing and mean another. The real objection to a tax may be that it tends to produce the kind of economic or social order which its opponent does not want But the critic does not always speak out in such ultimate and candid terms. He pleads that the tax will not produce revenue, or cannot be administered, or that taxes should not be used to promote social and economic results. Even while his objection is premised on fear that a particular tax will have unwanted social and economic consequences, he mav deprecate the notion that taxes can produce such effects. But we need not let our thinking be confused across levels. The fundamental question is always the kind of world we want; our choice of taxes is always a selection of means to that end.
That is why we in this group believe that income taxation provides an opportunity under capitalism for the redistribution of wealth. That is why we in the C.C.F. have pioneered the fight for universal old age security without a means test; and we will continue to do so because we believe it is still sound and practical. That is why we in this group have continued to support proposals for all the nation's children to receive family allowances without a means test, and will continue to support those proposals.
Mr. Brooks:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does he believe that the depression had anything to do with it at all?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly I would not blame any government for the total effect of the 55704-118
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) made some reference to old age security and family allowances without a means test. He mentioned that there was some saving in connection with administration costs. We support these proposals because we believe that the return of payments by those in the higher income brackets in connection with old age security and

The Budget-Mr. Herridge family allowances, after a very close examination, show that there is no loss to the treasury, but a great saving, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said, in the administration costs of this legislation. That is why the C.C.F. continues to fight for an adequate and sound superannuation scheme for all our civil servants- I might say at this point, including some persons who work as stenographers in the House of Commons or for parliament, and have done so for a good number of years. They should have the opportunity of being retired on a decent pension. Some are working now only because there is no pension in existence. We believe they are entitled to that, and that this country is quite willing and able to provide it.
I might also say that is why we in this group support the practice of sending literature free to farmers. Business has its trade commissioners all over the world. Business is provided a great deal of service, the international trade fair, literature ^ and other services. We certainly believe it is good policy to supply the farmers of this country with free literature, because it is a part of our educational program;^ and secondly, this literature has been and will continue to be of great assistance to promote increased production. I know that as far as I am personally concerned, and many of my neighbours, we have found this literature most valuable. To illustrate, Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell the house a story. We had in our district a very estimable English settler. When many of our settlers came out they had not been farming before, and they were somewhat new to Canadian conditions, and did many things that any farmer would not do, and which they corrected as a result of experience. I remember this friend of mine, a fine gentleman, ordered 200 day-old chicks from a hatchery, and put them under setting hens. They gradually began to die, until half of them had died. He wrote to the local poultry inspector for his advice and information. The man came and examined them and said: "Are you doing this and doing that?" He finally asked: "What are you feeding these chicks?" My friend replied: "Why, feeding them, you silly ass, doesn't the mother feed them?" My point is this. The man wanted to get some information. The inspector said: "If I were you, I would write to the Department of Agriculture; you can get a bulletin there on any subject." He wrote to the Department of Agriculture, and continued to write to the Department of Agriculture, and from then on he never made such glaring mistakes as that.

We in this group also consider that the overseas broadcasts are an instructive contribution to world understanding and peace. We consider them a good investment for the total amount involved. It at least shows that we in this country are trying to promote an understanding with the people behind the iron curtain. And since they do not have an opportunity to hear directly from us, they can hear from us in this way.
I now intend to make some criticisms of the budget. I may say before passing on to them that we in this group are not in the habit of asking for increases in old age security payments, increases in family allowances or increases in veterans pensions without being willing to get up at the same time and support increased taxation on a fair basis to meet those payments. Mr. Speaker, I have a few criticisms of the budget to make and they are mainly on the ground that something more could be done to equalize the burden more fairly on the Canadian people. We believe that the present income tax exemption should be raised from $1,000 to $1,500 for single persons and from $2,000 to $3,000 for married persons. Our leader dealt with this question on the occasion of his budget speech last year, and I want to re-emphasize his representations in that connection. We believe we are sound in this suggestion because business is allowed exemption for the cost of operation, repairs, depreciation and transportation expenses. Why not do the same things for human beings?
At this point I want to bring to the attention of the minister and of the parliamentary assistant a situation which exists in my constituency, and which I think must exist in many districts. I think this matter should receive some serious consideration by the minister. I am making direct reference to the employees of the Canadian Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company. Many of them live up to 25 miles away from their work, because of better living conditions and the opportunity to live in the country, away from the plant itself, and away from the congested city conditions. They drive back and forth night and morning to their employment. In fact, if many of them did not live at this distance there would not be housing for all the employees of that company. This is a considerable expense to these employees. They have co-operative societies. They own buses. Their transportation is actually provided at cost, as the result of co-operation. Thousands of these men have to travel some distance every day. I have had talks with quite a number of the men. They have also written to me and they have suggested that it would only be fair if they were allowed that cost of transportation to

and from work daily. They say it should be allowed as an exemption from their income for computing income tax. I do ask the minister to give consideration to their suggestion. I think it is fair. It is a cost which the men cannot avoid. It is a daily cost, and in the period of a year it amounts to a considerable sum. Once again I do urge that the minister give some consideration to permitting the men to charge these costs as an exemption before the income tax is calculated. As I said before, we make all kinds of allowances for business. Why can we not make the same allowances for the human machine? That is why we in this group suggest that the exemption for single and married men could be raised.
The Budget-Mr. Herridge fair terms. Federal controls are few and profits on investments have been exceeding investments in the United States due to a more favourable tax structure and the government's helpful attitude in the development of industry.
Then, again, in conclusion:
One can almost see the skyscrapers of New York leaning to the north as the men who know scan a new horizon.
Then, I should like to quote from a magazine, U.S. News and World Report. This is the issue of April 18, 1952, and I place this on ^ the record in answer to the minister's claim that the taxing of incomes of corporations has about reached its limit in Canada. At page 84 of the publication I find this: Corporation Taxes to be Reduced in Canada
I think it would be quite fair for the minister to say: Where would we obtain the revenue that would be lost in increasing the exemptions to single and married persons? We in this group suggest there could be an increase in tax on the higher corporations; that we could have an excess profits tax according to the balance sheet of several of the large corporations in this country, and there could be increased rates of taxation on the higher incomes, and there could be very fairly a capital gains tax. There are gains in the sales of stocks; there are gains in the quick turnover of real estate and there are gains in parimutuel betting and lotteries, and things of that sort. We believe that increases in these fields I have mentioned would counterbalance any money lost in increasing the size of the exemption for the people in the lower income groups.
In his speech the minister claimed that he had about reached the limit of corporation taxation in Canada. In that connection I want to quote briefly from two or three papers I have before concluding my remarks.
I have in my hand the Christian Science Monitor of April 26. This paper contains a very interesting article entitled: "That Hum? -It's Canada, an intimate message from New York by Harry C. Kenney." I am going to quote three short paragraphs. This is an article written by an American about Canadian conditions:
Yet, today, a country is mentioned-perhaps offhand in the course of business conversation-and suddenly a sparkle comes to their eyes. Their thinking sharpens. Their "built in" desire to accomplish bristles. That country is Canada The word here is "watch it."
With that I agree. I continue:
The country to the north is growing in importance and is expected to become one of the world's great industrial powers. Why? Because it has resources. This is what the industrialists and businessmen in this country are interested in What is inspiring and hopeful to investors, financiers businessmen, and industrialists here is that the Canadian government is ready to do business on
55704-118$
rue personal income tax in the United States is much heavier.
For example, a U.S. bachelor with a net income of $2,000 pays $311. A Canadian bachelor with the same income pays $170.
It should be noted, too, that 31 American states and a number of cities impose income taxes of their own. There are no provincial or local taxes on personal incomes in Canada.
Corporations, like individuals, are to get a slight reduction in tax rates under the new Canadian budget.
The result will be that, so far as the central government in Canada is concerned, the top effective tax rate on corporations will be 45 per cent. In addition, there are provincial taxes of 5 to 7 per cent.	*
Canada has no excess profits tax, and the new budget proposes none.
In the United States, corporations pay a regular federal tax of 52 per cent, plus an excess profits tax of 30 per cent. The average federal tax is about 60 per cent. On top of that, 32 states impose relatively small taxes.
So the Canadian corporation, by comparison, comes off fairly easily. Still, Mr. Abbott told Commons that the cut he recommended in corporation taxes was too sparing. He added:
Excessive rates of tax on corporate incomes, if long maintained, can do a grave damage to the economy as a whole, and if I had more leeway for tax abatement, it is to corporate and personal income tax that I would give first consideration."
I have quoted these two items in support of my argument that I believe fully the minister could increase exemptions on personal income tax, and recoup his revenue losses from an increase in taxation on larger corporations, from a limited excess profits tax, from an increased tax on higher incomes, and from the capital gains tax, without affecting the operations of any company.
As has been pointed out by previous speakers, we in this group are critical of the minister because of his failure to remove the four per cent floor on medical expenses. Surely the unanimous opinion of the house, as expressed by a resolution dealing with that subject, should have received more consideration. In conclusion may I reemphasize that this group believes in income taxation as a means to redistribute wealth, and we advance our suggestions as a practical and immediate step to that end.

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, during the time at my disposal this afternoon I propose to discuss in a thoroughly friendly way United States foreign policy, either as a means to lasting peace or as a means of interference with the establishment of lasting peace. In this connection I wish to quote from a speech which, it is reported, Mr. Woodward, United States ambassador to Canada, is giving in southern Ontario towns. This quotation is from an American publication called Labour, in its issue of April 26, 1952. This is what it says:
Woodward, who is making a speaking tour in southern Ontario, emphasized that the U.S. is now striving "to promote conditions throughout the world which will make peace possible."
He added: "In simple terms we must set up an environment in which peace can flourish. We need to provide economic and social aid to both the war-devastated and the underdeveloped lands, so that their peoples can satisfy material, social and spiritual needs.	.
"We are not trying to establish an international dole. Self-help is the only way that people can grow. Our aid can only be a stimulus to the efforts of the peoples themselves. At the same time, we must extend the helping hand to those living at barest subsistence levels."
However, Woodward continued, implementation of this policy cannot be accomplished by unilateral action alone. "The safety of every nation," he declared, "is bound to that of others. Collectively we can so organize as to prevent the fall of any single nation. For this reason, the U.S. has consistently supported the United Nations."
Further on in the report he states:
"Yet, while we rearm, we remain determined not to neglect our own well-being or our program of preserving peace through economic aid to others. We know full well that our own security is intimately related to the economic strength of our friends."
He reaffirmed the position of the U.S. towards the concept of collective action. "We do not go the path alone, we are fully conscious of the importance of collective action," Woodward asserted. "We will continue to support the United Nations. We will continue to develop the North Atlantic Treaty Organization."
The whole tenor of that report is highly commendable. Anyone reading it, or anyone listening to Mr. Woodward's speech, undoubtedly would be impressed with the idea that the United States actually is pursuing policies conducive to lasting peace. Mr. Woodward is manifestly sincere; of that there can be no question. He is genuinely sincere in the belief that his country is really striving to promote throughout the world conditions which will make peace possible, and to set up an environment in which peace can flourish. Mr. Woodward is convinced, when he says:
"We know full well that our own security is intimately related to the economic strength of our friends."
"We do not go the path alone, we are fully conscious of the importance of collective action. We will continue to develop the North Atlantic Treaty Organization."
IMr. Herridge.]
Mr. Woodward is confident that his country will be working toward the laudable objectives he envisages when, and so long as, it will continue to support the United Nations and to develop the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
I wonder if Mr. Woodward has had time to study fully the meaning of the United Nations and the organization known as NATO. I propose now to devote a little time to the consideration of those two organizations.
This parliament in 1945 rushed into the acceptance of the United Nations, little realizing just what it was running into-just as it rushed into the acceptance of Bretton Woods, with hardly anyone, with the exception of the Social Crediters, dreaming of what that agreement involved. Most members are only now beginning to find out what kind of noose we put our heads into when we accepted those two commitments.
Now parliament has rushed into the NATO organization with very little real comprehension of what that organization stands for or involves; so far as I know it has never been explained to us in elucidating detail. Does Mr. Woodward know that if not specifically stated it is clearly implied, in the United Nations charter, that that charter is, in essence, a glorified embodiment of four most pernicious concepts? This will come as a surprise, not only to Mr. Woodward but I imagine to nearly all people in the United States and in Canada including members of this house.
Those concepts are: First, the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause designed to be expressed in, and enforced through the international trade agreement and the international trade organization.
Second, the unlimited pursuit of favourable trade balances with no practical assured provision whereby the victims of the process can possibly liquidate the international debts inevitably imposed and saddled upon them by the more favoured nations while those favoured nations are achieving favourable trade balances, the working out of this mischievous concept and its devastating effects being by its United States advocates called by the deceptive euphemism "expansionist policy".
Third, an internationalist world federation headed by, controlled by and ultimately dictated to by, the United States of America, and the United States of America alone.
Fourth, an international gold standard expressed in and enforced through the international monetary fund provided for in the Bretton Woods agreement.

If my time will permit I intend to develop adequately each of these four pernicious concepts and show the accuracy of what I have said concerning them. If not, I shall endeavour to cover briefly with some degree of adequacy these important aspects of the international situation as they confront us today, and point out, or at least imply, how hopeless it is for people who are pursuing policies such as are embodied in the United Nations charter to obtain a lasting peace.
What evidence can be adduced to establish my contention that the United Nations charter does embody principles based upon these four pernicious concepts? May we deal with each of these concepts in turn? I should like to quote from a book of great value called "The British Declaration of Independence," which is a recent work by Henry Drummond-Wolff, one of the most able students of	our times, and	critics	of	our
ways. On page 34 he said:
The structure of the United Nations is determined by the most-favoured-nation principle and expansionist policy. The organization forms the nucleus of international federation and is situated in the United States.
Mr. Drummond-Wolff is famous for his brevity and	conciseness; he	is famous	forthe amount	of information	which	he	can
crowd into a few words.
This quotation definitely conveys that the most-favoured-nation principle is designed to be the determining factor in shaping the policies of the United Nations. The international trade organization	is one	of	the
specialized agencies of the United Nations. All the proceedings of that organization up to the present time have indicated that the sole objective behind the authors and designers of the international trade organization was to destroy the principle of imperial preferences throughout the British empire and prevent that principle being applied by other nations.
Hon. members who did me the honour of listening to my remarks on April 9 or of reading my speech will remember that I pointed out that it was the determination by the United States to prevent Japan from using preferences in her dealings with China, and the equal determination by Japan that she would use preferences because she had to in order to live, that brought on the war between the United States and Japan in world war II. As I pointed out on that occasion, this is a desperate matter to everyone who is anxious to establish peace in this world of ours.
In the course of the endeavours to establish the international trade organization hon. members will recall that conferences were held at Geneva, Havana, Annecy and Torquay. The United States representatives at those
The Budget-Mr. Blackmore conferences seemed to be actuated by only one motive, to beat down imperial preferences. They wanted to beat down the tariff protection of other nations but at the same time maintain their own tariff protection at a level high enough to enable them to use that device in conjunction with the various other techniques which they employ to hinder imports from coming into the United States, to keep out goods from almost any nation in the world. All these conferences indicated with abundant clarity the type of thinking that actuated United States leaders. They were all for the elimination of preferential tariffs and bilateral agreements.
That ought to be sufficient to establish the first of my four points. If the international trade organization was to be one of the specialized agencies through which the United Nations was to work, and if the objective of that organization was to eliminate imperial preferences and the use of preferences throughout the world, then beyond all shadow of a doubt the objective of the international trade organization and everything pertaining to it was to jam down the world's throat the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause.
Those who are interested in this matter will find some profit I believe in reading my speech on April 2 in which I discussed the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause with the object of enabling people out in the country and on farms to get some idea as -to what this thing was -all about and how it would work.
The quotation which I have already read establishes the accuracy of my statement to the effect that the United Nations charter embodies the freedom for a nation adequately powerful to pursue unlimited favourable trade balances. This freedom to pursue unlimited favourable trade balances is what the United States calls an expansionist policy. The -ordinary individual reading about expansionist policies will surely say, "I believe in an expansionist policy; certainly I do." But what is -the use -of our believing in an expansionist policy when the only nation that can actually expand unlimitedly in accordance with that concept is -the United States? What the United States was -actually standing for was an expansionist policy primarily if not wholly for and in behalf of the United States.
As an illustration which will help us to think a bit concretely about this matter, in 1947 the United States exported between $11 billion and $12 billion of goods more than she imported. It must be obvious to anyone that it is utterly impossible for the people of the world to live in a community of nations in which the United States is free to go on doing that kind of thing indefinitely, with no

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore check, no balance, no restriction, no means to rectify the wrong which is being committed. There is no way whereby this $11 billion or $12 billion can be paid off.
I turn to the third principle. The quotation I gave a while ago establishes the soundness of my contention concerning a dictatorship under an internationalist federation ruled by the United States. The foundations of this mechanism were laid in the Dumbarton Oaks conference meeting in two sessions, first, between Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States from August 21 to September 28, 1944, and second, between China, the United Kingdom and the United States from September 29 to October 7, 1944. Those who wish to check on this point may refer to page 263 of the World Almanac for 1952.
Chapter 1, section 1, of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals for a joint international organization reads as follows:
The purposes of the organization should be to maintain international peace and security; and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace.
This may be checked by reference to the United Nations conference on international organization, volume 3, page 2, to be found in our own library.
Could anyone imagine more convincing proof of dictatorship objective with the United States telling the world what to do, than we see developing in the NATO organization? There is only one authority in the world that is trying to tell the other nations what to do, and that is the United States. She is not only telling them what to do but is forcing them to do it by every economic means at her disposal, and she has an abundance thereof. We see the thing working out. We heard a member of the house talking in favour of it only the other day.
There remains my assertion that the United Nations charter embodies an international gold standard under the international monetary fund. Is that assertion based upon truth and sound logic? In order to establish what I want to say I must read an authority whom I think everyone will find beyond any question whatsoever.
First, however, let me recall for the house that the Bretton Woods agreement was one of the first specialized agencies established by the United Nations. In fact the Bretton Woods agreement was all settled and signed by a conference in July, 1944, before the San Francisco conference of 1945 took place. We in Canada merely rubberstamped, during the dying hours of the fall session of 1945, what

had been done at the Bretton Woods conference. Members of the house would not even listen to any kind of reasoning as to the recklessness of our behaviour in thus dashing into acceptance of this dangerous document, a document to be proved even more and more dangerous as the days went
by.
In support of what I have said concerning the Bretton Woods agreement and the gold standard I should like to read now from an article written by Paul Einzig, one of the most brilliant and authentic young economists in the world today. The article I am reading is taken from the April 7, 1945, issue of a periodical published in Toronto, Canada, in those days, under the name, The News. Here are the words:
It must be clear to those who understand the meaning of the report of the Bretton Woods international monetary conference, that the experts of forty-four nations have agreed on a return to the gold standard after the war. Unfortunately, very few laymen can possibly understand the report. If the public were to realize what it is being led into it would raise its voice in a powerful protest, instead of allowing the experts a free hand to do their worst, as they did in 1925.
That is, when England went back to the gold standard after world war I. I continue:
Some weeks ago Lord Bradbury, in a letter to the Times, complained that the previous joint statement of the allied experts on the post-war monetary system, which was published in April, so far from being plain English was hardly even English at all. Yet that document was clarity itself compared with the tangle of tricky technical clauses contained in the final draft of the experts' plan of the new gold standard. These clauses conceal from the British public the fact that, for the second time within the life of the present generation, sterling is going to be linked with gold, this time much more rigidly even than nineteen years ago.
In 1925 the gold standard was, at any rate, restored in the full light of publicity. The public knew what was happening. It had only itself to blame for having failed to heed the advice of the lone voices crying in the wilderness-that of the Daily Express prominently among them-warning the country against the consequences of the proposed step. In 1944, on the other hand, the public is only too well aware that a return to the gold standard would be unmitigated evil, spelling ruin and misery. It would now be politically impossible to reintroduce the gold standard openly. But it is being introduced just the same, this time in disguise, under another name. The public is lulled into a false feeling of security by being told again and again that the new system is not the gold standard.
And the text of the measures with the aid of which sterling is supposed to be wedded to gold has been made so obscure and complicated that even the expert, with the specialized study of a lifetime behind him, has to read it many times before fully grasping its true meaning. Yet, once the plan is translated into intelligible English and is denuded of all camouflage, every layman of normal intelligence is bound to realize that it is the gold standard, the full gold standard, and nothing but the gold standard.

Admittedly, it is a different gold standard from the one we abandoned in 1931, just as the gold standard adopted in 1925 was different from the one suspended in 1914. But the changes are, for the most part, considerably for the worse.
That is striking enough, is it not? I do not know whether or not members would be prepared to accept readily the words of Paul Einzig. There is no greater authority on monetary matters, national and international, than Paul Einzig, but in case they might desire a little more evidence on this matter of Bretton Woods I should like to quote the words of Mr. Rene Leon in his book, "Bretton Woods". The passage from his book is found in a very fine book called "The Awakening" by L. S. Amery, published in 1948. It reads as follows:
Under conditions of extreme readjustment, social, political and economic, can expansion of trade and also balance be achieved on the basis of fixed exchanges? My answer is, No ... To harness world economy to static exchanges at such a time and under such conditions is to stifle action and obstruct reaction, because it is by their very fluctuations that the exchanges create those correctives which make for balance in international trade relations.
. . . Fixed exchanges are the conduits through which economic ills will flow and spread across national boundaries. They will shackle the weak economies to the strong, and debilitate the strong without strengthening the weak. The sum of all economic activities will be a gravitation downwards towards a generally lower standard of life all round . . .
I leave that for hon. members to take at face value. It is perfectly clear that what Mr. Leon foresaw is occurring today. In spite of the fact that we are engaged in a cold war and preparation for war on a huge scale, we still see danger signs of the breakdown of the system we are trying to make operate.
I believe I should quote one more passage from Paul Einzig's work because it is of such value to all those who are really interested in trying to see their way through the difficulties of our times. Speaking of Britain he says:
But let the reader judge for himself from the following facts:
(1)	Under the old gold standard the value of sterling was legally fixed in terms of a given weight of gold. This will be precisely the same under the new gold standard.
(2)	Under the old gold standard our monetary authorities were under the obligation to buy and sell gold freely at a fixed buying and selling price. This will be the same under the new gold standard, with the difference that gold will not be available for internal hoarding.
But then even under the gold standard of 1925 the authorities had the right to call in hoarded gold in excess of 10,000, so that this difference is not very important.
Under the old gold standard sterling was allowed to fluctuate within a range of about 1 per cent. Under the new gold standard its range of fluctuations has been rigidly fixed at 1 per cent.
Under the old gold standard there was no limit for the fluctuation of the price of sterling for
The Budget-Mr. Blackmore future delivery. In this respect the new gold standard is much more rigid, for under it a limit will be set also to the fluctuations of "forward" sterling.
When, before 1931, Britsh export trade was handicapped by the unduly high exchange value of sterling, the cheapening of the price of "forward" sterling bought in advance by foreign importers to pay for British goods to be delivered later provided some relief. Under the new gold standard there can be no such relief.
I have several other quotations along this line with which I do not think I will burden the house; but those facts which Paul Einzig has given concerning the Bretton Woods agreement and its application in Britain must be evidence beyond question that as far as exchange is concerned things are far worse under the United Nations, with its Bretton Woods gold standard agreement, than they were before.
I am sure Mr. Woodward will read these remarks of mine, and I want him to know that I have the kindliest feelings toward him and his nation, but I do hope they will discover the error of their ways before it is too terribly late. I would like to ask Mr. Woodward, whether or not he thinks the four principles or four concepts I have indicated as being in operation in the world under the United Nations charter are conducive to world peace. I would ask him how in the world he believes they can be. I may say more about that.
He may doubt the prevalence and the ill-effects of the unconditional most-favourednation clause. I would invite him to recall with me certain facts about his country's history since the beginning of world war I. These facts taken together and appropriately related to each other will, I fancy, tend fully to convince him that ever since at least as far back as January 8, 1918, the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause has been a guiding consideration in drafting United States foreign policy pertaining to trade.
On January 8, 1918, President Wilson, in a speech before congress, made a statement of the war aims and peace terms of the United States, enunciating his famous fourteen points.
The third of those fourteen points was worded as follows:
The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.
That unquestionably is a call for the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause. Let me adduce in this connection some evidence that I believe deserves respect. I refer to "The Commonwealth" a relatively recent work written by the British economist, Henry Drummond-Wolff, to whom I have already referred, published recently by Hutchinson

The Budget-Mr. Blackmore and Company, London, New York, Melbourne, Sydney and Capetown. From page 9 I quote:
In 1922, the United States, having become the principal creditor, changed its traditional mostfavoured-nation policy from the conditional to the unconditional form.
And on the same page:
The effect of this change was described by the economic committee of the league of nations on September 12, 1936, in the following terms:
"The United States adopted the principle of the unconditional clause, but as they did not at the same time adopt a policy of tariff agreements the clause-for which they invariably pressed-enabled them to continue to impose duties, which were in some cases prohibitive, without fear of discrimination, while they had the benefit of all concessions made to one another by other countries.
And again from page 9:
In April, 1925, the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Winston Churchill, restored the gold standard. Western Europe was exposed to dumping from the Soviet union and to imports of low cost surpluses from the United States. Tied to the gold standard and prevented by the most-favoured-nation clause from exchanging complementary trade among themselves, European countries were compelled to borrow heavily.
That does not speak very well for the principles underlying the new system that was set up through the United Nations charter, does it? Then from pages 22 and 23 I quote:
The principal creditor maintains its condition of monopoly through control of monetary gold, guaranteed markets, export of surplus production and unrestrained price competition. The insistence by corporations, on unconditional most-favourednation rights throughout the world, leads to the denial of export trade to nations that, possessing adverse balances, are deficient in monetary gold, foreign investments, exchange and credit.
And now from page 27:
Genuine equality of treatment and opportunity would demand equality of producing, consuming and purchasing power, which depend on access on equal terms to trade and to the raw materials of the world.
Access on equal terms is not provided by an equal, legal right to purchase in the open market. It becomes a reality only when nations receive equal access to effective reciprocity through bilateral and regional action. Promiscuous, multilateral commerce cannot afford effective reciprocity.
And again from the same page:
The most favoured nation thus enjoys favourable balances, and money returns from external sources. The less favoured nations suffer adverse balances and are compelled to increase their foreign debt in order to avoid default. They are subjected to exploitation and domination which they will, sooner or later, resist by force.
That is quite clear. Again I quote from page 28:
The gold standard-most favoured nation mechanism is the cause of booms and depressions. It prevents the free, regional co-operation of sovereign nations, through effective reciprocity.
IMr. Blackmore.1
Then from page 30, referring to expressions used in the Atlantic charter, Henry Drum-mond-Wolff has this to say:
"Access on equal terms" can be achieved only by the better or, if necessary, complete balancing of trade through bilateral or regional reciprocity. Such reciprocity can be effected only by preferences or priorities. It is not provided by "reciprocal" trade agreements that establish a general most favoured nation rate of tariff.
The Atlantic charter opened a new phase in the militant opposition of the United States to preferences and controlled economies.
Once more I would like to ask Mr. Woodward how, in the face of declarations like that, he can conceive that in supporting the United Nations charter the United States is working to establish conditions under which peace "can flourish".
It will be wondered whether or not evidence can be produced to show that the United States has actively used the unconditional most-favoured-nation clause to prevent nations from co-operating with each other. Once more I adduce evidence that cannot be lightly treated. From Henry Drummond-Wolff's "Commonwealth" I quote, this time from page 10:
An attempt by Belgium and Holland to Introduce a system of reciprocal tariffs at the Ouchy convention of 1932, was promptly vetoed as conflicting with the most favoured nation principle. Negotiations at Oslo in 1930 and 1937 among the Scandinavian countries were similarly circumscribed. Repeated attempts by the Balkan countries to establish preferences among themselves and with the central European countries were frustrated.
And on page 11:
In 1935, Germany's use of exchange control and clearing agreements in southeast Europe was countered by the withholding of most favoured nation rights from her . by the United States. This had the effect of imposing a penal rate of tariff against German imports into the American market.
And again from page 11:
The Anglo-American trade agreement was entered into on November 17, 1938, as a result of powerful pressure from the United States.
Some will wonder whether or not this man Henry Drummond-Wolff is an authority. There is no question that he is a great authority, and knows exactly what he is talking about. His words are weighty words. They contain solemn warnings for us.
Why has the United States inflicted upon the world this unconditional most-favourednation clause, and why has she been following the policy which I have indicated in my talk? There is a definite reason. At the close of world war I the United States was a creditor nation for the first time in her history. She was greatly industrialized and thus able to produce more than she could sell to her own people for the purchasing power they were able to obtain. In 1918 she produced $60 billion worth of goods but the

effective purchasing power in the hands of her people was only $45 billion distributed, and of that $5 billion went back out of circulation in payment for life insurance and in other kinds of investment which took the money out of consumer purchasing circulation. At that time the United States, realizing that she had more goods being produced than her people were being provided with money to buy, should have introduced social credit. By distributing purchasing power to her people, by the social credit technique, she could easily have kept her people employed, could have raised the standard of living of all of her people, and could have avoided making herself a nuisance in the markets of the world.
But she chose not to do this. Instead, she tried to force her goods into the markets of the world no matter how much injury was thereby done to other nations in the process. In other words, she continued to export her unemployment all over the earth, regardless of whom she hurt.
During the inter-war period the United States had accumulated from annual creditor balances on trade and income account between $13 billion and $14 billion. She had not increased her imports. She had not invested abroad. She had acquired between 85 per cent and 90 per cent of the nonmonetary gold stocks of the world. The New Deal had failed after $58 billion was fruitlessly expended upon it.
What was she going to do? In October, 1944, President Roosevelt made a statement that has a tremendously important bearing on this whole matter I am discussing. He said:
I intend to find jobs tor 60 million Americans by trebling our exports abroad.
Thus we find that all the acts, the agreements, the insistencies of the United States during those troublesome times from 1922 to 1933 and onward have been as a result of a selfish though understandable desire on her part to keep her people busy by exporting their goods into the markets of the world in spite of what that could possibly mean to the world.
If we are to find any solution to the troubles which confront the world, may I urge Mr. Woodward that he report to his president and his government that the only possible peaceful solution for the United States and for mankind is to introduce social credit into the United States, enabling her to sell her goods within her own country and thus to take care of that one-third of the United States people who, according to Roosevelt's declaration, are always the submerged third and whose income is so low as 55704-119
The Budget-Mr. Blackmore to constitute a scandal to the United States of America.
Next, the United States should accept imports that other nations offer her in payment for the goods they wish to buy from her; she should accept those imports, not necessarily to take them into her country to compete with the product of her own producers but to redistribute them to other nations needing such goods. Just think what she could do with regard to cheese for one instance if she accepted it from Canada and western Europe. Think how she could help the needy nations by accepting that cheese, not in order to let it compete with the output of her own producers but to help other needy nations, by sending it abroad to them. This cheese she could buy with debt-free money created by congress under authority granted to it by the constitution of the United States, money like the $450,000,000 of greenbacks, with which Lincoln freed the slaves.
Next the United States should adopt, and lead out in, a system of scientific world distribution based upon the principles of social credit, a system that would enable all the people who produce goods in the world to dispose of their goods profitably to people who need the goods, a system that would enable all the people in the world to derive the benefit they should have from the productive capacity of the other nations of the world.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Blackmore:: I submit this to Mr. Woodward, with all kindliness and good feeling, as being the only possible solution under which "peace can flourish".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. David A. Croll ( Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, before the house is ready for the question, I have a few remarks I wish to direct to housing. It has already been said in the house by others that in the province of Ontario there is a minimum need for some 450,000 housing units and that in the country as a whole there is a need for some 700,000 units. I think it would be interesting to place on record our achievement with respect to housing since 1946. It is as follows:
New Homes New Families
1946	
67,200	108,0001947	
79,300	75,0001948	
81,200	83,0001949	
91,000	77,0001950	
91,800	74,0001951	
85,000	96,000495,500	513,000
The Budget-Mr. Croll
As a result of continuing high employment, a continuing high birth rate, a high rate of family formation and large scale immigration we find ourselves in about the same position with respect to housing as we were in 1945. Despite the achievement-and it was great- we have not made as much progress as we had originally anticipated. In the departmental annual report Mr. Mansur said that on the assumption that an average family cannot afford more than about 23 per cent of its income for shelter, the average prospective home owner in 1950 required a gross income of about $2,700 to purchase a new minimum house. By the end of 1951 family income of about $3,300 was required to meet the debt service on a similar house. The only conclusion that we can draw from that is that now we are rationing houses by purse. Persons with less than $3,000 income-and that is 70 per cent of our population-appear to bear an unfair share of the national sacrifices made necessary by the defence program. Of course the immediate need is for mortgage money to be made readily available, for easier down payments, a longer amortization period and more rental housing of perhaps the multiple type. I think the government should give consideration to further subsidization. When I say that I have in mind that, instead of dealing with the provinces on a basis of 75-25, for low rental housing we could make it more attractive if we put it on the basis of 80-20 or 85-15, in order to give the provinces some greater incentive to start building low rental housing under section 35.
Quoting Mr. Mansur further-he is president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-he said there was a decline of 24 per cent in dwelling starts, which were 72,000 in 1951. He said that situation arises for four reasons and those are-and I quote-(1) shortage of mortgage funds; (2) shortage of serviced lands; (3) large down payment requirements; and (4) increased level of debt service. By that he means increased level of municipal taxes.
Then he has this to say-I am still quoting Mr. Mansur:
The supply of mortgage funds from all sources under present arrangements constitutes a definite limitation on the value of house building.
If for social reasons an annual housing program equal to or greater than those accomplished in 1949 and 1950 is a requirement, it may prove necessary to find additional sources of credit to be made available for mortgage on new residential construction.	*
That is the challenge.
What I have to say is particularly directed to the shortage of mortgage funds. We have in the past always considered mortgage funds


as an exclusive field of private enterprise. We have often been asked by private enterprise: Why does the government enter the field of private enterprise? I think the government does it for two primary reasons. First, in the interest of national security. The government has Chalk River, which is the atomic energy plant, and Canadian Arsenals, which make munitions. It was felt that both should be a public endeavour. They also have Polymer, which made synthetic rubber during the war. I do not think anyone quarrels with these three endeavours in the interest of national security; but the government also enters the field of what is considered private enterprise for another reason, and a very good one indeed, and that is to meet a social need and to fill a vacuum in a field vacated by private enterprise.
Historically lending institutions have always made conventional house loans. But from time to time they have left the field open, with the result that the government has had to enter it. I will carry you back first to some 40 years ago when the government, out of a desire to provide a measure of security for the people of this country, passed the annuities act. At that time private enterprise was not interested in writing small annuities. They failed to meet a social need, and they failed to meet a requirement for personal security. Today it is an entirely different picture. Private enterprise is becoming very interested in the annuities field, and is attempting to regain its foothold to the extent that it is alleged that they are doing some lobbying against the government bill which was intended to raise the annuity level from $1,200 to $2,400. It is true and cannot be denied that, at the present time, the dominion government annuity is by far the best and the cheapest annuity on the market. We need to continue in that field in order to meet a need that exists there. We entered the field because private enterprise abdicated it. The government stepped in to meet a social need, which was found very essential by the people. I think it would be well to say here that once government steps into the social field it never vacates it.
Let me again bring to the attention of these lending institutions something that they may have forgotten. Back in 1929 farmers were unable to obtain loans from private institutions on their properties, on land, on livestock, equipment and improvements. It was necessary for the government of the day to pass an act to set up a farm loan board, because the private institutions had turned a cold shoulder to that particular field, and there was urgent need for it. The government is now making a considerable amount of

loans in that field. In 1951 they made 3,242 loans, and 94 per cent of the interest that was due was paid. The arrears amounted to less than 2 per cent. Since 1929 they have written 34,485 first mortgages, 17,000 of which have been paid in full. At the end of 1951 they had a profit of $131,705.21. That field was partially abdicated by private enterprise, and the government stepped in again to meet a very great social need.
The Veterans Land Act provides an opportunity for veterans to build their own homes and to own small holdings. I merely indicate that the government has invested some $250 million in 31,000 properties, and they have received in repayment of these loans 95-5 per cent. There again the government stepped in when private enterprise abdicated or refused to participate in that field.
On May 5, 1951, the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) made a statement of policy in this house, and a very interesting statement it was. It provided that a defence worker would be able to obtain a house under very easy conditions. A defence worker is a person certified by his employer to be engaged in the production of defence supplies in a plant designated in whole or in part by the Department of Defence Production as a defence plant. The only requirement was that the house must be owned and occupied by the defence worker. The defence worker can build a house under his own steam, or he can purchase it from a builder who would build it under supervision by the Central Mortgage, which would be the architect, the planner, the guarantor as to quality of building and the adequacy of the house. All he had to pay was 10 per cent down, and it is amortized over a period of some 25 years. The loan would be 90 per cent on the agreed contract price fixed by Central Mortgage, and the monthly payments would include principal, taxes and interest. All the employer had to do was to make monthly deductions to meet the payments while the employee was so employed at the plant. There was to be no liability on the employer at all. If at any time the employee terminated his employment the employer had no further responsibility toward the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the employee who had obtained a home as a defence worker could retain the home. He could sell the home to other than a defence worker during the five-year period immediately after completion by paying one-ninth of the original amount of the loan. After doing that he could sell it on his own terms. He could sell to another defence worker without having to pay the one-ninth of the original loan.
55704-119J
The Budget-Mr. Croll
Up to the present time about 600 homes have been built in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, or are in the process of building. Homes cost from $8,650 on which there is a down payment of $870, and monthly payments of $59 which include principal, interest and taxes, to $10,700 upon which there is a down payment of $1,070 and monthly payments of $71 which include principal, interest and taxes.
It is a bit disheartening and disappointing to know that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have never had an application by a defence worker to build a house. They have never refused an application by a plant to be designated as a defence plant. Yet we find an opportunity there for housing of which no one seems to be aware; and my purpose in speaking today is to try to bring about some awareness of that situation.
Mark you this: the house that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is building for defence workers at a top price of $10,700 is selling privately today for about $14,000. The difference is the profit the builders are obtaining for this same house. Yet, for some reason or another, there are few takers. I cannot understand it.
In the minister's statement of October 5 he had this to say:
To the extent that mortgage financing is not available from lending institutions for defence workers. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be prepared to make direct loans. The Minister of Defence Production will from time to time designate defence plants to which these special housing arrangements are applicable.
Here, again, was an invitation by the minister asking lending institutions to make money available to defence workers. Lending institutions defaulted again, and it was necessary for the government to step in and to make direct loans.
At the last session of the provincial legislature of Ontario an act was passed authorizing the lending of $10 million to young farmers to start into farming in Ontario. That surely could have been made available by lending institutions, if they had thought it was worth their trouble.
It has been pointed out to me that I have neglected to mention that the government is lending money to veterans, by way of business and professional loans, under plans very similar to those applying to housing. All this business could have been available to the lending institutions of this country if they had wanted to make those loans.
They say they are short of money. The other argument they use is that the bond market gives them a good return. They say

The Budget-Mr. Croll that they can obtain 4 per cent or something slightly in excess of that on bonds, and that they receive a better net return on a 4 per cent bond than on a 5-J per cent mortgage. As a matter of fact the bond I have in mind is that of the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission, which was put on the market recently.
That is not the whole story. Last year we amended the Insurance Act, which gave the lending institutions powers far wider than they formerly had, with the result that they can now invest in real estate, in debentures and in common stock, which they were unable to do some years ago. What is happening is this, that these same lending institutions are using their money to buy up large chunks of valuable real estate. I know in my own city of Toronto they are buying office buildings, they may be first class investments-they would know best about that. But, more than that, they are buying up Dominion store, Wool worth store and Loblaw store leases, and holding them as an investment. That is where their money is, with the result that they do not have it available for those people in Canada who need to build homes.
It is true that what they are doing may be more profitable and easier; but on the other hand it seems to me that they have a social responsibility and that, from their point of view, it ought to be more desirable to help build up this country, rather than keep the profit motive entirely before them.
From time to time all of us have seen institutional advertising by mortgage, trust and insurance companies. We see page-size ads in newspapers and magazines showing a picture of two old people, a man and his wife, talking to one another and saying, "We have provided security for ourselves." Then there is some talk about a paid-up pension plan or an annuity. We see at the bottom the name of an insurance company, with information as to its assets, how much insurance it has written, and so on. These are first class ads, and they serve a purpose. It does seem to me that these lending companies have missed a great opportunity.
Why should they not run one of these ads showing a picture of a subdivision of perhaps a hundred houses, with the caption, "We did this with your money. We helped build this subdivision. We financed the building of these houses because we believe it is a good investment. This is what we think you would want us to do with your money."
I had occasion to go out on Sunday to look through some of the subdivisions already completed. It is a pleasure to see them. One sees thousands of small homes with combined living and dining-rooms, small breakfast

nooks, modern kitchens, good basements and satisfactory heating units. True, these houses are small-almost like dolls' houses. These subdivisions are filled with children-little ones, some of whom are still creeping, others walking and still others running about. The subdivisions are full of life.
We want these lending institutions to be helpful in building up our country. In those subdivisions we see fathers digging their gardens, building fences, painting and weeding; and unless we make mortgage money available for these kind of people we are not likely to have much more building in this country-unless, of course, we do something about it. And I am about to propose that we do.
I am sure the house will agree with me when I say that the homes built through national housing loans are a complete and absolute answer to communism, nazism, collectivism and totalitarianism. It should be our main objective to make homes for all the Canadian way of life.
If these lending institutions are more concerned with using their gold-plated scissors to clip coupons or to collect rents from downtown office buildings than they are in meeting social needs at a profit, then they are also vacating a field which, traditionally, has been their own. We now have on the statute books the authority to make direct loans for homes. If they are not forthcoming from private enterprise, then there is no alternative for us but to enter the field.
Once we are in the field we will never vacate it. Neither this nor any other parliament will permit us to vacate it. Private enterprise as represented by these various institutions has only itself to blame. They have not discharged a public trust or shown any social consciousness. That field is historically theirs, and I think all of us in this house would want them to continue in it, but if they abdicate and abandon the field, even in a slight degree, then this government must enter that field and improve it in every conceivable way possible. More than that, once we are in the field we will be able to lend money more cheaply and be able to make sure that the people benefit to a greater extent than they are benefiting now.
For the moment we have section 35 of the housing act and we have the defence workers' scheme. We have our hands full in making subsidies available for low rental housing to the people. I appeal to the minister and I submit to the house that this problem must be faced. Complaints have been made from members of the opposition-just the other day we had one from the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland)-that mortgage money

is not being made available to all communities. It is claimed that it is partially available only in the larger cities and not in the small municipalities. We ought to make certain that the same facilities are available to them as are available to those who live in the large cities. It is the responsibility of the government to see that that is done. I bring this matter to the attention of the house, of the minister and of the lending institutions now. I suggest to the latter that if they do not fully re-occupy that field on the double the government must enter it at this particular time in order to meet the great need that exists.


Mr. A. C. Murray (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to take part in the budget debate this year. Rising at this time I am faced with the question of what I can say that has not been said already. For my part I do not intend to be associated with all the remarks of those who have spoken in this debate, particularly those who do not see any merit in this year's budget, who seem to have lost all sense of direction and who apparently do not realize that civilization is at stake. Their voices sound like voices crying in the wilderness with no one to lead them out of their Gethsemane. Surely this is a great nation in which we are privileged to live. It was not built on wailings and lamentations; it was built by the hard work, the industry and the integrity of the men and women who came to Canada's shores. So today I prefer to take my stand with the government of today who with equal integrity, with equal industry and with equal hard work is placing first things first for Canada and its people, and sees in the future a great destiny for our country.
I realize that it is not wealth and riches that brings greatness to a nation. Rather it is the men who travel in its service. So at this time I want to join my voice with those who have already paid a tribute in this chamber to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and members of the government of today, who are pursuing the wise course they have followed on behalf of the people of our country. It has been said:
Give me men to match my mountains,
Give me men to match my plains;
Men of courage, men of action,
Men with Canada in their brains.
It seems to me that that is typical of the St. Laurent government. So I repeat that while there may be nothing new that I can say in this debate, on the other hand it seems to me that there is a need for a repetition and reiteration of those fundamentals and principles upon which our nation was built and likewise upon which this year's budget has been founded.
The Budget-Mr. A. C. Murray
Assembled as we are here today we represent constituencies, we represent homes, we represent business, we represent agriculture, we represent professional life; we are all wrapped up in this bundle of life. We all have our problems, but I say that whatever those problems are they are not very different from the problems of the men and women living behind the iron curtain or at or near the 38th parallel. After all, it is a way of life-a way of living. We feel that our way of life is the best way, and I for one know that it is. However, in saying that I realize also that there may be a great number of people living within our nation today who apparently have no sense of direction.
It seems that over the years we have developed a sense of speed to the maximum but in co-distinction to that sense of speed we may be co-equally losing our sense of direction. I think it is immeasurably more important to retain a sense of direction, to retain a sound fiscal policy for our nation, to retain a sound budget than it is to retain a sense of speed.
Sometimes I think it is good for all of us to be reminded of the great country in which we are privileged to live. I recall that after last year's budget I took time out to kodak, to develop and to print the finest flower in the garden, the first-prize chrysanthemum-the constituency of Oxford, which I have the honour to represent.
Today I should like to preface my remarks in this budget debate by indicating how privileged we are to live in this land of Canada, one of the finest nations in the world today. I think Dr. John Fisher has done and is doing a great deal to educate Canadians, not only as to the geography of their country but as to its potential wealth and resources. Dr. Fisher has described our country as being a tri-oceanic country, bounded by the Atlantic and the Pacific with a coastline of five thousand miles and the Arctic with a coastline of twenty-six thousand miles.
I wonder if at times we appreciate that this country in which we live is as high as it is wide, that from Pelee island in Ontario to Ellesmere at the top of the roof of the world, and still in Canada, is practically the same distance as from British Columbia to Nova Scotia.
I like the metaphor used by Dr. Fisher in describing our country when he referred to it as being a house of many rooms. First of all we have the veranda. We call it the American veranda and we are glad to have United States tourists come to our country and spend their dollars. Then we have the ground room in this house. At the

The Budget-Mr. A. C. Murray moment I think of the cities as being on the ground floor. I think of my home city of Woodstock, Ontario, and the surrounding towns of Ingersoll, noted for its cheese, about which I shall say something later on, and the town of Tillsonburg, noted for its prowess in the field of sport. Then I think of other cities like Toronto, Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver. I think of the great contributions they have made to the industrial growth of our nation. Then, sir, above this ground floor we have another room. We call it the mezzanine floor. I am thinking at this time of the cities on that mezzanine floor that are so well represented by different members in the House of Commons, cities such as Sudbury, Kirkland Lake-whose member we think of at this time-and other places such as Noranda, Haileybury and Val d'Or. I think of the great contributions in minerals they have made to Canada.
Back and beyond the mezzanine floor there is a bedroom. There are not many tenants living in that bedroom today. About the only time we hear from them is when Churchill on Hudson bay speaks out during the white sheets of winter or when the ships go sailing in there for two or three months of the year. Last week we heard the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Weaver) speak about that region, and I would recommend his excellent speech to every member of the house. I predict, as did the hon. member for Churchill, that some day many thousands of people will live in that far northern bedroom of Canada. If you do not think so just remember this. You will be amazed, as I was, to learn that Stockholm in Sweden is as large and beautiful a city as Toronto, yet Stockholm is on the same latitude as the Yellowknife area hundreds of miles north of here. Therefore I say that some day there will be many people living in that great far northern bedroom of Canada.
At this time I should like to compliment the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) for the part he is playing in endeavouring to populate that area. I recall that some little'time ago I heard Dr. Pleva of the University of Western Ontario make the prediction that the population of Canada will double itself within the next thirty years. Therefore I foresee, as was emphasized by the hon. member for Churchill the other day, a great future for that northern bedroom of Canada.
Some time ago I remember reading an article in the Financial Post to the effect that members of parliament should travel more in order to learn more of the great country in which we are privileged to live. I think that we should, that a great number of us do not appreciate or realize the potentialities and

vastness of the country in which we live. I want to say to. the house today that Canada is a great country, and it seems to me that, instead of the bickerings and lamentations we hear from time to time from members of the opposition, we should slip down on our knees more frequently and thank God for the privilege of living in Canada.
It is not a glamorous country like the United States of America. Neither is it a glorious country like Great Britain with all its history and traditions, but to each and every one of us today I think Canada is an exciting and fascinating country. To those of us with Scottish blood in our veins, may I say, I like to think of that song we sing on St. Andrew's day or on the birthday of Robert Burns, namely:
Oh ye'll take the high road,
And I'll take the low road.
And I'll be in Scotland afore ye. . . .
It seems to me that is typical of the role of Canada today, neither the high road nor the low road but somewhere in between, fabulously right. Today as I speak of Canada I am reminded of the words of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prud-ham) when he said to us some time ago that Canada's real strength is not in its size, great and all as it is, and neither is its strength to be found in its resources, great and all as they are, but rather the solid enduring strength of Canada comes from the character of our people. In other words, the sinews of production are not dollars but rather our effort and the spirit to achieve. That spirit has animated our nation throughout its history, and I predict that spirit will carry our country through every hard test the future may bring.
I submit that the history of Canada has been one of meeting the challenge of difficulty. That is why I say that this year's budget is substantially sound. It is not, as was stated by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), a false budget. Neither is it an Alice in Wonderland budget or a phantom budget. To the sound thinking people of Canada it is like the ones that have preceded it that have been brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). It is a stability budget. By whatever waters of Babylon our tents may be pitched, or whatever political differences we may have, none of us can deny that as a result of this year's budget Canada's credit abroad is being strengthened, inflation is being controlled, capital for investment is being attracted, and today our dollar is at a premium in the market places of the world. I should like to repeat the heading quoted from the Financial Post of April 12 by the parliamentary assistant

to the Minister of Finance which reads: "It Hurts But It Is Sound". I should like to read one of the sentences in that article. It is as follows:
There are people in other countries who only wish that their own governments would or could follow our example.
As was emphasized by the minister, our major difficulties are international in their origin. I say again today that freedom is not free. It was bought with a price and we are going to have to pay the price of retaining it. I feel that the Minister of Finance, in the light of the exigencies of the times through which we are passing, has budgeted in the interests of Canada as a whole. I am sure he must have had those lines of Longfellow constantly before him when he was compiling this year's budget:
Build today, then, strong and sure,
With a firm and ample base;
And ascending and secure Shall tomorrow find its place.
The Minister of Finance has set before us a fiscal policy that has made our nation the envy of the world. He has held true to those precepts that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) and others with Scottish blood in their veins learned at their mother's knees, namely, to save for a rainy day. In that regard I have here a copy of the Toronto Star of March 24, 1952. It contains an article with the heading, "Saving For Rainy Day Good Idea Frost Says But Doesn't Follow it." The article reads in part as follows:
Almost two centuries ago a noted English author and moralist, Abraham Tucker, wisely admonished people to save for a rainy day. "It behooves us," he wrote, "to provide against a rainy day while the sun still shines." This was sound advice when these lines were penned and it is equally sound advice today . . . Premier Frost himself raised this point in his budget speech. "Credit," he said, "should be soundly used. It is a real asset which should always be conserved. Times come in the life of a province when, because of recession or other conditions, it is necessary to increase the net debt. But in times of buoyancy it is the way of prudence to pay as much of our capital costs as we can from current revenues."
It would appear that the federal government has done this, and that it has reduced our debt in the past five years by almost $2 billion. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the minister must have been reading some of the old axioms before preparing this year's budget. I am reminded in particular of one that is attributed to Confucius. You know, we made Confucius say some silly things but he had his more serious moments; and in one of those serious moments he said this:
It is the duty of us in our day and generation to plant the trees so that those who follow after may enjoy the shade.
I think the minister was following that axiom in this year's budget. He is budgeting
The Budget-Mr. A. C. Murray not only for a solvent Canada today but also for a solvent Canada tomorrow. He has indicated that if we are energetic and resolute, and if we work, there is a good prospect of achieving in the not too distant future perhaps not genuine peace throughout the world but at least a position of reasonable confidence and security that can be maintained at a more reasonable cost than we are now compelled to pay.
I agree with the minister that work is the greatest morale building force in the world today, the one thing that gives dignity and self-respect to man. If we will work, by the grace of God we can save ourselves. If on the other hand we become a nation of parasites, as some in this house would want us to be, then I fear that only deterioration and decay can set in. I think of my grandparents coming to this country. Why did they come here? Because they saw in this land opportunity and work for their brood of children. Ofttimes today I fear that opportunity may be beginning to disappear, when in certain quarters you hear it said to men, "Don't work so hard. Get as much as you can." I say that when a seed bursts in the blackness of the soil and reaches to the sunny heavens it is performing a natural instinct; and we are thwarting that kind of effort in Canada if today men are told, "Don't work so hard. Get as much as you can."
So I think the minister is to be congratulated on the stability budget he has brought down this year. We all realize that his role is very difficult; nor has it been lightened by the times through which we are passing. If I were to make one or two suggestions-and certainly it would only be by way of suggestion at this time, not by way of criticism-the first would be that further consideration be given to the medical deduction over and above the 4 per cent allowable at the present time. In that regard I think the minister might very well recognize the principle he established last year in exempting certain drugs such as cortisone, liver extract, and so on. I think that principle might be further extended as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) suggested to include drugs such as di-alpha tocopherol, as well as some of the antibiotics such as aureomycin, terramycin, Chloromycetin and some of those expensive drugs that are on the market today. I say to the minister that hundreds of these new drugs are coming onto the market, and the horizon is equally challenging and tremendous. I think it would help a good many people if consideration could be given to extending the list of drugs to include those I have suggested.

The Budget-Mr. A. C. Murray
Then I am interested and concerned, as I know the minister is, with the present tax structure with regard to corporations. I think a perusal of reports coming from industry for the first quarter will indicate that while business is good and sales are good, money that could be used for further expansion is being siphoned off in taxes. I know the minister will bear in mind that we want to do our best to help the further expansion of these industries that have done so much to build up our country.
Then I would want to say a word at this time on behalf of the dairy industry of my county and particularly the cheese industry, which at this time is in a rather precarious condition. Already hon. members on both the opposition and the government sides have emphasized the position in which the cheese industry finds itself, which is further aggravated by the presence of surplus milk in the country due to the foot-and-mouth disease. I hope the federal government will adopt a very sympathetic attitude toward that industry, which through no fault of its own finds itself in such a position.
Then, sir, I would want to join in the remarks of the hon. member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Huffman) and the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario (Mr. Robertson) in asking that further consideration be given our rural mail carriers. It seems to me that this is a subject to which every hon. member would like further consideration given; but at this time I only want to join with the others who have spoken in asking that the government give the most careful consideration in order that something better might be done on behalf of these men who give years of service in carrying the mails of our country.
It is not my intention to speak longer in this debate, but in the light of Canada's progress I am sure we must all feel that we are advancing steadily toward full nationhood. This country of 14 million people is playing a far more significant part in international affairs than did the 5 million people who came to our shores from less prosperous lands and I feel that the fruition of the plan of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to build the St. Lawrence seaway, either alone or in co-operation with the United States, will mean one of our greatest adventures in development. We must admit, I think, that while we have been vigilant for our own prosperity we have gone forward steadily and in freedom toward a decent level of life. We have carefully re-examined the way of human

welfare; and as a result of the old age security program of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) thousands of citizens of Canada can now live in dignity and self-respect.
I suggest, sir, that there is a strong tide flowing in the affairs of men. Social injustices are being swept aside and human progress is at the flood. Some may ask what of the future. I suggest, sir, that this is not the time for us to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, as one hears the phrase. This is not the time to be merely on the defensive as to those things that are just and true and of good report. Now is the time for all of us in this great nation to be active thinkers and doers, in furthering and in sharing with others the verities and the abundance of this great nation in which we are privileged to live.
I started my speech this afternoon by saying that it was a privilege to take part in the budget debate this year. I am reminded that privilege and responsibility are veritable Siamese twins in the world of abstraction. You never meet them alone. I say to this house: whether we serve as members of the House of Commons or whether we act as citizens of Canada, each and every one of us in turn has a like responsibility not only to build our defences strong, not only to budget for a pay-as-you-go policy, not only to maintain a sound economy for our nation, but also somehow, in some way, to build the attributes of decency among the peoples of the world and to work for that day when peace shall come and wars shall be no more.
If we do that-if we go our way improving the standards of living of our people; if we help our neighbours where'er in the world they may be-then it seems to me that we can face the future undaunted and with the surety that it will be of our own shaping.
I do not know of any finer way in which I can, with any greater propriety, interpret that closing thought than to give you the thoughts presented by Mr. Cameron Ralston when he visited our nation some months ago. Speaking particularly to those of us with Scottish blood in our veins, he said this: As you know, we in Scotland have a patron saint called Saint Andrew but long ago many of us have substituted a great Scottish son in his place, namely Robert Burns-one who wrote of simple things; one who said that a simple man was the greatest work of God; one whose heart was touched by the affliction of a mouse or a daisy in the field; one who wrote that great and majestic poem: "A Man's

a Man for a' That." If my memory holds, I should like to give the closing verse of that great poem:
Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a' that,)
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth.
Shall bear the gree, and a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That man to man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.
I therefore say to you in closing this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that likewise we in Canada have a great responsibility. We have a responsibility not merely to act as a bridge between Great Britain and the commonwealth, and not merely to act as a stopgap between Great Britain and the United States. We have our own torch to bear; to carry and to maintain the highest forms of decency and the soundest forms of fiscal policy that it is possible for the nation of Canada to achieve. That the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has endeavoured to do his part has been exemplified, I submit, by this year's budget. He has endeavoured to plant the trees, in his time and generation, so that those who follow after may enjoy the shade.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the last speaker but one for the stand he took this afternoon when he spoke in this budget debate on the subject of housing. I was very glad to hear him join with us in criticizing the lending institutions for their failure to make mortgage money available for the socially desirable objective of housing for our people. I thought his words were well chosen when he suggested that private enterprise, as represented in this case by the lending institutions, should recognize its social responsibility and should be more concerned about the housing of our people than it is for making a profit out of investments of the kind to which he referred. I was also glad to hear him join with us in prodding the government and in urging that if mortgage money is not being made available by the private lending institutions for housing, the time has come for the government to go into this field itself.
That view of course has been expressed from this corner of the house a number of times; it was expressed only the other day by my colleague, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), and I hope that in
The Budget-Mr. Knowles due course between us we shall be able to persuade the government that it has no option but to implement the suggestions made again this afternoon.
I was also glad to hear the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) suggest that improvements will have to be made in the terms of section 35 of the National Housing Act. He spoke, as he always does, in glowing terms of this section, the section which makes possible joint federal-provincial low-rental housing projects; but nevertheless in the course of his speech I thought he made it clear that one of the greatest lacks of our time is still the lack of low-rental housing.
I suggest that one of the reasons there is not as much building of homes for ownership as both the hon. member for Spadina and I would like to see is that many of the people for whom he expressed concern this afternoon simply cannot afford the ownership of homes even on the terms possible under the National Housing Act, and that what is necessary for great numbers of people is low-rental housing.
The hon. member for Spadina, although he praised section 35 of the act, admitted its shortcomings when he pointed out that not enough housing is being built, and when he suggested that probably the proportion to be guaranteed by the federal government under section 35 should be increased from its present figure of 75 per cent up to 80 per cent or 85 per cent or perhaps even higher. I fully agree with him as to the desirability of as much home ownership on the part of our people as possible, but the fact of the matter is that for great numbers of our Canadian citizens the only solution to the housing problem in the immediate future at any rate lies in extending the principle of public low-rental housing. This is a matter of extreme urgency, and I hope that, even as the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) ought to pay attention to our plea that government money be made available for the building of homes where private mortgage money is not being supplied, he will also pay attention to our plea for the improving of section 35 so that it may be used more widely for the actual building of low-rental housing.
I might add further that I was glad to note the statements of the hon. member for Spadina in respect of a number of other matters, particularly when he suggested that there are various fields where social responsibility requires that, private enterprise having failed to deliver the goods, the government, in the name of the people, should step in.

The Budget-Mr. Knowles
There are one or two matters, Mr. Speaker, that were the particular reason for my getting into this debate again at this stage, but before I come to them there are one or two general comments with respect to the budget that I should like to make. I agree with those who have said that one of the faults of the present budget is the manner in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) presented it, particularly in his failure, when he gave us his tables showing the new rates of income tax, to include a column showing what the rates were as actually paid in the year 1951. In most budgets it has been the practice to indicate the amount of tax paid at various income levels for the last year and for the current year. In this instance the minister chose to omit the column showing the actual amounts paid in 1951. He chose rather to compare the rates to be paid in 1952 with what would have been the case if there had been no budget at all. The result is that the minister found it possible by his method of reasoning to suggest that there was a decrease in income tax; whereas in point of fact in the actual amounts to be paid by the citizens of Canada there will be an increase in 1952 over what was actually paid in 1951. I think it is unfortunate that the minister chose to present it in that way, but at any rate it is now painfully clear to the people of Canada that this year's budget does involve an actual increase over what was paid last year in the rates of income taxes.
It is also clear that that increase is felt by our people before the social security tax is added. In that connection I should like to point out that the Minister of Finance seemed to enjoy referring to old age security and its cost as many times as he could during the course of his budget speech on April 8. I am reminded by the minister, the parliamentary assistant and others who refer so often to the cost of social security, of the line followed in this respect by the Winnipeg Free Press which is published ini my own city. That newspaper is most anxious that people realize something that they already know, namely that we do have to pay for social security, and indeed for everything that we provide for ourselves through the medium of our governments. But the Free Press even goes so far as to suggest that the deductions at the source paid by the average worker when he gets his pay envelope should be itemized for him, and that he should be told every time he gets his pay envelope just how much has been deducted from his pay for social security.
I have no objection to that being done, provided at the same time something else is

done-and I hope the Winnipeg Free Press will join me in this suggestion, to be implemented along with their own. I suggest that at the same time on the wage earner's envelope there should be indicated the amount he has contributed, during that period for which he is receiving his pay, to the profits of the corporation for which he is working. After all, that is where the wealth of this country comes from-from the toil of our farmers on the farms, our workers in the cities, our miners, our fishermen-it comes from all those who work to produce the great wealth of this country. It is precisely because the profits of great corporations, defence costs, social security items and everything else, are paid for by the work of our people, that we contend that our people are entitled-not as a matter of charity, not as a handout, but as a matter of right-to social security, not only to the extent we have achieved it thus far, but in an expanded form such as we of this party shall continue to advocate.
One of the reasons I wanted to speak again at this stage of the debate was to discuss briefly with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) what I consider to be a continuing piece of discrimination as between lawyers and trade unionists. I wish to say that I take those two groups for the purpose of putting this matter in a simplified form. There are others who are with the lawyers, and there are others, likewise, who are with the trade unionists.
The Minister of Finance will recall that for a few years leading up to just before his budget speech of last year I had a good deal to say concerning the deductibility of trade union dues, teachers' fees and other like amounts for income tax purposes. I pointed out to him that in practice a line was drawn which, despite the way in which the minister defined that line, for the most part became a line between people like lawyers and doctors on the one hand and people like trade unionists and school teachers on the other. The line that was established was drawn, technically speaking, in terms of whether one's income was gross or net. If one's income was gross, in terms of fees he received out of which he paid expenses -hiring help of one kind or another-he was permitted to deduct fees, such as those of law societies. But if one's income was net, such as wages or salary, he was denied that right.
I believe there is complete agreement between the minister and me as to the facts. Strictly speaking, that was the way in which that line was drawn. Nevertheless, in actual practice, since most lawyers were in the one group and most trade unionists were

in the other, it worked out so that lawyers were getting the right to deduct their fees to the law society, while trade unionists were not getting the same right in respect of their trade union dues.
Part of this is now old history, but it will take only a few moments to review it. I am going through it because it leads up to a continuing discrimination which I hope the minister will even yet bring to an end. He knows that during the years 1945, 1946 and 1947 the law was worded in such a way that in due course the Exchequer Court of Canada decided that it did entitle trade unionists to deduct their trade union dues during those years. That decision was made by Mr. Justice Angers in June of 1949. However, that decision was made because a trade unionist, Mr. Joseph A. Cooper of Winnipeg, a moving picture projectionist, had appealed against the decision of the Minister of National Revenue. Mr. Cooper had sought to deduct his trade union dues. The Department of National Revenue had denied him that right. He went through the usual machinery and, in due course, in April of 1948, appealed the decision to the Exchequer Court of Canada.
Interestingly enough, it was in May of 1948, only a few weeks after Mr. Cooper filed his papers with the Exchequer Court of Canada, that the government brought in notice of a resolution to change the Income War Tax Act so as to make it clear that trade unionists would not have that right. It is my belief that the government took that step so soon after this case was taken to the Exchequer Court of Canada because they had reason to believe that the Exchequer Court might rule in favour of Mr. Cooper, in view of a decision the Exchequer Court had made on November 1, 1946, in the Bond and Rutherford case.
The case of Bond and Rutherford involved two lawyers from the city of Winnipeg who had appealed against a decision of the income tax authorities denying them their right to deduct their bar society fees on the ground that they were on salary-one of them was employed by the city of Winnipeg and the other by the province of Manitoba-and therefore that they were not in the same class as the average lawyer who makes his income by collecting fees and paying out expenses in connection with the making of his income.
Mr. Justice Thorson on November 1, 1946, had ruled that, in view of the way the act then read, Mr. Bond and Mr. Rutherford were just as entitled to deduct their fees to the law society as were other lawyers, even though Mr. Bond and Mr. Rutherford were on salary. I think it followed that, Mr. The Budget-Mr. Knowles Justice Thorson having made that decision in the Bond and Rutherford case, it was almost inevitable that the Exchequer Court would make a parallel decision in the Cooper case.
I draw the government's attention to the fact that nothing was done immediately following the decision in the Bond and Rutherford case, which was made by Mr. Justice Thorson on November 1, 1946. That decision was accepted; the law was not changed. But immediately after Mr. Cooper took his case to the Exchequer Court of Canada in April 1948, in the very next month, the month of May, a resolution was brought in to change the Income War Tax Act and to alter its wording so as to make it clear that the right to deduct trade union dues would be prohibited.
The decision of Mr. Justice Angers was not made until June 1949, and by this time the law had been changed respecting the income taxation years of 1948 and 1949.
The rest of the story is known, of course, to hon. members. The matter was debated in the house three or four times, and was voted down on at least two occasions. But finally, on April 10, 1951, in the minister's budget for that year, he announced that legislation would be introduced to make trade union dues deductible.
Naturally I was very pleased to have this decision made by the government. It was good to know that that battle had been won, and I think all hon. members recognized that it was only a matter of fairness that the legislation be so worded that groups such as trade unionists and teachers would be in precisely the same position as groups such as doctors and lawyers.
So far so good. But it was only a few months after that change respecting dues to trade unions, teachers' associations, bar societies, medical societies and so on was made that there appeared in the newspapers an item *t. the effect that a ruling had been given that lawyers were permitted to deduct for income tax purposes expenses incurred in connection with attendance at conventions of the Canadian Bar Association. I was surprised. I felt, "Well, here we go again; this is where I came in. We have just succeeded in getting one discrimination ended and now another one turns up." I did not know at that time that for some considerable period apparently lawyers had1 been deducting expenses incurred in connection with attendance at bar association conventions provided they were on gross rather than on salary, but it now transpires that that had been the case.
It also transpires that the decision referred to in the press last fall was one given on

The Budget-Mr. Knowles August 30, 1951, by Mr. W. S. Fisher, Q.C., a member of the income tax appeal board. As hon. members know, when the Income War Tax Act was replaced by the Income Tax Act one of the changes made was to provide that appeals which had formerly gone to the Exchequer Court of Canada would now go to the income tax appeal board. Therefore the decision of Mr. W. S. Fisher, Q.C., has in fact the status of the decisions by Mr. Justice Thorson and by Mr. Justice / gers, to which I referred a few minutes ago.
The decision of Mr. W. S. Fisher, Q.C., on August 30, 1951, related to an appeal by Mr. H. F. Parkinson, a lawyer who had claimed a deduction from personal income in connection with expenses incurred personally by him in attending a convention of the Canadian Bar Association, The facts in connection with this decision are to be found on page 1458 of Hansard of April 21, 1952, where answers are given to questions I had asked about this case. It appears that the reason the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue disallowed Mr. Parkinson's claim for this deduction was that Mr. Parkinson was apparently a member of a partnership and was on salary. The department took the view that if these expenses had been claimed by the partnership it would have been a different story, but since they were claimed by Mr. Parkinson as a deduction from his personal income that put him on the wrong side of the line and therefore he could not be allowed that deduction.
As 1 say, Mr. Parkinson was not satisfied with the decision of the taxation division and he appealed to the income tax appeal board. It was held by Mr. W. S. Fisher of the income tax appeal board1 that there was no reason to differentiate between the procedure of deduction adopted by the appellant and the procedure of deduction that would be adopted in the case of the partnership.
I submit that we are right back where we were at the time of the Bond and Rutherford case. We now have a case of an individual lawyer claiming deduction of convention expenses from his personal income. He was denied that by the taxation division but was allowed it by the income tax appeal board which, as I say, is the present counterpart of the Exchequer Court of Canada at the time when the other decisions were made.
My request in connection with this matter is that fairness be established. I am prepared to admit that it is more difficult to make a case for the deductibility of convention expenses than it was to make a case, as we did with eventual success, for the deductibility of dues either to a trade union, to a teachers'


society or to other similar bodies. But I submit that it should be one way or the other, either both lawyers and trade unionists should be allowed their convention expenses as deductible for income tax purpose, or neither should be allowed this right. When I ask that the same treatment be accorded to trade unionists as is accorded to lawyers I have in mind other groups as well, such as farm conventions of one kind and another, church conventions, women's institutes, the Canadian Legion and all the rest. I submit that if lawyers attending conventions of the Canadian Bar Association are permitted to deduct their convention expenses regardless of a line that has been drawn in the act, indeed if that right is given to them, even when they are on salary, by a decision of the income tax appeal board, then the law should be so worded as to grant that right to trade unionists and other groups as well. All I ask is that the law be fair.
I have questioned the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) about this once or twice, notably on October 15, 1951, when I drew his attention to this particular case and asked if steps would be taken to extend the same privileges to trade unionists attending their conventions and to other comparable groups. On that day the minister said that since I had not given him notice, perhaps my question could stand until a later date. I reminded him of it on Friday, October 19, 1951, as reported on page 195 of Hansard for that day, at which time the minister said:
I had forgotten to answer the hon. member's question. Of course it is one of law. I have not examined the decision of the income tax appeal board; but I assume the board must have decided that the lawyer in question incurred these expenses as necessary expenses in earning his income. If a member of a trade union is in the same position in deducting expenses, and if he can say that his attendance at a trade union convention was necessary, incidental to the earning of his income, then I assume that as a matter of law the court would hold the same thing. However, it is purely a question of law.
Those were the words of the Minister of Finance. In passing, may I point out that a trade unionist on salary is not in the same position in the matter of deduction as is a lawyer on gross income, so that that similarity vanishes. But the point that bothers me most about this is the minister's insistence that this is purely a point of law. In view of that insistence I asked the minister this supplementary question:
Does not the minister feel that the law should be changed so as to make sure that all these different groups are treated alike?
This was the minister's reply:


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I think it Is strictly a question for the courts.
My point is that when the courts, the Exchequer Court of Canada in that case,

decided that the law as it was worded in 1945, 1946 and 1947 gave Mr. Cooper and other trade unionists the right to deduct their trade union dues, the government took the view that that was not what they had intended. Since the court had drawn their attention to the fact that the law was at variance with their intention they took immediate steps to change the law. In fact they acted in advance; they acted as soon as they realized there would be a decision favourable to trade unionists.
When I spoke about this during the course of one of the debates on the question of trade union dues the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sinclair) expressed the view that I should not have chided the government for doing this, that I should rather have complimented the government for bringing the law into line with what had been the government's intention in the first place. The point I am making is surely obvious. If the government jumps in fast to change the law when the court's ruling is such as to give advantage to trade unionists, why is it when a similar ruling gives an advantage to lawyers the Minister of Finance simply says that it is strictly a question for the courts?
I submit it is a question of fairness. It is a question of the wording of the law, and the government should deal with the matter one way or the other. Either it should amend the law so as to make it clear that lawyers cannot claim their convention expenses-and heaven knows what convention expenses might include-or it should change the law to see to it that the same right is accorded to trade unionists, farmers, church people, legionnaires, indeed all those who have conventions that they must attend either in connection with the earning of their living or in pursuit of interests relating to the welfare of this country.
I submit it is a matter of simple justice and fairness. One cannot put the blame for it on the courts. What the courts do is to interpret the law as it stands at any given time. The courts have made an interpretation in the Parkinson case. Inasmuch as the government acted immediately to change the law following the decision in the Cooper case, I suggest they should act immediately following the decision in the Parkinson case and change it either one way or the other.
I would remind the minister that this matter has been taken up with the government by a number of people. I have in my hand, for example, copies of letters that have been exchanged between the Victoria and district trades and labour council and
The Budget-Mr. Knowles the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann). My time is passing so perhaps I had better not read all the correspondence. However, I would simply indicate that the Minister of National Revenue replied on January 11 of this year to the secretary of the Victoria and district trades and labour council to the effect that expenses of trade unionists in attending conventions could not be allowed as a deduction from income in their case. He went on to say:
I would draw to your attention that members of the legal and medical professions who derive their incomes from an office or employment are not allowed any deduction from such income for convention expenses.
That is true, Mr. Speaker, but there is a catch in it, for most lawyers and doctors are not in that category while most trade unionists are. That is exactly the position we were in when we were debating union dues versus law society dues. Drawing a line like that is drawing a fictitious and unreal line. The fact of the matter is that in actual practice most lawyers now have the right, if they attend a convention of the Canadian Bar Association, to deduct their convention expenses, but practically all trade unionists-indeed all of them-are cut off from that right because of the nature of their income.
We have had other lines of this kind drawn in the income tax laws throughout the years. I can think of one that used to be there that drew a false distinction between sleeping car conductors and train conductors in respect of a matter having to do with income tax. For years it was held by Mr. Ilsley that nothing could be done about it but in due course the line was changed and a more sensible position was taken. I urge that this matter be looked at on the basis of fairness and that the law be changed so that it will be equal in its application to all our people. Surely that is the basis on which laws should be enacted, and I urge this most strongly upon the Minister of Finance.
There are a number of other matters I wish to speak about but I will use what time I have left to say a few words on the other side of the medal. The Minister of Finance is aware of the fact that I have had a good deal to say in budget debates throughout the years about deductions that I think should be allowed to people, and I think he will give me credit for the fact that the appeals I made have been like the one I have just put forward, on a basis of what I regard as essential fairness. But he may say to me: Yes, but you never suggest ways and means by which more revenue might come into the treasury. I should like

The Budget-Mr. Knowles to make one or two suggestions along that line right now. I have in my hand a clipping from Business Week of April 21, 1951. I admit at the outset that it is about a year old and also that the figures contained in the article relate to the United States and may refer to an earlier year, but I suggest that they are symptomatic and that attention should be paid to them.
The article and the table with it tell us what percentages of various kinds of income are reported to the tax collector in the United States and taxed accordingly. For example, we are told that the picture in the United States is that 99 per cent of trust fund income is reported and accordingly taxed, and that 95 per cent of wages and salaries is reported and taxed. However, only 76 per cent of dividends is reported, only 71 per cent of entrepreneurial income is reported, only 45 per cent of rental income is reported and only 37 per cent of income from interest is reported. Let me make it perfectly clear that these are figures for the United States, and they may be for a few years back because the clipping is dated April 21, 1951, but I suggest that a real effort should be made by the Canadian income tax authorities to make sure that other classes of income are put in the same position as wages and salaries.
So far as the income tax authorities are concerned, the man on a wage, the man on a salary, has had it. His income is spelled out clearly on the T-4 slip he gets at the end of the year. The wheat farmer of the west is in much the same position because he sells his wheat to the wheat board. But there are the other groups which Business Week suggests manage in one way or another to report less than their total income. I submit that, if the figures for Canada are in any sense comparable to the figures I have given, there is a substantial sum of income in this country escaping taxation because it is not got at as readily and easily as wages and salaries.
On the other side of that picture I suggest to the Minister of Finance that the deductions allowed in the corporation tax and the deductions allowed to business people, entrepreneurial people and so on should be tightened up. To my way of thinking there is too wide a discrepancy between the limited deductions allowed to the average taxpayer on wage or salary and the wide variety of deductions allowed to those whose income is gross from which they make their various deductions. We have heard these matters discussed in the house from time to time, trips by businessmen and all sorts of expenses that somehow or other are allowed

if you are on gross income. I suggest there is a real field there for tightening up and for increasing tremendously the amount of income on which government taxation might be levied.
To use the language I used a moment ago, I say again that the wage earner in particular has had it. He gets his income in the form of wages that are paid to him by his employer. In the first place most of his income tax is deducted at the source. At the end of the year he gets a T-4 slip showing the amount he has earned. There is no getting out of that, and the kinds of deductions that he can make on his income tax form are so few that it only takes him half an hour to make out his income tax return. There is nothing he can do about it. But the type of person who is on gross income and who is permitted a whole host of deductions can stay up all night, or two or three nights, thinking up ways and means by which to cut down the amount upon which he pays taxes. I submit that in view of the figures I quoted from Business Week there is a wide measure of income the government could tax to far more than offset what it would cost the treasury to implement these proposals for fairness as amongst other groups to which I have referred. Indeed I am satisfied that what would be lost to the treasury by removing the 4 per cent floor under medical expenses, for which the house voted on March 26 and concerning which I have spoken a number of times, would be more than offset if the minister would pay some attention to the type of suggestions I am now making.
I am just about through, Mr. Speaker, but in this connection I have in my hand a clipping from the New York Times of September 23, 1951, headed "Expense accounts held tax source". The dispatch is by a writer named Clayton Knowles-a namesake, although I do not know him. It is datelined at Washington, September 23 last, and reads:
In a move to increase the tax yield, Senator Paul H. Douglas, Democrat of Illinois, proposed today to limit tax deductions for business entertainment and travel, to reduce opportunity for "high living at public expense."
The article goes on to say that Senator Douglas proposed to strike out deductions for liquor and for entertainment, and to limit allowable travelling expenses to $12 a day. This was commented upon in an issue of The Nation which appeared shortly after Senator Douglas introduced his bill, in these words:
The suggestion of Senator Douglas that congress limit the deduction of entertainment and travel

expenses from taxable corporate income will probably strike more fear into the heart of the average businessman than all the talk of higher corporate rates.
That is why I suggest that if this policy were pursued the minister might pick up quite a good sum of money, more than enough to offset the cost of some of the things we have been asking for. The dislike of business for a suggestion of this kind shows there is real money to be found in this way. This editorial in The Nation goes on to say:
It is no secret that high corporate rates, especially the excess profits tax, have increased the temptation to pad the expense account in order to reduce the tax bill. The "swindle sheet" today takes more money from Uncle Sam than from the employer. So while applauding Senator Douglas' suggestion, we wonder why it singles out liquor and travel.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear hon. members calling "time", and for once I agree with them; I see that my time is gone. I commend the rest of the editorial from which I have been quoting, for it makes other valuable suggestions. I hope the minister will pay some attention to the proposals I have made in the latter part of my speech, as to ways in which he might pick up more money; and at the same time I urge him to pay attention to my plea for fairness, which I made earlier in my remarks tonight.


Mr. P. T. Hellyer (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) gave me very good advice. He said, "Listen carefully for a while, and then make a speech on a subject close to your heart." Tonight I would like to speak on housing, a subject that is close to my heart.
Historically housing accommodation was supplied by fathers to their sons when they got married and set up their own establishments. This was taken as a matter of course and proceeded from generation to generation. Masters provided housing for servants, and it seemed a very workable and very satisfactory system.


Mr. Wylie:: Times have changed a lot.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Just as my hon. friend
interjects, times have changed. Whether we liked it or not we had the great industrial revolution, which produced results both good and evil. Unfortunately we have to take the evil with the good. However desirable the old system may seem in retrospect, it is impossible to return to it. So we might as well be realistic and accept the situation as it now exists, and do the best we can with it.
I know all hon. members are as interested in this subject as I am. The situation in the
The Budget-Mr. Hellyer city from which I come and part of which I represent is not good, and certainly is deserving of a great deal of study and research. In Toronto a married couple without children can find accommodation in a single room for a fairly modest amount, and can get along quite well. But as soon as they start raising a family they immediately project themselves into the position of having to seek accommodation which will cost double or treble that which was required of them without children. It is owing to this unfortunate social handicap and to the fact that recently the proportion of house building in respect to total construction has been in serious decline that I feel further study must be given to the problem of increasing the supply.
I suppose the next logical point is, whose responsibility is it? Constitutionally, according to the judicial interpretation of the British North America Act, it is a provincial responsibility. However, I feel that because the constitution is a product of human beings, it should not be allowed to interfere with the welfare of the people. Actually the problem breaks down very nicely and naturally into aspects. The first, the federal aspect, is the financial responsibility. The federal government has been charged with the responsibility over money and banking. Owing to the tremendous capital investment required it is beyond the ability of any other level of government to take care of the problem. It is quite natural, then, that the financial responsibility should be looked after where that can be done adequately, and that is in this federal parliament.
Then there is the provincial aspect. Under our constitution property and civil rights fall within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. Therefore it is quite reasonable and logical that the provinces should undertake the responsibility of providing the land and services necessary for these housing developments. In addition, there is a very definite private responsibility on the part of the industry, and I think the industry will do its part to accept that responsibility.
I will discuss these points in the order in which I have outlined them. The first is the federal aspect. As you all know, through the agency of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation the federal government makes joint loans to prospective home owners and also to builders for speculation. These joint loans are made with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation putting up 25 per cent of the money, and the lending institution, ordinarily an insurance company or trust company, the remaining 75 per cent. In effect this means that the availability of mortgage

The Budget-Mr. Hellyer financing is directly tied to the selling of insurance. This raises a very logical question. What possible connection has the selling of insurance with the need for residential housing? In addition, as my hon. friend and colleague from Spadina (Mr. Croll) outlined this afternoon, at the moment we are faced with the problem that the net return to financial institutions on N.H.A. loans, after charges for administration, is approximately 4J per cent.
These companies now find other equally or more attractive investments in the commercial field. This substantiates mere balance sheet decisions against National Housing Act loans. But I personally think that the insurance companies have a great moral responsibility not only to their policy holders but to the public at large; they have a trust to ensure and to preserve our way of life and to keep it worth fighting for.
There seems to be a widespread impression that mortgage financing is in the field of risk capital. I personally do not subscribe to this theory because I feel that in a stable economy investment in good, sound housing is not of a risk nature; it is not of a great risk nature, anyway. If we have another depression which is nearly comparable to the one experienced in the 1930's I believe we would have either a change of government or revolution; and probably in either case th# paper that the mortgage companies and the insurance companies held would not be worth much.
In a stable economy it would seem that the interest rate on residential mortgages is too high. Mr. Speaker, we fight wars with 3 per cent money and we fight the causes of wars with 51 per cent money. Is that a sensible thing to do?


Mr. Low:: No. It is nonsense.


Mr.   Johnsion@: This is the most sensible speech I have heard from the opposite side of the house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Next is the provincial aspect. Generally the provinces must co-operate fully with the municipalities in supplying serviced land and educational facilities. In many areas these fields have been left on the doorstep of the builders. I cannot see why the builders should have to shoulder the entire responsibilities of the municipalities and the provinces put together.
If I may mention my own province, may I say that in it there is a great field for educational aid. The cost of education to municipalities makes almost prohibitive the allowing of new subdivisions. Consequently the municipalities are doing everything in their power to restrict and to obstruct new


subdivisions for residential housing. They admit this fact quite openly. In the paper last week there was an article written of and subscribed to by the reeves of various municipalities in the greater Toronto area, stating that circumstances make it almost impossible for them to supply educational facilities for new residential subdivisions.
As a representative of a Toronto constituency I know hon. members will excuse me if I just touch on our own problem briefly in the course of my remarks.


Solon Earl Low: It is a typical problem.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have here a clipping from the Toronto Daily Star, dated Saturday, March 8, 1952. It is an article as a result of a speech made by a Conservative member of the provincial legislature. The member who was speaking was Mr. Harold Fishleigh, Progressive Conservative member for Woodbine, Toronto. He has this advice for our provincial government:
Appoint an official with authority to:
Acquire land immediately for 30,000 homes. Survey, prepare plans and register same. Let sewer and water contracts; build water works and pumping stations, plus primary schools.
Sell the land to builders at a fair profit and business frontage for as high a figure as can be obtained.
This would give 30,000 homes per year within two years at no loss to the province and give the outside municipalities a chance to obtain more industries on their land and get their affairs in order so they could revert back to installing the services and putting them on the tax rate.
I can offer to the premier of Ontario no better advice than that given by his own supporter. I think it is sound and factual. This procedure would, as Mr. Fishleigh has stated, increase the supply of housing, owing to the favourable conditions; and also-he did not mention this but I think it is almost beyond dispute-it would mean, if that land were sold at even a modest profit to the province, a saving of from $300 to $500 for each and every housing unit built on it. This saving would be passed on directly to the individual purchaser. The entire operation would be self-liquidating and would not cost the taxpayers a cent.
There is also the responsibility of the industry itself. In this connection there is vast room for improvement. I think the industry recognizes this fact and is doing everything that it can to co-operate in overcoming the problems.
First, there is the problem of building products. I have here a clipping from another Toronto newspaper of probably some authority, namely the Globe and Mail, of Monday, February 6, 1950, and which is headed "Sees Obsolete Methods Behind Housing Lack".


Mr. Fleming:: The hon. member said the date was 1950.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is what it says here. I do not know whether or not it is a typographical error. The article reads in part:
Antiquated building methods, lack of organization in the building industry, obsolete ways of manufacturing bricks and restrictive labour practices were cited as among the hitches in housing by two authorities last night.
One of the authorities was P. A. Deacon, Ontario chairman of the Community Planning Association of Canada, and the other was J. Louis Shannon, one of the Toronto controllers. These gentlemen are quite accurate in some of their observations. Even the bricks we use are not standardized. There are many different sizes and such a simple device as a storey rod so that all houses come out at the same level at the first storey is practically impossible because one type of brick runs you an inch higher and another type of brick runs you an inch lower, and standardization is impossible.
Builders in the United States are attempting to inaugurate and implement a system of modular construction; and I understand they are finding it quite successful in cutting the cost of production. I think we would be wise if we could follow their example in that respect. The whole industry needs streamlining. It needs a great deal more engineering. It is of course difficult for this to be done unless it can be provided with some sort of continuity. It is necessary to have a sufficient supply of mortgages to keep building operations more or less continuous. Otherwise the advantages derived from planning and engineering are lost in the muddle of jumping around and waiting for new mortgage finances. It also makes it difficult to maintain an adequate and competent staff. Trained people just do not like jobs in which you need them for a while and then do not need them for a while, where you do not need them for a few weeks, and vice versa, and back and forth. If the flow of mortgage financing was more or less continuous it would enable the industry to enlarge consistently for a few years and provide more capital, it would enable them to buy more and better equipment, to cut costs all the way along the line, and to take advantage of some of the elementary and basic principles of savings that are involved when one plans and co-ordinates production as is done in all manufacturing industries-as a matter of fact, in most industries outside of the house building industry.
The house building industry is probably one of the most inefficient remaining in our country today. One of the greatest single problems is the supposedly uncontrollable
The Budget-Mr. Hellyer factor of the weather. Winter building probably does more to disrupt continuity than anything else except the mortgages. It is a problem that I do not think is completely hopeless, but it does require very extensive research, and also a great deal of capital and very expensive equipment. I have some ideas on the subject which, from an engineering standpoint, I think are quite sound, but it would require a tremendous amount of capital to implement them, and the building industry, owing to the fact that it has had only a few good years, is still slowly emerging from the infant stage and is not yet financially capable of expensive capital outlay. It will take a while to reach the size where it can produce units efficiently the way other industries produce their product. However, there is hope in this field, and every effort should be made to continue the research and to take advantage of any constructive ideas.
Another problem in the house building industry is labour. The productivity of labour in the house building industry is very low. This is not entirely the fault of the workers. As a matter of fact it is probably not even largely their fault. I think that a great deal can be done in this regard, and especially through the medium of continuous building, and if possible year-round building. At the moment the building trades in the Toronto area are seeking very substantial wage increases. Perhaps they are being misled, not intentionally, but inadvertently. Much has been said in the last year about diminishing returns. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) found it only too true with his tobacco taxes. I think that the people engaged in the building trades will find it true this year if they are successful in obtaining the increases that are asked for.
They are going to proceed to price the industry out of the market even further, and it is almost priced out of the market now. It will be impossible to ask the mortgage companies to absorb the entire increase in costs in the mortgages, and it is reasonable to assume that the entire cost of increased wages will be reflected in the down payment, and this will tend to restrict even further the effective demand for housing, with the logical consequence that fewer houses will be built, fewer months will be worked, and on a yearly basis less income will be derived by the people engaged in the industry. It is possible that a few people working in the general construction side of the construction industry may benefit, those who have guaranteed year-round employment; but generally speaking, especially in the house building trades, where employment is of a seasonal nature, they may find that they

The Budget-Mr. Hellyer will have a smaller yearly return with the higher wage than they have at the present time, working more months of the year. This is a very old problem, the matter of short working periods among the building trades, an age-old problem, and it is one of the very difficult and seemingly insurmountable obstacles in the way of streamlining the industry.
It is not fair to take so much of the time of the house talking about housing without making some concrete suggestions. I have a few recommendations to make which fall largely into two classes: First of all, the short term, and second, the long term. In the short-term field I feel that the federal government should immediately increase its proportion of the joint loans from 25 per cent to 33J per cent. I am sure the Minister of Resources and Development will concur in that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If he were listening.


David Arnold Croll: He is.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: And also at the same time reduce the interest rate on the total loan by one half of one per cent, to four and a half per cent. I suppose an aside should not be brought into a discussion on housing, but the Minister of Finance is present tonight, and since this is an address on the budget I might just state very briefly my views on tampering with interest rates as a tool of combating inflation. I personally do not believe that raising interest rates on long-term mortgage contracts is a legitimate method of combating inflation. It is the only method that this government has used in their battle against inflationary pressures that I cannot support wholeheartedly and without any reservation. I think generally speaking they have done a magnificent job, second to none in the world. They have shown that inflation can be curbed by monetary and fiscal policies, but they have also proved to those who are interested in the subject that depressions also can be cured by applying the tools in reverse, and it rather refutes the arguments of some of our friends to the left that in order to have a consistently productive and acceptable economy we must have either a war or a rumour of war. I think that idea in future will be completely disintegrated, and it will become accepted that in a diversified economy it is possible so to control matters that the hills and valleys are levelled out pretty well to a reasonable plateau.
In this respect, I think the government is to be complimented. It has done a remarkably good job on its fiscal and monetary policy, but I think changing the interest rates is a little bit like correcting a school child

by slapping his ears to such an extent that he loses the use of his hearing. It is a longterm corrective. How do we know that ten years from now we will want thousands of contracts with a high interest rate? At the moment it may be expedient to have very high interest rates on mortgages, but what will it be like five years from now or ten years from now when these contracts are still in operation?
This is a subject which cannot adequately be dealt with as an aside in a discussion on housing, and consequently I will not elaborate on it, but I would love to sometime. I cannot agree with the raising of interest rates on long-term contracts, and consequently I propose that in addition to increasing the Central Mortgage proportion of the joint loan, the interest rate be reduced to what it was last year.
Second, I think the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should increase the differential of guarantee on long-term amortization to make it more attractive for the lending institutions to increase the amortization period. At the moment some difficulty, in fact substantial difficulty is being encountered in effective demand, owing to the fact that the people are not making enough money to carry the loans on new houses. If the amortization period could be increased to 25 years it would increase the number of prospective customers substantially, and I think would be very helpful. However, I can understand insurance companies being reluctant to do this unless there is an even greater differential in the guarantee.
Then, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could increase the differential of guarantee for outlying districts, such as North Bay. This would be helpful to the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland), who was so concerned about this problem

and rightly so.
Then, fourth, in cases where applications are turned down by lending institutions, and especially in outlying areas, I think Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should again make direct loans available to prospective purchasers.
Turning to long-term requirements: I think the greatest single hope of the building industry is the hope of becoming a greater industry so far as physical volume is concerned, an industry which would turn out more units per year, the year round, and consequently could take advantage of the efficiency to be achieved in that way. This would be real progress, and would be a real gain in wealth which could be passed on not only to the customers but also to the workers in the industry.

Secondly, I think a national conference should be held, or at least that it would be helpful, to discuss building codes and the standardization of materials. Building codes are antiquated. They vary from municipality to municipality, thus making it very difficult for a builder to carry on operations in four or five places at one time owing to the fact that in one place he is permitted to do one thing but is not permitted to do it in another, and vice versa. This makes uniformity and standardization most difficult. Any step taken in the direction of uniformity of standards in building codes, on a national level, would be most welcome. The same would apply to any discussion respecting the standardization of building materials, at the same level.
Such a conference might not accomplish a great deal; its progress might be slow. Those of us who are young, in particular, have to learn that progress is slow, and sometimes only piecemeal; but progress is sure if one keeps plugging at it. We must realize that building codes are not going to be made uniform- or standardized- overnight. Building materials cannot be standardized overnight. But progress can and should be made in that direction, so that the next generation will be able to reap the benefits from these tedious but consistent improvements.
In closing my remarks may I point out that in my view housing is a serious domestic problem, especially in the urban centres of our great country. Perhaps the only other comparable one is the necessity of retaining the purchasing power of our currency. If these suggestions are implemented they will aid in the development of a new generation of sturdy, self-reliant and responsible citizens who will take their place, as was said so eloquently this afternoon by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Murray), as our greatest national asset.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my warmest congratulations are extended to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Hellyer) on his most objective approach to a very serious problem, namely that of national housing.
This afternoon the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) made an excellent contribution *to the debate, and this evening the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) dealt with the same subject. From time to time others have laid emphasis upon the urgent necessity for an overhaul of the National Housing Act.
Speaking in the house on Thursday, May 1, my colleague, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), devoted considerable
The Budget-Mr. Shaw time to a discussion of this subject. He concluded his speech with this observation:
It seems to me that this government should introduce some legislation that would afford some protection of the money which the home builder has invested, and which would ensure that the money was properly spent.
It is our conviction that the minister has now heard sufficient hon. members within the house, and also he must have read sufficient criticism as it has appeared in the newspapers emanating from many parts of Canada, to cause him to take immediate action to see to it that appropriate amendments to the National Housing Act are brought before the house.
It is not my intention to devote much time to a discussion of this subject, more than to say that those of us in some of the smaller centres, because of the withdrawal of the lending institutions from so many of the smaller communities within Canada, have been greatly inconvenienced. In this way there have been taken away from the people of those communities benefits which would have accrued to them as a result of the National Housing Act.
May I emphasize that the time has long since passed when, through the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), the government should take appropriate and effective action to solve this mighty and serious problem.
The amendment offered by the Progressive Conservative party is in these words:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"the proposals of the Minister of Finance are unsatisfactory because they would continue to levy excessive and unjust taxation instead of assuring substantial tax reductions.
This house condemns the government for taxing far beyond actual requirements and for its waste and extravagance.
And this house regrets the failure of the government to assure efficient administration in all departments of the public service.
We of the Social Credit group agree with that amendment. It is true that in his budget address to the house the Minister of Finance indicated that there would be certain tax reductions. First of all, there was the tax reduction upon automobiles. The minister was told when that tax was increased-as it was increased some months ago-that there would be substantial hardship imposed upon many persons who found it absolutely essential to have automobiles in pursuing their normal activities of life. He has since learned; but I am wondering if he did not know a year ago, or if this action has not been the result of a lot of costly publicity in which the automotive dealers had to indulge in order
1892	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. Shaw to secure at least a measure of justice, or to remove a large measure of injustice.
It is also highly significant that only this day has the Minister of Finance deemed it advisable to remove credit restrictions upon purchases. I wonder, too, if it is not significant that that action was taken just at this time, instead of several months ago. I suggest it is highly significant that it is taken at this time, only four weeks away from the election date in a province from which the greatest objection came with respect to these unfair restrictions. I am speaking of the province of British Columbia.
It was also noted that the minister saw fit to reduce taxes on cigarettes. Was he not told a year ago exactly what would happen? Was he not warned that the law of diminishing returns would assert itself? Did he not realize the extent to which smuggling would be undertaken? Could he not have envisioned the tremendous cost, quite apart from the loss in revenue, which would accrue as a consequence of having to have our customs officers and our R.C.M.P. running back and forth across the country trying to apprehend smugglers when there was much more important work for them to do? Surely he must have realized that a year ago. We are not unmindful of the arguments which he advanced in connection with the previous budget and we realize now just how weak they were. I trust the Canadian people do also.
There is a reduction in the taxation upon electrical appliances. I believe it was the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdon-nell) who laid emphasis upon how unfair it had been to young people who had attempted to set up homes during the past year and who had suffered this heavy penalty as a consequence of paying this tax during the operation of one year. Talk about discrimination, there is an example par excellence.
I have been impressed by certain observations made by hon. members of this house during the course of the budget debate. I was struck by one observation made by the hon. member for Greenwood, I believe on the same evening the budget was brought down. He said that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) had made the Canadian people tax conscious-he certainly has done that- tax puzzled-it is not a day dream-and tax angry-which is a reality. All one has to do is to be in closer contact with the Canadian taxpayer than the Minister of Finance seems to be to realize just how true that observation is.
It has been emphasized by some hon. members during this debate that once more there has been discrimination against the


Canadian taxpayer who suffers from an extremely low income. We have again placed him in a position where tax reductions which he receives are on a percentage basis much less than the benefits extended to those in the higher income brackets.
My leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), referred to the disastrous effect which the government's tax policy is having upon farm and other types of production within this country. It has imposed upon the minds of our Canadian producers the fear that something disastrous may result as a consequence of producing to the optimum level. And this in the face of the fact that everywhere in Europe we find that persons are so much in need of the commodities which we are capable of producing. To me all this is not a bit surprising. It simply represents a continuation of unimaginative Liberal financial policy.
The other day I made a rough computation-actually it is not so rough-to ascertain if possible the net effect of the federal government budget upon the taxpayers of the provinces. It was quite natural and normal for me to think of the province of Alberta because that is the province whence I come. Figures were available only for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1951, and I find that during that fiscal year the federal government took out of my province the following amounts:
General income tax	 $40,780,457.98
Corporation tax	 22,587,274.85
Non-resident tax	 809,109.71
Gift tax	 110,028.30
Deferred tax	 4,837.60
Private companies tax	 4,697,480.43
Excess profits tax	 583,338.88
Succession duties	 1,839,098.54

That was a total for one year as far as those taxes were concerned. But let us consider the excise and customs duties. An estimate which has been computed as carefully as it is possible to compute it, and which I believe is on the conservative side, indicates that during the year there was taken from the taxpayers from my province through excise taxes and customs duties imposed by the federal government, a total of $105,285,714, making a grand total up to that point of $176,697,340.29.
Is that all? Certainly not. Through the devaluation of the Canadian dollar, which has resulted as a consequence of federal government fiscal policy, and based on the cost of living index for 1951 of 184-5, the people of my province lost through that devaluation a total of $391,500,000.


Solon Earl Low: Straight confiscation.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Outright and downright confiscation. I have mentioned the losses accruing as a result of the freight rates differential. My province is at the apex of the Canadian freight rates structure. The goods which we export, including our raw materials, must be quoted f.o.b. Halifax, Fort William, Toronto, Vancouver or some other place and then we must pay more for the manufactured goods imported into the province. All this as a consequence of the freight rates structure. Just to show how ridiculous that can be, let me tell you that certain goods manufactured in central Canada are shipped through to Vancouver, placed in warehouses and then shipped back to Calgary and Edmonton by local freight which is more costly than the transcontinental rate. That can be done more cheaply than to unload them at Calgary or Edmonton on their way west. What that costs us, heaven only knows, but it runs into hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
What have we lost as a consequence of the settlement of the British wheat agreement? That must run into tens of millions. Western Canadian farmers as a whole lost $376 million but a substantial part of that was borne by the farmers of my province.
I happen to represent a part of Alberta where a lot of feed grain is grown. The farmers of that area find it profitable to procure feeder livestock and feed the homegrown products. Last year the farmers in my district through two feeder associations bought $500,000 worth of feeder livestock at anywhere from thirty to thirty-four cents a pound. Then what happened? After feeding that livestock all winter the price was pegged at a figure which will gross them about twenty-two cents per pound. Those farmers have lost tens of thousands of dollars as a consequence of that action.
I have always maintained that that was something which could have been avoided had the government taken proper steps. The thing to do was to have called a conference of the provinces so that no such thing as a vicious embargo would be established by one province to keep out goods from a neighbouring province.
Sometimes we are told that we provinces- I am speaking now as though I were a province-should be most grateful for the subsidies and grants which the federal authority makes available to us. But in the case of my own province these subsidies, grants and payments for such things as irrigation and public buildings do not equal more than approximately 50 per cent of the taxes which were extracted from the people of that province by the federal authorities in
The Budget-Mr. Shaw the year 1951. That is without taking into account all these other losses which in some cases it was quite impossible to calculate. I sometimes wonder whether some of these federal grants are made to the provinces with the idea of helping them or is it with the idea of being able to try to claim credit for everything that is done by a province? I well recall that in 1949, after the federal government had undertaken to make grants for hospital construction under certain very specific and rigid conditions, and grants incidentally which in themselves would not build one hospital anywhere in Canada, the government came along at election time and said: Yes, you have lovely hospitals but we put up the money to make their construction possible.
As I say, I wonder sometimes whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) was actually concerned about health and welfare or was he more concerned about getting his toe in so that somebody else could claim credit for all that was done? We are grateful for these grants, certainly we are, but at the same time it seems to me that there should be a little reasonableness, a little more good sense, and some people ought to have their feet a little more solidly fixed on the floor before they make some of their utterances.


Mr. Byrne:: You have got yours in the clouds.


John Lambert Gibson: No more of that.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I do not mind interjections if they are made in such a tone of voice that it is possible to understand them. I am going to move on to something that I think is of practical concern to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson). We happen to come from a province where gas and oil have been found.


An hon. Member:: Gas especially.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I notice that you are clamouring for it though.


An hon. Member:: Not this kind.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Developments in the field of gas and oil have been tremendous and have been advantageous not only to -the province but to all Canada. Certainly at a time like this, with warnings coming from outside the country of threats hanging over us, nothing can give us more comfort than the knowledge that our oil -and gas development has been so phenomenal. What does annoy me, however, is what appears to me to be a deliberate effort on the part of some to injure the industry through deliberate misrepresentation. I am going to accuse the Liberals. I dare say there is not a Liberal member from

The Budget-Mr. Shaw British Columbia who would not support the export of gas from Alberta to British Columbia.


John Lambert Gibson: You have had our lumber.


Frederick Davis Shaw: That is quite all right. I appreciate that. I am merely asserting there is not a Liberal in this house who would not welcome the export of gas from Alberta to British Columbia.


John Lambert Gibson: Hear, hear.


Frederick Davis Shaw: All right. Then I say some of the Liberals from British Columbia should come into Alberta and try to convert their own Liberal leader in that province, a man who is doing more to prevent gas and oil export than any other single person I know. This house was told that the other evening by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Nickle), who certainly knows what he is talking about. It is a strange situation. The Liberal leader in Alberta, not being able to find a sensible election issue, is undertaking to concoct something relative to the oil and gas industry. As far as I am able to ascertain, federal Liberals outside of Alberta certainly do not agree with him. Take a paper like the Lethbridge Herald, a Liberal paper which supports the Liberal party in Alberta. It believes in the export of gas from Alberta. Let us take the Calgary Albertan. I do not think I should call it a Liberal paper although it has said that in the federal field at least it will support the Liberals. It takes strong issue with the Liberal leader in Alberta because of the damage he is doing to gas export from the province.
_ The attack first started last fall. At that time the accusation was that Albertans were being bled of their wealth by money powers outside of the province, and that the people of Alberta were not procuring a fair share of that asset. When that did not work the Liberal leader in that province swung to the other side of the pendulum and started attacking the export question. I know why he is doing it. It is because the leaders of farm organizations in Alberta have taken a position in opposition to the export of gas from that province, and therefore such an attitude appears to be politically popular. Conceivably some of the municipal councils have taken the same position, and there is the possibility that political support may be acquired from those quarters. I have an edi-:orial before me certain parts of which I am joing to read. They relate to the attacks which started last fall with respect to the >hare of gas and oil production which accrues :o the people of the province. I wish to refer o the Calgary Albertan of October 11, 1951. have quoted the first paragraph once before

but it consists of only four lines and I think it is an excellent paragraph with which to commence an editorial of this character. It reads:
It may not be our duty to keep cleaning up in the trail of Mr. Harper Prowse, but somebody's got to do it. The misinformation he spreads, the twisted ideas he leaves, cannot be left to clutter up public thinking indefinitely.


Mr. Johnston:: Is he the Liberal leader out there? You would almost think he was from Ottawa.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I sometimes think the Liberals out there wish he were not their leader. The editorial continues:
Once more, this time to a Lethbridge audience, the provincial Liberal leader has repeated the myth that the big foreign oil companies are fleecing Alberta of its rich resources with the connivance of the Alberta government. He says that countries like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela get up to 70 per cent of the oil wealth extracted by foreign companies, while the Alberta government is content with retaining on behalf of the people a measly 14 per cent. The figure for the other countries is up to 50 per cent, not 70, according to our information.
Mr. Prowse did not explain-or at least it was not mentioned in the report of his speech-that 50 per cent is paid on net profits and in Alberta it is 14 per cent of gross production. In other countries the government takes up to half of what is left after all expenses are paid, while Alberta takes one-seventh of everything and leaves the companies to pay all expenses out of the other six-sevenths.
The rest of the editorial is extremely enlightening, but I have read that part to show that in the light of the facts the charge that was made last fall, which it was thought would make an election issue, petered out. Now it is the question of export, and once again the Albertan comes along with a very effective editorial in their issue of April 30, 1952. Dealing with this matter it has this to say:
The Liberal party will concentrate on the gas export issue in the coming provincial election because it believes the voters can be stirred by it. It will stand unalterably opposed to export, now or ever. Most other issues will fade into the shadows of that one. The Lethbridge Herald supports the Liberal party on general principle. Yet it is also strongly in favour of gas export. We are looking forward to seeing how it can rationalize the contradictions. In its latest gas export editorial it tries to blame the government for public confusion and misinformation. It says the government should have come out frankly two or three years ago and explained why export would be good for the province. But instead of giving that leadership it has been "scared by the political angle," says the Herald.
It is true that the government should have been more forthright, and that the politics of it was frightening. But it must also be admitted that all along the government has been somewhat in advance of public opinion-
I feel I can classify this as a Liberal newspaper; and it goes on:
-and that no government could afford to become too far separated from what the public is thinking.
What the Herald glaringly omits to say is that Mr. Prowse and the Liberal party have been

responsible for circulating most of the misinformation. They have deliberately aroused public prejudice and fanned and fed it. They have created public alarm where none existed. They have misrepresented the issue obviously for none but political purposes and it must be admitted that they have had some success.


Solon Earl Low: A tempest in a teapot.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Right.


George Prudham: Would the hon. gentleman like another editorial to read? I will send one over.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Sure. If my time permits I will read them all. Of course I am going on the theory that the minister would not send it to me if it were going to help my case at all.
Finally, the people are beginning to see the fallacy of the Liberal party position and the unscrupulousness which underlies it. But things like that they have to see for themselves. Mr. Manning could not have forced it on them. In fact, if he had tried to move faster he might have made the Liberal case more plausible.
Then it refers to ambitious politicians and counter-appeals, and also to the very great damage which is being done as far as this extremely important industry is concerned. It also deals with the other equally important aspect of the industry, namely the provision of Alberta natural gas to British Columbia and other parts of Canada. The short concluding paragraph reads:
That's partly true. But let's not forget that the Leader of the Opposition plays a key part in public affairs, and to the extent that he perverts his responsibilities the business of government suffers. Let's put the blame where it really lies.
I am not going to take time to read the editorial the minister sent over to me, because it would occupy the remainder of my time. However, I thank him for sending it, and I extend an invitation to him to put it on record any time he sees fit. I will send it back. It is from the Calgary Herald, a Conservative newspaper. It it takes a position in opposition to the export policy of the government of Alberta it is also taking a position in opposition to one of its own Calgary members, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Nickle), who in the course of his speech the other night indicated that he supported the policy of the Alberta government as far as the export of gas was concerned. The hon. member said industry would still come into the province in order to obtain that commodity at the least possible cost.
As far as industry coming to the province is concerned, I would say that quite apart from gas we have not done too badly there. The cost of industrial plants completed or commenced last year in Alberta totalled approximately $65 million, while construction already approved for 1952 is in excess
The Budget-Mr. Shaw of $42 million. We have been getting industry out there, and we will continue to get it. Even though we make surplus gas available to other parts of Canada we will also obtain additional industry in western Canada -industry associated with the extraction of by-products from the gas that comes out of the ground in the several extremely important fields of Alberta.
As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, all Canadians should glory in the realization that we have such a gas and oil industry in Alberta, and in the years to come I believe we will have an equally important industry in the province of Saskatchewan. That is especially so at a time like this. If war should break out and oil from the Middle East be cut off, the gas and oil of western Canada could spell the difference between victory and defeat. So I deplore actions on the part of anyone, no matter what their purpose, if they result in impeding or perhaps actually destroying an extremely important industry. So I say to the Liberal members from British Columbia and other parts of Canada, if you want gas- and after all you will get gas from Alberta as our surplus becomes available-for heaven's sake come to my province and try to stop the tongues of those who are your worst enemies as far as obtaining gas is concerned; and once again I refer to your colleagues in the provincial field there.
I have practically exhausted my time.


George Prudham: Very good provincial election speech.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Someone says it is a good provincial election speech. I believe that was the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham). He has already gone into Alberta, where an election has not even been called, and delivered a speech which could be tagged as nothing but a provincial political speech. My understanding is that it went over as a free time broadcast, sponsored by the private radio broadcasting stations in Canada. That is a program which I always assumed was to be objective in character, and non-political. I had no intention of saying that, but the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys made his interjection and I could do nothing but answer it. He has already started the provincial campaign in Alberta, even though the election has not been called.


Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes I would like to take advantage of this debate to refer to a number of matters of interest to the people of Newfoundland. First I would like to say how pleased everybody must be with the announcement made this afternoon by the

The Budget-Mr. W. J. Browne Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). It was mentioned over the radio several times, and you could almost hear the people cheering. But this is only what we told the minister he should have done. When he put on the taxes last year we told him he was going to increase the cost of living. I remember a return brought down in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario (Mr. Hodgson) about the increase in the number of refrigerators being imported into the country. It rose from about 700 to a huge number, something over 100,000, because the excise tax had been increased to such an extent that it paid people to buy refrigerators imported from the United States.
That is the answer to the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) and the hon. member for Norquay (Mr. Wood), who have been complaining about the high duties. It was not the high duties that were keeping up the cost of goods in this country; it was the high taxes imposed by the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: May I ask the hon. member a question?


William Joseph Browne: Wait till I get started.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Just one short question. Has the hon. member noticed any difference in the prices of refrigerators and household appliances since the combines investigating committee sat last fall?


William Joseph Browne: I will be honest with the hon. gentleman and say I have not. I have not given any consideration to that aspect of it.


Mr. Sinnott:: And you are supposed to be an honest man.


William Joseph Browne: What is this? Are we going to have a free for all, or am I going to be permitted .to make a few remarks on this subject? It was not only in regard to the manufacture of automobiles, refrigerators, electric stoves and that sort of thing that high taxation had an effect. In my constituency there is a small industry run by a man whose father before him was engaged in the business of manufacturing trunks. In many of the outport settlements of Newfoundland people use trunks as wardrobes of a sort, in which they keep their belongings. People buy trunks and keep their good things stored in them. Before I came here for the session this gentleman came to me and pleaded almost with tears in his eyes for me to try to get our Minister of Finance to do something about taking off the taxes. He did not mind the sales tax so much, but this heavy excise tax was putting him out of [Mr. Browne (St. John's West).!
business. He had been in that business all his life, since returning from the first world war, and his father had been at it before him. All my life I can remember seeing that little industry, which now was declining. I am glad to know the minister has at last seen the folly of his taxation policy of last year, and that he has been able to answer the question asked by his parliamentary assistant, and to see that his parliamentary assistant was not quite so sure as he felt himself to be when he asked in the House of Commons here a short time ago, after criticizing the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming): "Where, O where, is there any country whatsoever with a sounder economic position than that of Canada?"
I am glad to see that the hon. gentleman has returned to the house.


Mr. Thatcher:: It is about time.


William Joseph Browne: I do not
know whether his attention has been drawn to the editorial in the Post-Record published in Sydney, for April 25, entitled "Beating Around the Bush," in which the statements made by the hon. gentleman are criticized, in my opinion, roundly and soundly.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: And fairly.


William Joseph Browne: Yes, of course.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think it is in accord with our procedure for an hon. member to read in the house statements that are made outside the house for the purpose of reflecting on statements made inside the house.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker,
I do not approve of reading such statements, and I was not reading this article. I was just holding it in my hand.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Joseph Browne: As I always do, I was going to try to give the gist of the criticism which the hon. gentleman's opinions, expressed so nobly and so boldly here, have aroused throughout the country. The hon. gentleman knows that this is a rich and wealthy country and, if he comes to analyse the prognostications of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) for last year, I do not think that he can compliment him on the accuracy of his forecast. A man who budgets for $30 million surplus and ends up with nearly a billion, who does not know what to do with it and has to stow away $300 million or $400 million, cannot deserve much credit for accuracy at any rate. This country is a marvellous one. Everyone knows that. But how much better would it be if it had a better government!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. McCann:: Question mark.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And soon.


Mr. Sinclair:: Bring back R. B. Bennett! Those were the days!


William Joseph Browne: I have the floor, Mr. Speaker. If hon. gentlemen are interested in this subject, they can continue discussing it after I have finished. If we had as Minister of Finance a man of the type of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Maodonnell)-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: What a tragedy!


William Joseph Browne: In that event there would be some reason for the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) asking the question which he asked rhetorically here a little while ago.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: What a tragedy that would be!


William Joseph Browne: We have been under severe taxation. The burden of taxation on the people is too great. Everywhere you go, everyone is talking about the same thing: the cost of living is too high and taxation is too high. It must be too high when the minister is able to show such an enormous surplus as that which he had this year. I suppose in no other country in the world has such a surplus been obtained from taxes taken from the people-


James Sinclair: No country in the world has had better times. We have had good times.


William Joseph Browne: -when the government did not need it for the purpose of meeting the expenditures of this country. The minister may smile in the comfort of the government benches, but the people in the country are not smiling. The people who have to pay the taxes are not smiling. Taxes are far heavier than the people are able to bear. The people are groaning under the weight of taxation which the minister has put on them with such enthusiasm.


James Sinclair: In times of best employment ind best incomes.


William Joseph Browne: He has
reduced to some extent and eased the restrictions which he put on credit last year. In that way he will have compensated somewhat for the errors he made in his previous budget.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I suppose the hon. gentleman is content for the people to go on paying $62 million in interest for the next generation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What does the hon. member know about the next generation?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You would be surprised.
The Budget-Mr. W. J. Browne


William Joseph Browne: I now want to refer to another subject; it is one in which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is interested. I want to refer to railway matters in Newfoundland. In that tenth province we have a main railway line which extends about 545 miles in a semicircle from Port aux Basques to St. John's. It is a narrow-gauge railway and it now has to face the colossal task of handling the increased trade with Canada that has developed since the act of union in 1949. By that union between Canada and Newfoundland, most of the import trade which we had with the United Kingdom and with the United States has been diverted, and most of the imports of Newfoundland are now coming from Canada. The railway is groaning under the task, and is not able to carry the load; it is not able to keep up with the traffic. A piece of goods-for instance, a refrigerator or a boiler or something like that-shipped from Ottawa takes six to eight weeks to get to St. John's. Is the government being fair to Newfoundland if it is not going to give any better service than that? Even an express package takes from seven to ten days to reach St. John's from Ottawa. A person travelling on the railways can generally get there in four days. Seven to ten days is not the right time for an express package to take to get there. Freight has to wait for seven weeks, and I think that is far too long. In fact, I wonder if the railway will ever be able to bear the traffic as it is today. Will it be able to do so?
The minister knows that there is a bottleneck at Sydney. I know that great works are being undertaken to improve the facilities at the two terminals, namely at North Sydney and at Port aux Basques. Please God that in another three or four years we shall have in service across the straits a ferry which will be able to handle the passenger traffic at its peak, and also able to carry most of the freight and to accommodate tourists with their cars in the summertime. But it is going to be at least three years before that ferry will be in operation. Construction has been delayed. It has only just started now, and the people cannot expect much relief in that direction until that time at least.
So bad is the situation that I wonder if it would not be a good idea for the government to give consideration to the question of building a wide-gauge railway across Newfoundland. It is the only part of the main line of the Canadian National Railways in the country which now is left with this narrow gauge. The government had to build a wide-gauge railway in Prince Edward Island in order to accommodate the traffic. Why should it not do so in Newfoundland? Further than
1898	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. W. J. Browne that, I have heard the suggestion made that it might perhaps be feasible to convert part of the railway line into a highroad and use diesel-operated trucks to carry the freight. In any event, the responsibility is on the minister and he must find some way of solving this problem of improving the means for the transit of goods to Newfoundland, especially to St. John's.
A copy of the Fundy Fisherman was sent to me the other day. I am not quite sure who owns it or who is interested in it, but I suspect it is either a Liberal senator or a Liberal member of the House of Commons. In it there is an article dealing with Newfoundland, and in which reference is made to the expectations which the people of Newfoundland had when they came into union with Canada in 1949. The writer of the article in that paper says that the people have reason to complain, that they have a just grievance, in that they are not being treated as they should have been treated. The writer thinks that Newfoundland's public facilities, especially with regard to telephone communication, should be brought on a par with those in other parts of Canada. He points out-as have both my colleague the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) and I in this house-that Newfoundland had a small debt in 1949. It was insignificant when compared with the public debt that was being carried by the people of Canada. It was only about one-seventh of the public debt borne by the people of Canada. This article goes on to say that Newfoundland therefore should have its public facilities improved to a great extent in order to compensate for the increased debt which they have been compelled to bear.
It is quite obvious that the public facilities which we must have down there are better wharves, breakwaters, and various other things to facilitate trade and the natural industries of the country.
I must compliment the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Riley) on the fine speech he made in favour of improving the port facilities in the harbour of Saint John, New Brunswick. This spring the board of trade of Saint John, New Brunswick, circularized those members who had visited Saint John last year, and pointed out that the port facilities, although it is a national harbour, were not able to accommodate the steamers coming in there-that they had to wait outside the port for a chance to get a berth at the docks. It is a national harbour, and if the facilities are not good enough it seems to me the government should do something about it.


The Daily News of St. John's points out in its editorial of April 24 that the facilities in St. John's, Newfoundland, ought to be improved similarly; that it ought to become a national harbour. Most of the trade is carried on through St. John's; it is the capital of the province; it is a city of nearly 70,000 people. The principal imports have to go through there, and the exports have to pass through there on the way out. The government ought to give consideration to making it a national harbour. In addition, the article goes on to show that it is important from a strategic point of view. During the second world war many naval ships, British, United States, Free French, Canadian and other allied shipping, were constantly using the port, and yet the facilities are not what they should be, although they received great improvement during the war.
I now wish to pass on to another subject, sir, namely that of housing. I want to compliment the minister responsible for the valuable work he did in connection with slum clearing in the city of St. John's and the 140 units which were constructed there during the past couple of years. It is undoubtedly a great improvement, and I am sure that the people who have benefited by that construction appreciate it very much. I am glad to see that a contract has now been let for about 140 more units to be constructed in the city of St. John's.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Under a Liberal government.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In spite of it.


William Joseph Browne: I want to draw the attention of the house to another serious matter-I think I have done so before. I do not know how much it concerns people living in other provinces, but it seems to me regrettable and something that must be repaired, that in the small settlements throughout Newfoundland none of these housing loans or any part of the housing policy reaches them. A man living in a place like Portugal Cove South, near Cape Race, is in this position. I was in his house this past summer and I asked him how he liked living in a place like Portugal Cove South, which is about 90 miles from the city of St. John's. In the winter the roads are usually blocked. There is no communication by road or by steamer with the city, and they are there for the winter. He said: "Well, I am a fisherman; I have lived here all my life and I would like to stay here, but my wife, she's not so keen on it". They had a fine new house, but all the houses in this settlement are a good distance apart. Usually a man has his house built with a garden in front, and then he has his bam and fields for hay and that

sort of thing, and pasture behind, and a hundred feet away there is another house and so on. But they are not laid out under any regulations. Houses of that type are the most numerous ones in Newfoundland. None of them has received one cent of all the moneys that have been poured out or guaranteed by the federal government.
The minister may be interested to know that the provincial government has just introduced a bill to create community councils in settlements that have no town council. They are not big enough for a town council, but they are going to form community councils. I have been one who has criticized the provincial government very frequently when I disagreed with them. Here is something for which I must compliment them. If they are responsible for introducing that piece of legislation then I tell them they are doing one of the best things that they have ever done.
As the minister must be aware, I am sure, one of the first and fundamental things contained in the report of Lord Durham a hundred years ago when he investigated conditions in Canada was that people were going into parliament with not even the experience of having served on town councils, because no such things as town councils then existed. He recommended as the first step in the development of responsible government the creation of a system of councils. Unfortunately we have never been able to develop them sufficiently in Newfoundland. I remember years ago when I had the honour of being in the government, in 1932 or 1933, drafting a bill to form town councils but the commission of government which came in a year or so afterwards did not implement it as it should have done. But a number of small towns were incorporated, and this new bill is going to create a corporate responsibility in a large number of settlements. I hope that when these community councils are set up the minister will give consideration to granting them assistance for the improvement of housing in the small settlements. It is a matter of great concern. I am sure it must have existed in many places in Canada, and still exists, that these houses are often without a regular water supply. They depend upon wells, and they have no sewerage facilities and no form of central heating system. It seems to me that these three things are vital and ought to be introduced and ought to be in the possession of every family throughout Canada. We cannot say that sound housing is possible until these facilities are available.
I remember the late President Roosevelt of the United States taking great credit for 55704-120J
The Budget-Mr. W. J. Browne the rural electrification of the state of Ohio and of other states through his electrification schemes. Well, it seems to me too that in Newfoundland, where we have such a large water supply, electricity could be a great help in that respect. I think loans should be made available to those fishermen who work so hard, deserve such consideration, and get very little. Very few of them can benefit from this wise and prudent policy of the government.
We have just heard an address by an hon. member who represents a Toronto constituency. But I am speaking tonight on behalf of those who do not live in cities and who cannot easily get accommodation when they are looking for a loan to improve their homes. Therefore they must wait even for years before they can get married, because every nail and every piece of timber or every improvement that goes into the home must be paid for in advance. A friend of mine who lives down there has been two or three years building his home. He is waiting to get the home built before he can get married. He is an industrious man. I do not think it is fair to him. The loans are available to people who live in cities. He is a good citizen, an industrious man and he has to pay for everything in cash. He has not the benefit of that accommodation. Therefore I hope that the minister will give consideration to these points I have raised.
I want to refer to another subject that has always been dear to my heart in regard to Newfoundland. I refer to the question of agriculture. This year in Newfoundland potatoes are reaching the highest price in the history of the island. I think they are reaching the highest price in the history of Canada. Anyway, they cost about 50 cents a gallon in the city of St. John's today. I think that is too much for potatoes. Our people cannot afford to pay that. There is something wrong with our Department of Agriculture, which neglected last year to see the general over-all picture when not enough potatoes were planted. The year before I remember the late member for Victoria-Carleton talking about a floor price for potatoes. Now in Newfoundland they have to put a ceiling on to keep them from going too high in price. What sort of an industry is it when it fluctuates like that? Is that the best type of fiscal policy, or agricultural policy, that we can have-a policy where, in one year, an industry is depressed right down to the bottom, while in the next year no one grows potatoes, with the result that people have to pay enormous prices for them?
I do not hear people in this city of Ottawa talking about the price of potatoes. But in
1900	HOUSE OF
The Budget-Mr. W.J. Browne Newfoundland potatoes are a staple diet. Someone told me yesterday that the government is considering importing potatoes from the United Kingdom. I certainly hope they do, if they can be obtained cheaper, and offered at a cheaper price to the people than the price at which the small supply of potatoes now available is being offered.
The hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) points out to me that potatoes are coming in from the state of Maine. They have always come from Maine, because it is just across the river from New Brunswick. There has been a constant sale of potatoes right here in Ottawa, from the state of Maine.
I remember that in 1932 we bought potatoes in the United Kingdom, some very fine strains indeed. There were the Aran Banner, the Aran Victory and Kerr's Pinks, which the people still grow in Newfoundland. Those potatoes were rot-free and canker-free, and they gave splendid results. In those dreadful years during the depression, the government, of which I was then a member, imported 30,000 or 40,000 barrels of potatoes and gave them to the people to plant. And it was a good thing we did, because by so doing we provided them with a substantial stock of potatoes to carry them through the winter, and to provide them with seed. These strains have been carried on ever since, with the result that in a year when the blight struck most potatoes, those particular ones were free from blight, and therefore were a great help to the bulk of the people who were depending upon them.
I notice that in the report for 1951 there is reference to the setting up of an agricultural experimental station. I went to see that station in St. John's, and I have nothing but the highest praise for the work being done there. But that is not enough; we want more than one experimental station in Newfoundland. I believe there are more than 120 in Canada; but I do not think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is taking his responsibilities in regard to Newfoundland seriously enough. On an earlier occasion I asked him to give consideration to the setting up of more experimental stations in Newfoundland so as to demonstrate to the people in the different parts of Newfoundland the type of vegetables that can be grown to the greatest advantage. They could be grown in greater quantities, and in this way increase the amount of produce the people could obtain from their own area.
There is a great amount of trade going on. Wealthy manufacturers are producing large quantities of iron ore from Bell island


and from Buchans. We have the greatest pulp and paper industry in the world at Corner Brook and at Grand Falls. We are sending out large amounts of exports of this kind and bringing in a lot of money. But when that money comes in, what do the people have to do? They have to send up to Canada for anything they need. I do not think that is a good condition, when so much they 'need could be produced in Newfoundland. I do not think any hon. members, including those in the government, would want to see us bringing everything over that narrow-gauge railway, which is about seven weeks behind time in the delivery of goods.
The Minister of Agriculture should give consideration to the setting-up of more experimental stations, and he should consider more carefully the situation of agriculture in Newfoundland. I know the minister is deeply concerned with affairs in his own province at the present time, due to the foot-and-mouth disease, over which he had no control. I know he is very much concerned with that. But, apart from that he has not given the proper consideration he should have given to the development of agriculture in Newfoundland. I must appeal to him again, as I have appealed to him before, to get his men busy setting up more experimental stations down there, with a view to improving the condition. Newfoundland has great possibilities. _ I know it can produce all the potatoes it needs, because I have studied the matter for years, and have compared imports with the amount required by the people. I know that in some years the total imports have amounted to no more than 50,000 bushels, which is only about 16,000 barrels; and I know that the total production of the country was nearly three quarters of a million barrels. Potatoes are a vital product, so far as the people of Newfoundland are concerned.
Finally, I wish to make reference to the fisheries in Newfoundland. As we all know, fishing is an important industry today in Canada. Through the acquisition of Newfoundland, Canada can now claim to be the greatest fishing country in the world. I know the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) has expressed great interest in the matter. I read an article recently in the Fundy Fisherman, taken from the Liberal Advocate. It was written by the minister, who makes reference to various aspects of the fisheries. This spring when I asked him if a date had been set for the killing of seals, he admitted that he should have known but said that he did not know. I suggest there are certain features in connection with the sealing industry he ought to look into. I am glad

to know that a date was agreed upon between the Norwegian interests and the interests in our country in regard to the date of killing seals. This is a very important factor in the sealing industry.
Last year the situation was disastrous because there had been no convention, with the result that the seals were killed when they were very young and had not reached a prime condition. Therefore although a ship might bring in 100,000 seals, or 40,000 seals, they would weigh only a few pounds each. On the other hand if they had waited several days, in the light of the fact that a seal increases its weight at the rate of two pounds a day, the seals would have been much heavier in weight and the results would have been more profitable to all concerned.
This year I spoke to the captain of the first arrival, The Arctic Sealer-Captain Hill- who is a very experienced sealing captain, and he asked me to draw the attention of the minister to the desirability of protection for certain kinds of seals. There is a seal which is a breeder seal, and which should not be killed. It should be protected for a certain number of years so that the future of the herds may also be protected. I believe it is the Bedlamer seal to which he was referring. Perhaps the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Bradley) would confirm what I say in this respect.
I suggest the Minister of Fisheries should give consideration to this point. In the article in the Fundy Fisherman the minister pointed out that the government was always giving consideration to the matter of protecting the fisheries. Through an error in the article- and I am sure it must be an error-there is a statement that these fisheries are inexhaustible. I think it should have said that these fisheries are not inexhaustible, and that therefore they must have protection, and that if they are not properly protected they will become exhausted. Certainly if they are not protected they will become seriously depleted, and the industry would suffer.
We know that salmon fishing is a very profitable industry in British Columbia. It is important also in Newfoundland. Fishermen catch salmon and sell it fresh. They also put it in tierces and sell it in a pickled condition. In addition to that, salmon fishing is a great attraction to the tourist. Many Americans come down there in the summer months and fish our rivers for salmon. I have been a rod and fly salmon fisherman for many years and I regret that our rivers are becoming very bad. During the last twenty-five or thirty years I have seen a tremendous difference in our rivers. Too much wood has been cut along the banks and when we have rain or snow there are not sufficient trees to hold
The Budget-Mr. W. J. Browne back the moisture so that it can flow gradually into the river. The result is that the water runs off quickly and we have floods which wash away the spawning beds. And then quite often a drought will follow and the river becomes low and the fishing is no good. The salmon have trouble getting up and those that do get up die off.
I know that the minister is talking of facts when he speaks of the assistance which has been given in connection with the development of salmon hatcheries and the building of fish ladders and that sort of thing in British Columbia, but he has not done very much in that respect in Newfoundland. I must ask him that he do something about this because it is a pity that our salmon rivers are becoming depleted and are less attractive at a time when we were hoping to profit so much from them.
I am glad to note that we are getting more plants in Newfoundland to preserve codfish in the fresh state and that our United States markets still continue to be profitable. That market is capable of further exploitation. A good deal of fish is sent to different parts of Canada. I am glad to note that at Fermeuse in my own constituency a new plant will go into operation within three or four weeks. The manager of that plant has written to me complaining that he must send forty or fifty miles to get a customs officer in order to enter and clear vessels as that port is not yet a port of entry. I am sure the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) will give consideration to a reasonable request that a customs post be established in that settlement.
In order that the earnings of the fisherman may be constant he needs a constant supply of bait. Nothing is more important to our fisheries than the provision of bait depots. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) seems to be a rather timid person and not as generous in supplying bait depots as the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) in the building of breakwaters and wharves. I am very glad to note that in the constituency of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert two large breakwaters are to be constructed, one at Chance Harbour and one at Lorneville in the constituency. I noted an article in the Fundy Fisherman referring to a meeting attended by the hon. member at which they passed a vote of thanks for his attendance. I think he deserved it for getting two breakwaters, one costing $200,000 and the other costing $280,000.
I am sure that both those places are important and that the breakwaters will be most useful, but that total of nearly half a million dollars would construct about eight bait depots. When I write to the Minister of
1902	HOUSE OF
The Budget

Mr. W. J. Browne Fisheries about bait depots he always replies that there is not as much fish caught this year as was caught last year and that there was not as much caught last year as was caught the year before, and so on. He comes back with figures and I must admit that perhaps he is right. There was not as much fish caught this year and there will not be as much caught next year because the people are leaving these settlements. They cannot catch fish unless there is a regular supply of bait.
There is a method of catching codfish known as trawling. This consists of a long line with hooks placed every five or ten feet, the hooks themselves being suspended on lines about four feet long. A trawl might be half a mile long or a long line may be four, five or ten miles long. As every hook is baited you can imagine the amount of bait necessary to bait all the hooks on a line ten miles long when you have a hook every four or five feet. They must have a regular supply of bait. It is most important that the fishermen of Newfoundland should have more bait depots, or if that cannot be done there should be holding depots, places where a supply of bait is readily available to them to prosecute their fishing.
Although the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) has many arduous duties to perform he has riot lost interest in the fishermen. Recently he made a broadcast which brought forth a blast of withering scorn from the minister of fisheries of Newfoundland. I do not propose to intervene in this interesting argument between the Secretary of State and the provincial minister of fisheries, but the Evening Telegram of recent date took up the cudgels on behalf of the Secretary of State.
In an editorial they quoted with approval what appeared to me to be extracts from that radio address by the minister. I am not sure how far I can go quoting these, but reference is made to profits of around $10,000. I was interested in finding out the results of the experiments advocated by the Secretary of State and on March 19 I asked certain questions in this connection which were answered by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacNaught). The questions which I asked appear on page 585 of Hansard of that date and were as follows:
1.	What has been the cost since its commencement of the long liner experiments in the Newfoundland cod fishing?
2.	What has been the revenue received from the same?
3.	What boats have been operating during the past year, and what boats are operating now?
4.	What number make up the crew on each boat, and who is the captain of each?


Here are the answers by the parliamentary assistant:
The information as to longlining experiments carried out by the federal government in Newfoundland is as follows:
1.	$40,181.24.
2.	$3,280.98.
3 and 4.
		No. of	
Year	Name of Boat	crew	Captain1951	O Johnny O	.... 3	R. W. DeckerMiss Osborne 	.... 4	East Wind	Gordon HemeonEdward Humby ...	1952	Edward Humby ...	.... 4	Gordon Hemeon
That answer differs considerably from the statements which appear in this editorial. I should like the Secretary of State, who has been among the first to advocate these long liner experiments, to explain the discrepancy between the figures referred to in the editorial and those given in the answer by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


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


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired. Had my pair been here he would have voted with me, and that would have been two more votes for the amendment.


Mr. McCubbin:: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


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


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that I will not win any popularity prize by delaying the taking of the vote on the main motion, but I will try to finish in time to have that vote taken before eleven o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I draw the attention of hon. members to citation 467 of Beauchesne's third edition:
Whenever an order of the day has been read for the house to resolve itself into the committee of supply or the committee of ways and means, the motion "that the Speaker do now leave the chair" must be proposed, except on Thursday and Friday as provided by standing order 28. When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any
The Budget-Division
grievance, and it is not necessary to move an amendment for that purpose; provided that the discussion and the amendment, if one is moved, shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session-
And so on. Then I would refer hon. members to the latter part of citation 345:
Members may discuss various matters on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair without any amendment being proposed; but once debate is stopped on one matter and another matter intervenes, members cannot again discuss the former.
It seems to me that almost every matter which could be discussed has been discussed on the amendment and subamendment, and I do not think it would be in order to revive a discussion on matters which have already been discussed. If the hon. member is discussing something new I think it would be in order for him to do so; but if it is a matter which has already been discussed it seems to me, from the citations I have read, that it would not be in order.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: In view of the fact that it is ten minutes to eleven I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



VETERANS BENEFIT ACT


Hugues Lapointe: the second reading of Bill No. 182, to amend the Veterans Benefit Act, 1951.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is this bill being referred to the committee on veterans affairs?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: It is being referred to the committee right now.


Hugues Lapointe: That Bill No. 182, to amend the Veterans Benefit Act, 1951, be referred to the special committee on veterans affairs.
Motion agreed to and bill referred to the special committee on veterans affairs.



VETERANS INSURANCE ACT


Hugues Lapointe: the second reading of Bill No. 183, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act.

Veterans Insurance Act


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


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, it r nearly eleven o'clock. I know there are some hon. members who wish to have some discussion on this bill. I would therefore move the adjournment of the debate.


Hugues Lapointe: Can we not have the discussion in the committee?
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Tomorrow we shall take up first Bill No. 183, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act; that is the bill on which the debate has
just been adjourned. Then we shall take up Bill No. 184, to amend the Pension Act; the resolution to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act; Bill No. 181, respecting allowances for war veterans and their dependents. There are also three resolutions under the name of the Minister of Transport which we shall take up, one respecting the construction of a railway line from Terrace to Kitimat, one respecting the New Westminster harbour commissioners, and one to amend the Aeronautics Act; and also Bill No. 9, respecting the appointment of auditors for the national railways. If we had time left, we would take up the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour, which is No. 6 on today's order paper.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Tuesday, May 6, 1952 COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
Third report of sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.-Mr. Cleaver,

[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse) presented the first report of the standing committee on public accounts, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State) moved:: That the report from the civil service commission respecting certain employees of the House of Commons, tabled on April 21, 1952, be approved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Ludwik Bul-kiewicz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Jean Betton Harris.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Violet Mary Bailey Black.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 189, for the relief of Corinne Laroc-que Sergent.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of Omer Mont-petit.-Mr. Winkler.


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I beg leave to table the report of the Ontario health survey committee.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in a position now to reply to a question
I asked him concerning employment of United States workers in some of the very large projects under way in British Columbia?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: At the same time that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra drew this to my attention I also received letters from the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) and several other members from the province of British Columbia. I have since received rather lengthy reports from four or five companies against which there have been some complaints. Without putting them on Hansard in full, I should be glad to show them to any hon. members who would care to come to see them.
I might state briefly, however, that this is the situation:
The Northern Construction Company employs 2,000 Canadian workmen, and seven United States citizens. These seven United States citizens consist of one project manager, three superintendents, one tunnel walker, and two civil engineers.
The Mannix Company Limited have ten United States citizens and 1,130 Canadian employees. Of the ten United States citizens there are one project manager, two superintendents, one assistant superintendent, three foremen, two construction machine operators, and one general office manager.
The Morrison Knudsen Company have 3,100 Canadian employees and 99 American personnel. Then there follows a long list of this personnel.
In general the policy is to admit skilled foremen, and the like, who are permanent employees of these construction companies. I am informed by the companies that they have some difficulty inducing these people to come to Canada to supervise the work because they say that wages are higher in the United States than they can obtain in Canada. Nevertheless we do grant temporary entry to those who, it would appear, could be used to advantage in construction work and thus give employment to Canadians engaged in that work. At the same time it is not the policy of the government to admit persons unless they have a real contribution to make.
The personnel representatives of the companies have been in touch with this department and with the Department of

Inquiries of the Ministry Labour. They are most anxious to co-operate and to secure their requirements through the national employment service.
As I said, I shall be glad to show these reports to any member wishing to see them.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister be willing to table those reports? I would urge upon him the necessity of his department, as well as the Department of Labour, keeping a close check in the matter.


Walter Edward Harris: We do keep a close check. As I said, the figures indicate the situation. The reports are prepared by these companies, and I would prefer not to table them at least until they are checked.



FUR SEALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is consideration being given to Japan's claim to the restoration of that country's share in the Alaska fur seal catch and treaty? If so, to what extent will this affect the proportion of the skins that Canada now receives, and has the United States government been acquainted with the matter?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: I would prefer to take the hon. member's question as notice, and to answer it tomorrow.

On the orders of the day:


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I should like to refer again to the question asked by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure). I left the impression that he had not given me notice of his question, but the fact is that he did give notice. Unfortunately I did not get it until after he had asked the question.



TELECOMMUNICATION

[Stage Direction]
newfoundland-radiotelephone service

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Joseph Browne: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport, of which I have given notice. Can he tell us if any steps have been taken to bring about an improvement and a reduction of costs in connection with telephone communications with Newfoundland?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I thank the hon. member for advising


me of his intention to ask the question. The answer is as follows:
Under normal propagation conditions the quality of radiotelephone service with Newfoundland is very good. However, as a result of a deterioration in radio communication generally during recent months the service has not been up to its usual standard of quality, in spite of every conceivable effort by the engineers of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation to effect improvement.
The situation is being watched very carefully and the corporation will continue to exert every effort to overcome the difficulties.
The corporation was prepared to consider a reduction in the tariff, but negotiations were still under way in respect of a financial settlement with the Canadian Marconi for their franchise, so it was considered unwise to disturb the rate structure. The settlement referred to was completed last week, and the corporation is taking steps immediately to initiate negotiations aimed at effecting a downward revision in the existing rates.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) if any representations have been received by him or his department to the effect that old age pension cheques are not bilingual. If so, what does he intend to do about it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of his question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Among the recommendations or representations received was one made recently by the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene). I can only add, with regard to the second part of the question, that the matter is under continuous study.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melforl):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Have any reports been received by the minister, or others in his department responsible for checking, a-s to whether fair prices are being paid to producers based on the prevailing floors under beef, pork, eggs and



6, 19S2

[Stage Direction]
butter? Have any complaints been received from producers or producer organizations with regard to prices being paid to them for these products? I am sorry I did not have an opportunity to give notice of my question. If the minister is not prepared to answer today, I shall be content to have the question stand until tomorrow.
James Garfield Gardiner: So far as the purchase of cattle and hogs is concerned, there is, as the house knows, a board that was set up under an arrangement with the provinces. That board is composed of some seven persons, and there is an advisory committee. The board is arranging for the marketing of hogs and cattle.
They are of course constantly receiving messages from people in different parts of Canada, some of which might be considered as complaints, but others of which might be considered as advice to the board. Occasionally when people are not able to get a satisfactory answer from the board they do wire or write to me. As a matter of fact I received three or four communications today. Those matters are dealt with either by telephone or by wire, as soon as the messages come. They are being constantly dealt with.
So far as eggs are concerned, there have been messages to the effect that there is not a satisfactory situation. I have a delegation coming in tomorrow from British Columbia to discuss the question with me.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has the minister been informed that the buying price for good steers at Saskatoon is approximately $17 per hundredweight? If so, what steps is the department taking to see to it that the price paid is the floor price of $22.80.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not had that information; but there are difficulties in Saskatchewan owing to the great publicity that is being given to the fact that we have foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan, which seems to have convinced many people that we have it all over Saskatchewan. We receive objections from every province in Canada to taking any cattle from Saskatchewan. We even have objections from other countries to taking any beef that comes from Saskatchewan. Of course we all know that the foot-and-mouth disease area is only about 50 miles' square, and that even with the buffer area included it is not more than 100 miles square. In other words, it is a
Inquiries of the Ministry very small part of Saskatchewan. There is no safer place, in Canada or anywhere else in the world, from which to get beef than from the part of Saskatchewan which is outside that area, because it is entirely covered by veterinarians who are checking it every day. And that is the only part of Canada that is. Therefore there is no danger in taking beef from there.
People seem to have the idea that we are. having the same trouble everywhere in Saskatchewan. As a matter of fact we are trying at the present time to open up a packing plant that has not been used for packing-plant purposes, in general, in the southwest part of the province, in order to take care of the cattle there that we cannot get to any market at present.



CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance, of which I have given verbal notice. Now that the minister has announced the suspension of consumer credit regulations, is it the intention of the government to take similar action with respect to deferred depreciation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No consideration has yet been given to any amendment of these regulations.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour to take a look at sessional paper 75, which was tabled yesterday in response to a motion passed by the house calling for the tabling of circular letters 18 and 19 of the unemployment insurance commission. The return that was tabled includes circular letter 18, but not circular letter 19, although there is a note which I would like the minister to study. If there is something that corresponds to circular letter 19 I hope that consideration will be given to tabling it as was ordered yesterday by the house.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I shall look into the matter.
1908

Veterans Insurance Act URANIUM



EXTENSION OF GUARANTEE PERIOD FOR PURCHASE IN ORES AND CONCENTRATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: I have had occasion from
time to time to announce to the house changes in the policy with respect to the purchase of uranium in ores and concentrates. Under the present policy, Eldorado Mining and Refining (1944) Limited will purchase uranium in ores and concentrates at a minimum price up to March 31, 1960. In recent weeks the advisory committee on mining and exploration has given consideration to a possible further extension of the guarantee period. The committee has now recommended that the period of the guarantee be extended to March 31, 1962. The government has accepted that recommendation. It is hoped that this further extension will provide an additional incentive to the search for radioactive ores.



VETERANS INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lapointe for the second reading of Bill No. 183, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at eleven o'clock last night I had intimated that I had a few words to say on this bill to amend the Veterans Insurance Act. The bill is a short one, and it is not my intention to delay the house very long in discussing it. As I understand it, this amendment was made necessary by an oversight last year when the bill was being considered by the veterans affairs committee and the house.
I feel that, generally speaking, the Veterans Insurance Act is a good act, and I believe that is the feeling of most veterans and members of this house. It was discussed thoroughly last year in the veterans affairs committee. But there is one section of the act which is considered by many veterans to be unfair and as incorporating a wrong principle so far as veterans insurance is concerned. I refer to section 10. When the committee met last year, Mr. T. D. Anderson, general secretary of the Canadian Legion, brought this matter to the attention of the committee. This section as it now stands reads:
Subject to subsections two, three and four of this section, where on the death of the insured a pension becomes payable under the Pension Act or any pension law of the United Kingdom or any of His Majesty's dominions, to any person mentioned in

subsections one or two of section six or in subsection one of section seven of this act, there shall be deducted from the amount of insurance the aggregate present value of the pension or pensions so payable computed on such basis as the governor in council may prescribe.
Under that section, when a person who has been insured dies and his widow or beneficiary is entitled to a pension, a deduction is made from the amount of insurance paid. It was felt by members of the committee last year, by the Canadian Legion and other veterans bodies that this was an unfair principle and that some change should be made.
It is suggested that the cost of insurance under the Veterans Insurance Act is comparable to the cost of insurance sold by private companies, and no such company makes a deduction such as is provided for here. It is felt that these deductions should not be made.
There are certain classes of persons who are not insurable under the Veterans Insurance Act. In some ways this act is more strict than contracts with private insurance companies. I think it is only fair that when an insured person dies his widow or dependent should be able to expect that the full amount of insurance will be paid.
This constitutes a great weakness in the Veterans Insurance Act. It is most unfair to make these deductions. When the Veterans Insurance Act was being amended at this session I had hoped that consideration would be given to deleting this particular section. The recommendation made by the Canadian Legion to the committee last year was not considered because it was ruled that the terms of reference were not wide enough. That recommendation was as follows:
The Legion would accordingly recommend that section ten either be deleted or so amended as to provide that no reduction in the amount of insurance payable under the act be made because of any pension paid under the Pension Act or other legislation referred to in section ten.
As I say, that recommendation was not dealt with by the committee last year, and I had hoped that it would be dealt with this year.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the minister replies, may I say that it is not in order to discuss an act generally when it is before the house for amendment. Only the principle of the amendment should be discussed. I did not interrupt the hon. member, but as there are other similar bills coming up later this day I thought I should bring the rule to the attention of the house.
If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the remarks made 'by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). I am aware of course that this matter has been studied previously. I believe that to get a true picture of veterans insurance one must go back to the legislation dealing with world war I veterans, the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act. It will be found that section 10 of that act has the effect of providing that if a pension under the Pension Act is awarded on the insured's death, the proceeds of the policy will not be paid as insurance but will be limited to the return of the premiums with compound interest. Of course there is the $500 exemption, of which hon. members are aware.
This section was included in the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act because of the very low medical standards required under the act, and to provide against the payment of insurance in the event of early claims together with the payment of a pension for the same beneficiary. I also understand that the original intention of that act was to provide insurance for returned soldiers who could not be insured elsewhere and whose widows might not be pensionable in the event of the death of their husbands. Under those circumstances it was reasonable to include such a safeguard.
When the Veterans Insurance Act was considered in 1944, somewhat the same principle was applied, for the same reason. The medical standards set by schedule B of the Veterans Insurance Act were such that very few applications were declined. In fact I am informed that since the enactment of the legislation not more than sixty applications have been declined. However, the amount payable under the Veterans Insurance Act is calculated in a different way. Generally speaking there is again the $500 exemption, but on the balance of the insurance the amount paid is the reduced paid-up insurance value available at the date of death. What that actually means is that the amount payable is in proportion to the part of the premium term that has elapsed. In other words, every policy that is fully paid up is paid in full; but let us take the case of a 20-payment life policy that has not been paid up in full; if the policyholder dies after twelve years, the amount payable would be approximately the $500 which is exempt, plus twelve-twentieths of the balance of the policy.
I can quite understand that this matter is of great interest to all those concerned with the welfare of veterans, and if the committee should see fit to do so I would certainly have
Pension Act
no objection to its calling before it the actuaries of the department, who are familiar with the actual workings of this insurance scheme, in order that they may secure from them all information respecting the actual basis on which this insurance plan works.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question? In the discussion on the resolution preceding the bill I raised a point about making the legislation retroactive. I believe that has been done. Would the minister state whether that is so?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes. If the hon. member will look at section 2 of the bill he will see that it reads as follows:
This act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 30th day of June, 1951.
That is the date that had been intended.


Howard Charles Green: That was the date upon which the other bills came into effect?


Hugues Lapointe: That is right.


Mr. Mutch:: It is right in the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on veterans affairs.


Hugues Lapointe: the second reading of Bill No. 184, to amend the Pension Act.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister make a statement, please?


Hugues Lapointe: I made a short statement when the resolution was introduced, and there is nothing I should like to add to it. I think that the matter can be fully discussed in the committee.


Howard Charles Green: There is one point I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. The bill is really like all Gaul; it is divided into three parts. The purpose of the first is to make more adequate provision with respect to the allowance for excessive wear and tear of a pensioner's clothing when he wears a prosthesis. The purpose of the second part is to make more adequate provision when there are two dependent parents of a deceased veteran, and the third part is to provide what are described in the explanatory note as a few administrative changes.
We heartily agree with the proposed changes to benefit those veterans who have had amputations, and also with the increase in the benefits for dependent parents. There

Pension Act
will of course be an opportunity in the committee to consider the adequacy or inadequacy of these increases.
The administrative changes are contained in sections 3 and 4 of the bill. The purpose of section 4 is merely to correct an error in the present Pension Act, but it seems to me that the other so-called administrative change is a pretty drastic one. I suggest to the minister that he should have his officials give it further consideration. This change takes away the right of a veteran or a veteran's dependents to sue the crown where a pension is either paid or may be paid under the Pension Act. The explanation given for taking away that right of action reads as follows:
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that an applicant whose claim is based on accidental injury or death due to negligence of a servant of the crown, shall not be placed in any better position than an applicant whose claim is based on disability or death due to enemy action.
On the face of it that looks like a reasonable explanation. I presume the difficulty has arisen because it has now been made so much easier to sue the crown, and also because there are many more men and women in uniform now than at any other time when Canada has been at peace. However, I would point out the comparison with a veteran who is disabled in war is hardly a fair one. I think a better comparison would be with the widow of a civilian who is killed.
Take for example an automobile accident on the Pembroke road in which a truck belonging to a crown company, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which, as the minister knows, operates the atomic energy plant at Chalk River, collides with an army truck and a veteran is killed. This section will deprive that veteran's family of the right to take legal action following his death, because the widow and children would be pensionable under the Pension Act. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is practically certain to have insurance on its trucks. If it does not have such insurance I would say there is gross negligence. But whether or not it has insurance, surely the widow of that veteran should have the right to sue the crown company if she so wishes and recover damages, which might run to $25,000 or $50,000, depending upon the number and age of the children, the income of her husband, and so on.
I cannot see why that right should be taken away. I grant that if the widow does sue a crown company and gets a judgment which would amount to more than the pension commission would pay, certainly no pension should be paid by the government. There is similar protection now in the Pension Act.

I think sections 18, 18(a) and 18(b) contain the provisions applying to similar cases. But I am afraid it is going much too far simply to put a section in the Pension Act which entirely takes away the right of the veteran or his widow and children to claim damages, merely because they might have a pension or might be able to qualify for a pension. In any event I would ask the minister to have his department give this section very careful scrutiny. I can see no reason why that right should be taken away as is provided by this section.


Hugues Lapointe: I shall be very glad to look into the point-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Do I understand that the minister is closing the debate?


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: At
the request of various members of the house and of the Canadian Legion, the government agreed to set up a committee on veterans affairs. I think this discussion should take place in that committee. I do not know the rules, but if I did I would probably break them. It seems to me that having requested that a veterans affairs committee be set up, and that request having come also from the Canadian Legion and other organizations representing veterans, all this discussion should take place in that committee. Then, if you like, these matters can be further discussed here.


Howard Charles Green: Of course you are not the Speaker, fortunately.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, but I speak for a lot of legionnaires.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Hugues Lapointe: All I wish to say is that I shall be very glad to have the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) looked into. I am sure the officers of my department will be only too happy [DOT]to appear before the committee and give any explanation he desires. While I am on my feet may I congratulate the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) on the wisdom of his words.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Hugues Lapointe: That this bill be referred to the special committee on veterans affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hugues Lapointe: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act to provide increases in the scale of pensions under this act comparable to those in the basic scale of pensions under the Pension Act.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Could we have a statement by the minister?


Hugues Lapointe: The purpose of this legislation is to amend schedules I and II of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, which apply to claims granted on account of disability or death under part VI of the act to air raid precaution workers and under part VIII to voluntary aid detachments. Although there are actually only six awards under this act, it has been considered fair that the schedules governing the amounts should be raised in order to correspond to the raises under the Pension Act granted last year, increasing the amounts paid by the same proportion.


Clarence Gillis: Might I ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member would reserve his question until the house is in committee on the resolution.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Clarence Gillis: Would the minister put on record all the classifications covered by the civilian war pensions act? It does not just cover air raid workers and so on; it covers the merchant marine, I believe, the fire fighters and auxiliary services as well. I would like a list of the classifications covered, if possible.


Hugues Lapointe: I believe it does cover all the other non-veteran organizations. I have not the act before me at the moment; I did not think this legislation was going to be introduced just now. We will have all that information in the committee. Actually, as I mentioned, there are only six awards under this legislation. I do not believe there could be any more, because I understand that there is a limitation of one year in the case of disability or death.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister repeat under which part of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act these pensions are payable?


Hugues Lapointe: Parts VI and VIII.


Howard Charles Green: It is hard to understand why the increases would be restricted to those
Civilian War Pensions two parts. The resolution before the committee reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act to provide increases in the scale of pensions under this act comparable to those in the basic scale of pensions under the Pension Act.
Anyone reading that resolution would naturally take it that all the pensions granted under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act would be covered and that they would all be increased. I believe the minister has said that only six people are to benefit as a result of this bill. When we turn to the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, we find that part VI refers to air raid precaution workers, and part VIII refers to what are called the voluntary aid detachments. In other words, there is no increase for Canadian merchant seamen and salt water fishermen.


Hugues Lapointe: I think I have the answer now.


Howard Charles Green: I point out to the committee that there are other groups under that act. It may be that they are covered in some other way, but it does not seem reasonable that they should not be treated in the same way.


Hugues Lapointe: They are not being treated differently. Schedules I and II of this act provide for pensions for disabilities and death for those two groups referred to. All other groups, with the exception of those coming under part IV, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, are compensated at the rate appearing in schedules A and B to the Pension Act, and consequently have been affected by that change.


Mr. Pearkes:: Would this apply to the present day air raid precaution service personnel who were injured in Canada during training periods?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, I think it would deal with the case the hon. member has in mind.


Howard Charles Green: Would it apply to civilian
defence workers who are injured from now on?


Hugues Lapointe: As I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, there is a statutory limitation on the time within which a claim can be admitted, and that would naturally apply to air raid precaution workers during the last war. I have not the act before me so I do not know whether, as it stands, it could be made to apply to the present day situation. I shall look that up, and we can get the information when the bill is before the committee.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
1912	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act
Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 191, to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT


Hugues Lapointe: the second reading of Bill No. 181, respecting allowances for veterans and their dependents.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned the other day when introducing the resolution, the bill which hon. members now have in hand is a complete revision and consolidation of the existing legislation with the changes which are being brought forward by the government this year. Naturally the most important amendments are the increases in rates and the introduction of a new procedure in determining the basis on which veterans allowances will be paid.
The other day I explained briefly that it was proposed that recipients of war veterans allowance would be permitted to take what might be termed casual or seasonal employment without having the income derived from such employment taken into consideration in the computation of the amount the recipient is to receive under the War Veterans Allowance Act. In other words, the allowance will be paid on a monthly basis rather than a yearly basis.
I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that one section of the bill, namely section 3, sets out those who may qualify as recipients of war veterans allowances. It is mentioned that, subject to the general clauses of the act, any veteran who has attained the age of 65 may qualify. When the bill was drafted it was felt that all veterans who applied for war veterans allowance at the age of 60 would be dealt with under the new section 4 which introduces the new principle I just mentioned. I understand, however, after discussing it informally with the various groups, that this might be interpreted as raising the age at which a veteran may qualify for war veterans allowance. Since it is not intended by this legislation either to take away or to restrict any of the privileges of veterans but rather to make this legislation a more flexible instrument for the veterans welfare, I have no objection to the 65 which appears in the bill being changed to 60.
As I stated, my understanding of the operations of the act would lead me to believe that a veteran of 60 would benefit under this bill as it stands, but if there is likely to be any misinterpretation I have no objection to a


change. I would ask the chairman of the committee to entertain any amendment, when the bill is before the committee, which would recommend that the words "60 years" be substituted for the words "65 years" appearing in the bill. That is all I wish to say at the moment.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am pleased that the minister has suggested this amendment, because I think there would be a lot of confusion in the minds of veterans and others with reference to that matter.


Hugues Lapointe: I realize that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As a matter of fact, I felt myself that 65 was a mistake.
As the minister said, this is a complete revision of the War Veterans Allowance Act. As far as that is concerned I think we are all in agreement with the revision and the consolidation. It is quite a difficult matter to have to go through a number of acts to find what you require. If we have all the different amendments in one consolidation, then I say it is all to the good.
As the minister has intimated, there are more changes, and I shall discuss them later. For a few minutes I should like to go over the background, Mr. Speaker, if I may, of the War Veterans Allowance Act. Now that we have a new consolidation I do not think it is out of place that I should do so.
In the last few months all hon. members have had a splendid opportunity of acquainting themselves with the background of the War Veterans Allowance Act, as it has been published in the Legionary, the official magazine of the Canadian Legion. In three past issues they have given us a very clear picture of the War Veterans Allowance Act, and the different steps which led up to the legislation which we have at the present time.
It is very interesting to note that it was in 1930 that the first act was passed. It is also interesting to note that the basic principles, as we understand them at that time, are practically the same as the basic principles of the War Veterans Allowance Act today; that is, that men were prematurely aged and were more or less unemployable. Medical authorities stated that a man who had served in France, with all the suffering, privation, and so on, may be said to have his life expectancy lessened by from five, six, seven to ten years. I was interested to read the basic reasons, from the medical standpoint, as given by Dr. White of the city of Saint John in 1928 when the provincial command of the Canadian Legion met in that city. I may say that Dr. White was the mayor of the city of

Saint John at the time, and also one of the leading surgeons and physicians in Canada. He also had considerable experience in the veterans hospital at Saint John. Dr. White stated at that time regarding this subject:
The war and Its effects, the stress and the strain, the privations, the wants and the diseases and all that he may have suffered while he was away have lessened his efficiency, have drained his vitality which came about in three, four, five, six, yes, perhaps, ten years, and we find that a man-a robust man-with all his ambitions before him which have been largely set aside on account of his patriotism, unable now to carry on as he would have been had he remained at home. He begins to feel the infirmity of advancing years much sooner than he otherwise would have done or much sooner than in the case of other men, and yet he has no way in which officially he may receive treatment when he presents himself at one of the hospitals in the country, nor has he any remuneration whatever or any official protection. What is going to be done with the man whose life is threatened, whose health is injured, whose efficiency as a breadwinner is impaired and yet who has not upon his discharge papers a single bit of evidence that will entitle him to treatment in the hospitals, to say nothing of pay and allowances?
As I say, that statement was made by Dr. White to the command of the Legion in Saint John at that time. The War Veterans Allowance Act has been the answer to that statement.
There are men whom I should like to mention this afternoon-I cannot mention them all-who have been greatly responsible for the present act. The first man I would mention is the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) who attended this meeting in Saint John at that time, and who on that occasion said that he agreed with Dr. White, and that his committee and he himself were trying to work out a scheme. There are other men whose names I am sure come to all veterans: Sir Arthur Currie, Brigadier Ross, General LaFleche, General Price, Alex Walker, Brigadier Foster, the present president of the Canadian Legion. These men have all striven, and I think the act we have today is the result of the hard work of these men and many others.
I might also say, Mr. Speaker, that I know the War Veterans Allowance Act has been a godsend to many of our returned men, who would have been in a distressing position in this country today if we did not have it. Not only were these men aged prematurely, but they had another claim. Those of us who were in the first war and those who were in the second war know that the rate of pay the men received was very low. The man who spent five or six years in the army at $1.10 a day and came back found that the man who had stayed at home had received very high wages and had been able to establish himself in a far different position economically from the man who had served
War Veterans Allowance Act overseas. Therefore on two counts, both physically and economically, the man who had served overseas was in a very different position from the civilian.
The amendments in the new bill provide for certain increases. A single man has been receiving $40 a month under the present act. This is to be increased to $50. A married couple have been receiving $70. This is to be increased to $90 a month. The question which naturally arises in the mind of every veteran is: Is this enough; considering the cost of living as it is today, considering the situation as it exists today, is this increase sufficient? The Legion have made a very careful study of the war veterans allowance situation in Canada, and as a result of that study they set out in the Legionary of April of this year the situation regarding the recipients of war veterans allowances.
I am not going to take the time of the house this afternoon to quote the different exhibits of the Canadian Legion. The first one they have is veteran A. Here is a veteran who served in the first war, in the battle of Amiens and Cambrai. He was gassed during the battle of Canal du Nord. However, after he came back he was able to carry on until he was 64 years of age, and when he became unable to work he was receiving $160 a month. He was placed on war veterans allowance, the only income that he had. His wife was ill. His income for the month of February, as stated in the Legionary, was $56.46. I may say that he had received unemployment insurance, had been overpaid, and that amount paid was particularly small, owing to the fact that some unemployment insurance payments were being deducted. The monthly expenditures for this man and his wife were $95.76. This amount did not include clothing. In this case the Legion pointed out, very properly and conclusively, that the amount these people were receiving at that time was not sufficient. Even the amount of $90 a month now suggested would not have met the expenditures in this case, leaving aside those amounts spent for clothing.
Then, they referred to veteran B, a man 66 years of age who received $180 a month while employed. He became unemployable, with no means other than his war veterans allowance of $40.41 a month. Out of his total income he paid $373 for food, and $6 a week for room, amounting to $312 a year. At the end of the year this man found that, to live, he had to borrow money.
This is just one more case indicating the impossibility of those who are unemployable living on the amount of war veterans allowance formerly paid, or on the amount proposed in the new legislation.
1914	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act I could go on and give other examples mentioned in the information I have before me, but I feel it is not necessary to do so. All these cases were given careful study by the Legion, and they came to the conclusion that if these people were to be permitted even to exist, a certain amount would have to be paid to them. After making careful analyses and investigations'the recommendations of the Legion were as follows:
1.	That the basic principles upon which war veterans allowance is allowed and paid be unchanged.
I think that principle is being retained.
2.	That war veterans allowance be increased from $40 single and $70 married to $60 single and $120 married.
I would point out that these amounts were set after very careful consideration and study of the cases I have mentioned. There is no member of the house who could not multiply the cases I have mentioned, or who could not describe such cases by the hundreds all across this country. I believe all hon. members will agree that not only the Legion but the National Council of Veterans and other veterans organizations have never been exorbitant in their demands upon the government. They have always kept in mind, first, the requirements of the veterans and, second, the burden upon the taxpayers. If I might make a comparison, they have never tried to obtain large sums of money from the government or from the people as have the legionnaires in the United States. I suggest therefore that the Legion's recommendation of $60 a month for a single person and $120 for married is not unreasonable. I am surprised that at this time, when the act is being consolidated, the government is recommending the payment of $50 to a single veteran and $90 to one who is married.
To continue with the recommendations of the Legion:
3.	That the total ceiling be raised to $1,200 single and $2,000 married.
What do we find in the new legislation? We see that the ceiling is to be $720 for a single man and $1,200 for one who is married, allowing a spread of only $120. Under the old act it was $125 for a single man, and $250 if married. In the present instance, however, we have a spread of only $120 in each case. I am sure this is not going to be satisfactory to the Legion, and I feel certain it will be equally unsatisfactory to the members of the veterans affairs committee. Then, to continue:
4.	That Canadians who served in England only in the first war be entitled to war veterans allowance.


I do not like repetition. I mentioned this matter the other day, and it has been discussed in the house on many occasions. It has been debated in the veterans committee. I have always felt that England should be included as a theatre of war, so far as the payment of war veterans allowance is concerned, and that these men should come under the act. It is not necessary at this time to repeat the reasons. We know there was considerable hardship and suffering on the part of men in the first contingent who went overseas. I see the minister smiling, but I suggest there can be no question that there was suffering, because the men who were stationed in the south of England for purposes of training were exposed to serious hardships. They were away from their families and receiving $1.10 a day while the people at home were receiving high pay, and had the opportunity to re-establish themselves during a time of war. However, those men in England did not have that opportunity.
There are many other reasons I could give. There can be no doubt that the Legion is making a fair request when it asks that Canadians who served in England during the first war should be entitled to war veterans allowance. To continue with the recommendations:
5.	That widows of imperial or allied services with twenty years residence in Canada be entitled to war veterans allowance regardless of the date of death of their husbands.
I have no doubt other hon. members will make reference to this suggestion. The argument has been before the committee on many occasions.
6.	That home exemption be raised to $9,000.
I see that in the act it is raised to $6,000, and I shall reserve my comment as to whether $6,000 is a satisfactory amount. That, however, is one of the minor provisions in the bill.
I am sure the measure before us will not be considered satisfactory by the committee now set up, and that it will not be favourably received by members of the House of Commons. More particularly I am sure that it will not be satisfactory to the Canadian veterans across the country. This legislation reminds me of that which was brought before the committee in 1948. The government suggested at that time an increase of ten per cent in the pension, and it will be recalled that that percentage was scorned by members of the committee, with the result that it was increased to twenty-five per cent. I believe that when the veterans committee

now set up considers the matter it will conclude that the government has not suggested the proper amount.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief in what I have to say, because I am supposed to be in the committee on agriculture. Then, further, I have been asked to speak on the radio-although I do not know why.
I cannot see the purpose of this discussion, unless it is simply a matter of obtaining publicity-and I like publicity myself. We have asked for a committee and have been given it. I am surprised that my good friend who is sitting practically opposite has not brought out the fact that the Canadian Legion is the main organization representing the veterans of Canada and they have not as yet presented their brief. My understanding is that they are going to present a brief to the committee, of which I happen to be a member and of which I understand the previous speaker (Mr. Brooks) is also a member, but they have not yet done so. They presented a brief last year.
I happen to have probably a more distinguished position in the Canadian Legion than some of my good friends. They do not wear this button.


An hon. Member:: Oh, now!


George Alexander Cruickshank: They do not wear that one. The Legion has not yet presented its brief. For the benefit of my hon. friend who just interjected may I say that I am a delegate to Montreal at my own expense on behalf of the Legion, and I doubt very much if he has even been appointed a delegate. I am going there for a week at my own expense.
Why have all this discussion? I am surprised at the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), who has been a longtime advocate for veterans welfare in British Columbia, and a very good advocate-I give him credit-


Howard Charles Green: What are you surprised at?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am surprised that you have not pointed out to your colleagues that no brief has been presented by the Canadian Legion. I give my hon. friends of the opposition a lot of credit for what they have done. We insisted on it, we worked for it, and the government gave us a committee on veterans affairs this year to discuss the very matter the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) has just been discussing. Let us go before the committee.
My advice to the veterans of Canada, through you, Mr. Speaker, is that the best way we can get results in connection with
War Veterans Allowance Act war veterans allowance, as we got results last year in connection with disability pensions, is to keep pensions and veterans affairs out of party politics. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra knows that since he and I have been here the endeavour has been to keep this matter out of party politics. We have got results. Last year we even got more than the Legion had asked for.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We all agree with that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Why make a political
speech such as you made this afternoon?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member has suggested that I made a political speech because I spoke this afternoon on veterans affairs. I should like the hon. member to withdraw that remark. The house has the right and the duty to deal with any bill, whether it concerns agriculture or any other matter. Why that right should be taken away from us as the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) has suggested simply because it deals with veterans affairs is something I would not know. We have the right to discuss any subject in this house before it goes to a committee.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am sorry, but I have to leave. I shall be brief, as the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) wants to speak. I am not withdrawing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If I said anything unparliamentary I am ready to withdraw. I will withdraw to this extent: There is a Legion convention to be held, a veterans committee is to sit, but I understand that there is also a by-election to be held in the maritimes and I will let that speak for itself.


An hon. Member:: Cheap.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I rise again to a point of order. The hon. member has attributed to me motives which I have never considered. I never thought of the by-election or anything else. Year after year these matters have come before the committee and I have taken the same attitude. The hon. member knows that. He has accused me of talking for political reasons, and I feel that that should be withdrawn.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If I have accused the hon. member of speaking from political motives-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) and I heard the hon member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) ask him tc withdraw what he considered to be an accusation that he had made a political speech I must ask the hon. member for Royal ii
1916	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act he really considers that that is offensive. That is being said almost every day in this house. Members are being accused of making political speeches all the time. It seems to me that in the House of Commons where elected members of parliament deliberate it is normal that political speeches should be made. I do not think anyone should take offence because someone says he is making a political speech.
I have looked over the rules, especially citations 294 and 295 at pages 96 and 97 of Beauchesne's second edition, and I cannot find anything there that would justify my asking the hon. member for Fraser Valley to withdraw what he has said. Citation 297 reads:
The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged-


Mr. Fraser:: That is the one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Royal rose in his place on a point of order. Then the hon. member for Fraser Valley resumed his seat and the hon. member for Royal clarified his position. I think the hon. member for Fraser Valley should be satisfied with the explanation given by the hon. member for Royal. I refer also to citation 294 which reads:
If a member should say nothing disrespectful to the house or the chair, or personally opprobrious to other members, or in violation of other rules of the house he may state whatever he thinks fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings, or injurious to the character, of individuals.
I think the hon. member will agree that the point is one that can be easily settled if the hon. member for Fraser Valley accepts the explanation of the hon. member for Royal, and I think he is prepared to do that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will agree that the hon. member for Royal was not speaking for a political purpose; I will say that he was speaking as he had the right to speak, as any member with ambitions has the right to speak.
It has been said of the ghost cabinet that if and when, to the misfortune of the people of Canada, a Conservative government should be in power, the hon. member would be the minister of veterans affairs. I admire him for his ambitions which will never, never be fulfilled. I do not think he can take exception to that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member is getting further back all the time, and he has been here nearly as long as I have.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will admit that I have not got-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have had no opportunity-


George Alexander Cruickshank: I admit that I have not got to the front seats, but I am at least surrounded by cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would remind the hon. member for Fraser Valley that we are now discussing the principle of a bill.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think I was provoked. I think my hon. friend will agree that at least since 1940 we have all endeavoured to keep partisan politics out of veterans affairs. I think he will agree that while we have not got everything we asked for on behalf of the veterans, we have been fairly successful.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We have had to fight for it, yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I hope the great population of Canada are not having to wait too long for my radio broadcast. I admit that the hon. member has a legal and technical right to discuss these matters, but it was my understanding that they would be discussed in the committee before being brought up on the floor of the house or spread through Hansard to the various parts of Canada. There are many members who would like to express their opinions. I know that colleagues of mine want to express their opinions, and colleagues from my own province who are veterans have asked me to speak on their behalf. However, we thought that the time to do so was after the legislation had come back from the special committee. I think the senior opposition member from the province of British Columbia, a very gallant and valiant soldier and defender of the Legion, will agree with me.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he not remember that in other sessions there has always been a debate on second reading before such bills go to the committee? I am sure we had a debate a year ago on the second reading of the amendments to the Pension Act. I really cannot understand why he is objecting to a debate at this stage. As a matter of fact it is the proper time, and certainly for members of the house who are not on the veterans affairs committee and want to express their views.
I believe it is an opportune time also for members who may be on the committee but who have suggestions they wish to make.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may ask a question, but if he makes a speech he-will be deprived of his right to speak later.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If I remember correctly, the discussion last year was on the order of reference and the order of reference only.


Howard Charles Green: That was an additional
discussion.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member made the same speech he has made today.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of offending the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), I am going to say a few words on this bill. We have just given second reading to four bills concerning veterans affairs without any discussion because they involved only mechanical changes in legislation. I am a member of the veterans affairs committee and I am not going to apologize for saying a few words at this time, because I think the bill now before the house to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act is new legislation.
I also think that members of the veterans affairs committee have a right to hear the expression of opinions by other members of the house so that we may be guided as to what their opinions are when we are discussing this legislation. In the second place, Irrespective of what anyone outside the house may think of legislation it is still the responsibility of members of the house to study it and form their own opinions of it.
The bill now before the house disappoints me greatly. I certainly did not expect that kind of legislation.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Don't make a political speech.


Clarence Gillis: I am going to be as brief as I can. I was glad to hear the minister say that the change setting up two classifications of veterans is not a firm one and is subject to amendment by the committee if the committee so desires. I believe that particular change alters the principle of the act.


Hugues Lapointe: I have asked the committee to amend it.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: They will.


Clarence Gillis: I am glad that the minister has decided to do that. That still leaves the means test in the War Veterans Allowance Act, and that is a strong point of agitation on the part of the Legion branches. They feel if a war veteran can meet the requirements of the act from a medical standpoint, if he is unemployable in the area in which he resides and can qualify for the $40 or $50 a month, whichever it is going to be, that he has met the requirements of the act. They feel that to put into effect ceilings of $720 or $1,200, as they are now, is not only doing a disservice to the veterans but is causing a loss of production which otherwise would benefit the country.
How does the government benefit by making it mandatory in the legislation that if a veteran is in receipt of the maximum amount of war veterans allowance he must sit at home and do nothing because otherwise he
War Veterans Allowance Act will interfere with his allowance? As I read the legislation, the amount of permissible earnings is very low.


Hugues Lapointe: Will my hon. friend permit an interjection?


Clarence Gillis: Certainly.


Hugues Lapointe: If he will read section 4 of the bill he will find there the introduction of a new principle whereby a recipient of war veterans allowance can take employment and increase his income, and his earned income is not subject to any ceiling.


Clarence Gillis: That is exactly the point that I was leading up to, and I am very glad that the minister pointed it out.


Hugues Lapointe: It is not the point you are leading up to. You are saying the opposite.


Clarence Gillis: No, I was going to deal with that very point next. From what has appeared in the press, and from statements made by the minister in the house, most people who do not understand this legislation would assume that the war veteran can receive his $50 or $60 a month, whichever we fix, without interfering with the payment of the war veterans allowance. That is not so. Under section 4, if a veteran who is 60 years of age and is in receipt of war veterans allowance takes employment for a month-you are going to compute it on a monthly basis rather than on a yearly basis-his war veterans allowance will stop during the time he is working and earning.


Hugues Lapointe: Certainly.


Clarence Gillis: Why certainly? Does that not create an incentive for the man receiving $60 a month to stay at home? He knows that when he takes employment and notifies the Department of Veterans Affairs that he is employed his war veterans allowance will stop during the period of employment, and then he has to go through all the machinery again to be reinstated.


Hugues Lapointe: No.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, yes.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: No.


Clarence Gillis: Many of them will stay home rather than interfere with the only assured income they have.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That was true in the past, but it is not now.


Clarence Gillis: It will be true in the future, too.


Hugues Lapointe: No.


Clarence Gillis: Instead of the administration of the legislation loosening up I find that it is tightening up more and more all the time

War Veterans Allowance Act throughout the country. I hope the minister is right, but I visit the branches-I visited some during the Easter recess-and I have a pretty good idea what they are thinking.


Hugues Lapointe: So have I.


Clarence Gillis: As I was saying when the minister interjected, as to war veterans who are 60 years of age and who have passed the medical test and are totally unemployable in the regular labour market, if the ceiling on permissible income was removed and these men were permitted to go out and earn something during four, five or six months of the year if they could find suitable employment, I think you would find many of them taking employment if they knew that their assured income of $25, $30, $40 or $50 a month was not going to be interfered with. They would thus not only increase their own standards but would contribute to the pool of wealth of the country at the same time. I know that war veterans are much concerned about that point.
The minister has already stated that we can amend the section raising the age to 65.
I would also suggest that the provision for permissible income, which has been cut down from $250 for a married man and $120 for a single man, should be restored. That is another amendment that should be made. I am never very much concerned about the amount of money. There are other things that are just as important.
I think the minister's advisers made a mistake. I am sure it was not the fault of the minister. I know he is subject to the treasury board and a whole lot of red tape, that he cannot just say, "I am going to do this." He has his own troubles, and I appreciate that. But I believe he should have included in this bill at this time a provision that would enable payment of this allowance to be made to the widows of imperial war veterans, many of whom were just on the borderline. Their husbands died without having resided in Canada for the full twenty years. They were perhaps a year short, or six months, or maybe two years. But the fact of the matter is that it is not the dead man who is looking for something; he is well taken care of. It is the widow who still has to eat and wear clothes and maintain some kind of shelter. She has met the residence requirements, and I believe the act should have been amended to enable many widows of imperial veterans, who up to now have been ruled out, to receive this allowance.
A second point of discrimination that I think the minister should have given consideration to is the matter of veterans who


served in England during the first war. Previous to the second war the veterans took that situation for granted, and there was not very much agitation about it. I grant that during the second war there was bombing and all that sort of thing; but when the second world war veteran, who spent most of his time in England waiting to get into the war, was qualified for the allowance, it naturally caused resentment among the older veterans who had spent their time in England. It was not their fault. They were kept there, assigned to duty there, and they feel they should be entitled to the allowance as well. I believe wiping out those two points of discrimination and injustice, concerning the widows of imperial veterans and men who served in England during the first war, are just as important as stepping up the allowance. Hundreds of veterans and widows are suffering under that injustice.
I said I was going to be brief, Mr. Speaker, and I am. I feel very strongly about these things, but I am a member of the committee and I am going to reserve any further remarks until we call in the Canadian Legion and hear their representations. I am sure if the minister is as flexible in regard to the rest of the act as he is on the section which provides for a step-up in age, this legislation is going to come back with a lot of amendments. So I will reserve any further remarks until such time as the committee has dealt with the bill, when I hope we will bring it back pretty badly emasculated as compared to its present form.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I hope you are wrong.


Clarence Gillis: The parliamentary assistant says he hopes I am wrong. Well, I expect his assistance-


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It is a choice of words, not a choice of motives.


Clarence Gillis: in revising this act. I look forward with a great deal of interest to the work of this committee.	While the
leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and others say there will be no second session this year, if the government is firm about bringing back this bill in its present form I am sure we shall be wrangling over it here until Christmas.


Mr. Jean Frangois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of social legislation, for the obvious reason that only three elements are required for the grant of an allowance. If I am wrong about it, I hope the minister will correct me. The first is service. The records of all veterans are kept in the department, and it is easy for those

concerned to decide whether or not an applicant is qualified from the point of view of service. Then there are two other elements, and I am referring to the latter part of clause 3, not speaking of age. Those elements are disability and need, and there shall be no relation between the disability and the service, which makes the difference between this legislation and the Pension Act.
In virtue of this legislation, if a veteran who qualifies as such under paragraph (k) of section 2 is ill and unable to earn his living, he is entitled to the allowance by right; and the legislation does not make the grant of the allowance humiliating for him. This is the way I see this legislation, and naturally the only thing to do is express one's appreciation to the minister who sponsors the bill and to the government, for correcting certain difficult cases in order to make life happier for veterans who were unable to secure high enough pensions, and who were in hardship. I hope the members of the committee will take these remarks into consideration when the bill is before them and will hasten their report to the house, so those who will come under this bill may secure some benefit from it at the earliest possible opportunity.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Temiscouata-I should say my good friend the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot)-has just said the War Veterans Allowance Act is social legislation. In that he is wrong, because in reality it is a partial payment for gallant services rendered. The vast majority of the recipients of war veterans allowance were front-line troops, Canada's fighting men. In their civilian life they have shown the same courage and the same sense of responsibility they showed on the battlefield; and they have great pride in their service. They do not consider that in getting the war veterans allowance they are accepting any handout. They believe they have more than earned that allowance, and they are correct.
This act was passed in the first place on the basis that because of their front-line service these men were pre-aged to the extent of ten years. That was why the qualification age was made 60 instead of the age of 70 which was set for the old age pension. These men are veterans who have been badly handicapped in civilian life because of their war service, and they have been in great need. Unfortunately when we were doing justice to the war disability pensioners of Canada last year we were unable to help the recipients of war veterans allowance. Many of us regretted that fact and, as Your Honour
War Veterans Allowance Act knows, expressed our opinions on the floor of the house on more than one occasion. However, be that as it may, we now have before us a complete revision of the War Veterans Allowance Act. Because that is the case we must be certain that the new act is expressed in terms which are fair to these veterans.
There are several provisions in the bill which bother me a great deal, and today I propose to deal with five of them. The first one is the point the minister mentioned when he opened the debate. I was very glad to hear him give an assurance that the committee would be requested to put the main age qualification back from 65 to 60. The raising of that qualification from 60 to 65 was a very unwise move, and I am surprised that the bill, as presented to this house, brought about a change of that kind. The terms of the bill as we now have it do, of course, provide an exception in the case of a veteran who is employable; the age at which he can qualify is now set at 60.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Is the hon. member not beating a dead horse? The minister had admitted the possible implication.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps I shall be able to beat the parliamentary assistant. He may be a dead horse, and I sometimes think he is.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Oh, I shall still be here.


Howard Charles Green: The majority of the war veterans allowance recipients have always qualified on the basis of having reached 60 years of age. There is, of course, a provision in the act for veterans under that age to qualify, but only if they are permanently unemployable. I believe that only a very small number have come under that latter provision. This idea that the veterans have, by their service, been pre-aged to the extent of ten years is basic. It was behind the original act and the raising of that age to 65 would have wiped out any idea of preaging. I say that because civilians are now qualified for old age assistance at age 65. As a matter of fact, to be consistent with the provisions covering old age assistance for civilians from 65 to 69 and old age security paid civilians over 69, this War Veterans Allowance Act should have been changed to reduce the age from 60 to 55 and to make the payments automatic at 60. I am not advocating that today, but I say that to be consistent that is what should have been done rather than to shove the main qualification age up to 65.
The second point about which I am
bothered is this exception which is contained

War Veterans Allowance Act in section 4 of the bill. Let us see how it reads. The sidenote reads "employable veterans", and the headnote above section 4 reads "allowances to employable veterans." Subsection 1 of this section reads:
Subject to this act, an allowance is payable to a veteran who resides in Canada, has attained the age of 60 years, is unable to maintain himself by following his former ordinary occupation but is capable of taking light or intermittent employment and is unemployed.
It would seem that this would put some at least of the recipients of war veterans allowance on a monthly payment basis. I would point out that this section has several effects. In the first place, it introduces entirely new phraseology which is quite different from that in the present War Veterans Allowance Act. Of course, that means there will be difficulty of interpretation. I refer for example to the words, "by following his former ordinary occupation." As hon. members know, that is something entirely new. Another new phrase is "capable of taking light or intermittent employment." I think those phrases will bring a good deal of difficulty into the administration of the act.
Further, this new provision will mean more and bigger investigations. They will have to take place more frequently because the payments will be on a monthly basis. It will mean more snooping by departmental investigators which has been one of the objectionable features of the act right through the years. It will mean also more means testing and a larger staff. Again, the provision is not applicable to widows.
I have no doubt that the intent behind this proposed change was good. I think the minister and his officials are trying to help the veteran, but I suggest that a better way to meet the situation would be to exempt earnings-and I mean earnings as distinct from other income. I would refer the minister and other members to section 6 of this bill. Under the heading of "exempt income" we find listed the various types of income which are not to be taken as income for the purposes of the act. One of those types, contained in paragraph (d), is "any casual earnings of the recipient." Now, I suggest that paragraph should be changed to read "all earnings" instead of "casual earnings". The effect would be to remove from consideration any money that the veteran was able to earn once he had qualified for war veterans allowance. That is what I should like to see, but if the minister will not go that far, he might change the words "casual earnings" to "earnings from light employment", which would give a much broader coverage.

If this suggestion is adopted then once the veteran had qualified for the allowance all his earnings would be exempt. And that would be a tremendous help to the veterans. It would be a great incentive to them to keep active, to try to carry on in some sort of occupation; it would have very little or no effect on the employment situation in Canada, and, Mr. Speaker, it would be directly in line with the principle of our old age security legislation. Those payments are made automatically, and the recipient is encouraged to go out and get some kind of job. If the civilian of 70 is to be encouraged to go out and earn what he wishes, then I submit that the veteran should be encouraged to do the same thing at 60, and that an amendment should be made to the War Veterans Allowance Act to bring about that result.
The third point in this legislation which bothers me is the amount of the increase. I believe it is insufficient. Some earlier speakers in the debate have referred to the amounts, but I should like to point out once more that the single veteran is being raised only $9.95 a month, from $40.41 to $50.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is $9.59.


Howard Charles Green: Yes; I have that in my note, but I read the wrong figure. Taken on a yearly basis, he is being raised from $485 a year to $600, which is an increase of $115. The married veteran will be raised from $70.83 a month to $90 a month, which is $19.17; on a yearly basis that means a raise from $850 to $1,080, an increase of $230.
I believe that $50 a month per person is the minimum for a mere existence in Canada today. I do not believe there is one member of this house who would contradict that statement; and yet these men will not be getting that under the amendment. Certainly a man and his wife will not be getting that. It has been recognized in at least some of the provinces that $50 a month per person is a very minimum, because in my own province of British Columbia, and in Alberta and perhaps some other provinces, old age assistance payments and old age security payments have been increased by the provincial government in question by the payment of an additional $10 a month. We should not ask the veteran to switch over to old age assistance or to old age security. We should not ask that, because he is the responsibility of the federal government of Canada and he should be paid, and paid an adequate amount, by the federal government of Canada. Yet if this bill goes through in its present form the married war veterans allowance recipient in British Columbia and in Alberta will be wiser to switch over to the civilian form of assistance.

The fourth point about which I am concerned is the amount of permissive income over the allowance. It has been reduced by this legislation to $120; whether the veteran is single or married, his permissive income over the amount of the allowance is only $120. For many years, I believe from the start of the act in 1930, although I may be wrong in that, certainly for many years, there has been set out in the War Veterans Allowance Act permissive income for the single veteran of $125 a year, and for the married veteran $250. Under the Old Age Assistance Act, passed by this house last year, there is a permissive income of $240 a year. That applies both to the single man and the man who is married; and certainly there should be just as wide a coverage for the veteran.
This question of permissive income is very important for quite a large group of veterans. Clearly those who are also in receipt of a small pension are caught when the permissive income is too low. Hon. members need only be reminded that last year, when we raised the pension, those men who were in receipt of a small pension and who also had their war veterans allowance had that allowance cut by the same amount that the pension was raised, so they derived no benefit whatever from the legislation of last year.
The final point about this bill which gives me great concern is the failure to incorporate in the act, or to place in some other statutory form, provision for what is called war veterans allowance assistance. For three years, I think, there has been an annual vote called the war veterans allowance assistance fund. From that fund payments could be made to a recipient of war veterans allowance who had no other income whatever. He could get a maximum of $10 a month if single or $15 a month if married; but that payment is subject to a second means test, and it is not made necessarily in the form of money. It may be by supplying clothing or furniture; it is just general assistance. At the time that that policy was introduced, some of us complained that it should be in the form of a statute rather than subject to an annual vote which meant that it could be changed each year. I am sure the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) will remember that at that time he intimated he wanted to try out the new plan first, but agreed that before long it should be covered in some kind of statute.
Now that we are revising the War Veterans Allowance Act I believe that we should include in it provision for this war veterans allowance assistance fund. Last year the Legion asked that those recipients of war veterans allowance who were unemployable should get $60 a month single and $120 a month if married. I believe that their
War Veterans Allowance Act requests were within reason. The minister told us the other day when the resolution preceding this bill was being debated that he did not intend to make the allowance fund statutory, but rather intended to continue it as an annual vote. I hope that he will give further consideration to that question.
There are several other points which could be raised and which are equally important, such as the inadequacy of the provision for the widows of imperial veterans, and some of the procedure followed in making claims for repayment under the act. However, I shall have a chance to discuss those points in committee. I did wish to place these other points before the minister and the house before the bill is sent to committee.
In conclusion may I repeat a word or two about these veterans. They are splendid citizens; citizens to whom Canada owes a debt which can never be repaid in full, no matter what terms we write into the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this bill as a whole is to the advantage of the veterans, and we are pleased to see it before the house. However the sore spot in the whole War Veterans Allowance Act is that the means test remains in it. It seems strange that, although the total earnings of recipients are increased, the extra earnings a veteran may get are reduced to the extent of $5 a year. If the government does not see fit to take the means test off, as most of us would like to see, then I cannot see why it did not increase the maximum earning allowance of veterans.
As it is, the veteran is put on the spot. It looks to me very much as though he is being encouraged to take the old age pension and to forget about the war veterans allowance. Outside of that, the point that I thought was so detrimental was that of raising the age limit from 60 to 65. I am glad to hear that the minister is going to consider an amendment to reduce the age to 60, because the age 65 violates the presumption upon which the age limit was established, and that is that veterans pre-aged by ten years as a result of military service. With the old age pension coming on at 70, and with the group from 65 to 69 included under an old age security scheme, it would appear that the veterans were not being pre-aged at all.
However, I am glad the minister is considering making the reduction to 60 years when the matter is discussed in committee. I am pleased to see that the allowance for a single man is increased to $50, which brings it up to the same amount as the old age pension in Alberta. However we do regret
1922	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act that the married allowance is only $90, which in our province gives them $10 less than that received by the old age pensioners.
On many occasions the Legion has suggested $60 for those who are physically handicapped and cannot take any advantage of casual earnings. They should be given at least a pension equivalent to the total earning power of a veteran under the War Veterans Allowance Act. We would like to have seen a much greater increase, brought somewhere in line with the cost of living index. However, those things may come in time-at least we hope they will.
I shall have more to say on these points in committee. I believe section 4 of the bill has some merit, in that it enables the veteran to work for a short period of time without having his allowance cut. However, it looks to me as though this is a sort of top-heavy arrangement, and that it will require a good deal of administration. It may be difficult to keep up with these veterans who are working at odd times. We will need to have a good many inspectors running around to find out whether or not the men are working.
The whole thing would be much simpler if the minister would say, "We will wipe out the means test, and put the war veterans allowance recipient on an equal footing with the old age pensioner over 70 years of age."
I was glad to see an increase in the exemption on homes and premises from $4,000 to $6,000. To my mind that is still pretty low, because today a $6,000 home does not amount to much. Even a modest home is valued at much more than that.
Then, the measure does not take into consideration the widows of imperial veterans whose husbands died before they had their 20-year residence qualification. As I have said before, it seems a pity that these widows are being penalized just because their husbands died. That does not make sense.
No recognition has been given to those world war veterans who served only in England. Many of those men put up with hardships, sickness, cold and misery, and the only reason they were not sent to France was that they were needed in England. Many of them served as instructors, and the like.
I know of one imperial veteran who served in England during world war I, and whose health was impaired as a result of that service. That man gets the grand pension of something like $8 a month. He is almost 70 years of age now, and for several years has been living on that $8, and a railway pension of $25. He could not qualify for a war veterans allowance, even though his health was impaired to the point where he was given a pension for it.


I do not intend to say more at the moment, but I shall have more to say in committee, and perhaps when the bill returns to the house.


Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what caused the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruick-shank) to become so excited this afternoon, because, in my parliamentary experience, it has always been the custom for several members of each party to express their views on second reading of any bill concerning veterans affairs.
As a member of the committee on veterans affairs I do not propose to repeat any of the arguments expressed this afternoon. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) expressed my views, and I have nothing further to say at this time.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, since coming to the house I have had the opportunity of serving on various committees on veterans affairs, and naturally I have interested myself in the welfare of the returned man.
This year I am not on the committee. I should like to address a few remarks and perhaps offer a few suggestions to the committee, in the hope that they will give cognizance to what I have to say. The minister has intimated that he is prepared to entertain amendments and in fact has suggested one himself.
I should like to stress the importance of striving for simplicity when amending this War Veterans Allowance Act. We are dealing with many ageing men who do not react as quickly as younger men to complicated arrangements and administrative procedures. Anything which can be done to make this act simpler would be of great advantage in enabling these ageing veterans to understand it more easily.
That brings me to section 4 of the bill which introduces the new principle of seasonable employment. It seems to me that this is a most complicated clause; it is another "if and when" the individual will be permitted to draw an allowance. I am not clear from what has been said whether the veterans will receive the other benefits under the act, such as hospitalization, when he is actually in employment. The benefits of hospitalization are one of the outstanding reasons why many men who might otherwise go on old age pensions prefer to remain under war veterans allowances.
At the present time we have in British Columbia a form of hospital insurance which is compulsory. If a veteran is not on war

veterans allowance he must pay the provincial hospital insurance. That is why I stress this point. I want to know whether the veteran will still be protected for full hospitalization when he is in seasonable employment and will not have to pay the provincial hospital insurance during that time.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The answer is that he will be.


George Randolph Pearkes: When I refer to the need for simplicity I cannot help feeling that the same result could have been achieved if the ceiling on permissible earnings had been at least doubled. I believe that would take care of men who get seasonable employment and also the large number of marginal cases who are just able to earn enough, perhaps by some form of permanent employment for a day, a week or something of that sort, or who are drawing small incomes or pensions which now prevent them from obtaining war veterans allowances because their outside income is more than the very strict means test now applied to these allowances. I suggest that it would have been simpler to do it this way and perhaps the committee will entertain as an alternative a considerable raising of the ceiling as opposed to the introduction of this new principle.
There is one other small point I should like to deal with concerning South African veterans or veterans who have served in other countries. With regard to the South African veteran, the amendment deals with the time of the actual landing on the continent of Africa. It just so happens that a Canadian contingent had left Canada and was en route to South Africa at the time peace was signed. Should not this amendment be more in accordance with the principle now adopted in so far as Korea is concerned? Should we not apply the date when the man left Canada in order to go to South Africa rather than the date of landing? If a man volunteered to serve in South Africa and was actually on the high seas en route to that theatre of war when peace was arranged he should receive consideration. I suggest to the minister that he consider changing that wording and instead of having it the date of landing in South Africa it should be the time the individual left Canada. That would be in conformity with the practice now being followed in connection with troops serving in Korea who receive veterans preferences when they leave Canada.
I should like to repeat my plea for the men who served in Great Britain only during the first war. These men are ageing and I should like to see them included in these benefits. If that cannot be done, perhaps some special latitude could be given to the minister to deal
War Veterans Allowance Act with individual cases where great hardship is evident. I happen to know of one case where the minister was able to obtain special permission for the hospitalization of an old veteran. I do not know of anything in the act that gives the minister the ministerial prerogative, shall we say, to act in exceptional cases. I commend the minister for having found a way to deal with this one case, but similar cases are bound to arise and perhaps more flexibility should be introduced into the act to permit these old veterans being looked after.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the committee but I have carried on a considerable correspondence with the department on behalf of veterans in my riding and have received a number of submissions from Legion branches in my riding. Therefore I feel I am justified in making the few comments I want to make regarding this bill. I regret that the government did not see fit to bring in this amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act last fall. While the increases are to be retroactive the fact is that by delaying this amendment for five months or since the pensions were increased a considerable amount of unnecessary suffering has been caused to many thousands of veterans.
I suppose one of the reasons for the necessity for this legislation arose out of the fact that a great many veterans could not receive pensions who were in reality entitled to them, and they were covered by this legislation. Veterans have pointed out to me that if section 63 of the Pension Act, under which a veteran is supposed to be entitled to the benefit of the doubt, were operative, many veterans who now have to receive the veterans allowance would be in receipt of basic pensions. Over the years I have had occasion to take up scores of cases with the department, and I cannot recall a single instance where the veteran was given even the shadow of the benefit of the doubt. In every single case I have taken up with the department, unless the veteran could establish the fact that his present incapacity arose out of or was caused by his service, or unless some medical officer could certify to that effect, there was never the slightest benefit of the doubt given to the veteran.
One of the things that veterans in my riding have been protesting is that while this act is being amended the Pension Act is not being amended at the same time so that the veteran may be given the right which he is supposed to have under section 63 of that act.

War Veterans Allowance Act


Hugues Lapointe: On a point of order, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but I suggest that for the last five minutes he has been airing his views about the Pension Act and its administration while we are concerned with discussing the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Probably the hon. member will now discuss the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Apparently I am getting into trouble with the chair quite frequently. I think it would be well to review the situation of the veterans from the point of view of the promises that were made to them, particularly during world war I. Reprinted in the April issue of the Legionary is the promise-


Hugues Lapointe: I hope you will not blame me for that.
Mr. Nose worthy: -made by Sir Robert Borden at Vimy Ridge in 1917. The minister knows these words by heart but it will not hurt-


Hugues Lapointe: I have read the same magazine you have.
Mr. Nose worthy: -to remind him and his officials who administer veterans legislation of the promise Sir Robert Borden made to the men of the services at that time. He said:
I give you this assurance: that you need have no fear that the government and the country will fail to show just appreciation of your service to the country and empire in what you are about to do and what you have already done . . .
This is the point that is interesting.
The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of the people at home, and it will always be our endeavour to so guide the attitude of public opinion that the country will support the government to prove to the returned man its just and due appreciation of the inestimable value of the services rendered to the country and empire.
The thought expressed there by Sir Robert Borden is that of the government attempting to guide the country, to guide public opinion, the government trying to induce public opinion to support the government in its generosity toward the veteran. Look at that promise in the light of the history of what has happened since 1917. When have we ever found the government trying to convince the public to support them in their efforts on behalf of the veteran?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has been the other way around.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Year after year it has been the other way around. Representatives of veterans organizations have had to fight just as persistently and with just as much

determination to get what they considered a fair deal from the governments of the two parties that have been in power as they had to fight the enemy to win the war in the first place. That has 'been the history of the veteran's fight with governments through the years since 1917. Instead of the government being out in front trying to induce the public to agree with them that the veteran needed these various benefits, it has been the veterans organizations, the parliamentary committees, members of the House of Commons almost unanimously year after year and people throughout the country pushing the government in order to induce them to deal fairly with the veteran.
From day to day we find in the press considerable criticism of some of the social services that the government is rendering. Certain sections of the press are very critical, but I have yet to see any section of the press throughout Canada that has been critical of the government because the government was too generous with the veterans of world war I and world war II. The country has been pushing the government and not the government trying to induce the country to be more generous to the veteran. The current issue of the Legionary has an editorial on the War Veterans Allowance Act to which it gives the title, "The Long, Long Trail". I think it might be well to look for a few moments at the length of that trail and the nature of the struggle that veterans have had along the trail. It was not until September, 1930, eleven years after world war I, that the War Veterans Allowance Act first became operative. At that time single veterans received $20 a month and were allowed to earn an extra $10, as much as they are allowed now under the new act. Married veterans were paid $40 a month and were permitted to earn an extra $20, twice as much as they are allowed to earn in addition to their allowance under the present act.
The next amendment was made six years later in 1936. That year the age of eligibility was reduced from 60 to 55 years. Two years later economic handicap and not age was made one of the conditions of eligibility; still no improvement in the allowance. In 1941 by order in council special provision was made for an extra $5 per month for single men and $10 for married men by way of a supplementary grant; still no change in the basic rates. In 1943 widows' allowances were provided; a long time after 1919. In 1944 free treatment and domiciliary care were provided. In that year world war II veterans and northwest rebellion veterans were included.
Then we come to 1946, when the basic rate was increased from $20 to $30 for single men

War Veterans Allowance Act
and from $40 to $60 for married men, and the allowance on behalf of children was continued until the age of 21 provided they were still at school. The ceiling on earnings then was $125 for single men and $250 for married men, a little more than twice what is allowed under the present act. In 1948, in line with the cost of living, the rates were stepped up again to $40.41 and $70.83 per month. Then in 1949 a sort of second means test was applied, making available $10 a month for single men and $15 for married veterans from the war veterans allowance fund. Then, after a fight lasting twenty years from the time the act was first introduced, imperial and allied veterans were brought under it. Now we have this amendment under which single veterans are to receive $50 and married veterans $90, with a ceiling of $120 a year on additional earnings whether married or single.
I think these rates should be taken into consideration along with the latest request of the veterans organizations, when they appeared before the cabinet last November. At that time they asked for $50 for single men and $100 for married men, and they wanted outside income permitted up to $250 for single men and $500 for married men. They also asked that those totally unemployable should receive allowances at the rate of $60 and $120 for single and married men respectively.
I submit that those requests are very modest. Certainly they are not out of line with the promise that has been made during the war years to those who served. I think a country that can raise over $2 billion for defence should be able in some way or other to raise the ante for single and married veterans to $60 and $120 per month respectively. I do not believe that would endanger the economic position of the country. I believe it would be a token to the veterans, especially those of world war I, that at last the country is recognizing and attempting to implement the promises that were made over thirty years ago.
There are a number of items pertaining to this bill that have been referred to and about which veterans have written to me. These have been mentioned already. Certainly veterans are going to find it very difficult to understand why the ceiling on additional earned income should be limited to $10 a month. I can see no good purpose to be served by that limitation except perhaps to save the government a few paltry dollars. I suppose it will amount to this, that any veteran who can struggle to work by any means will continue to work as long as he can stand up, rather than have to live on
the meagre allowance provided by this act. And as long as he can do that the government will be relieved of the responsibility of paying him that allowance. That is the only purpose I can see to be served by limiting additional earnings to $10 a month.
Then I notice that the act distinguishes between intermittent and casual earnings. When the minister closes this debate I hope he will point out just what distinction the department draws. I have been asked that question, and I have not been able to give an answer. I suppose that intermittent earnings are those of a man who is able to hold a job intermittently; who is not able to hold a steady job but is able to take intermittent employment. He would be entitled to come under the act. If a man takes casual employment, however, his casual earnings are not considered as income for purposes of the act. If the minister will clear that up it will be appreciated, because veterans are under the impression that if they earn over $10, whether it is casual or intermittent or anything else, and the department finds out about it, that amount will be deducted from their allowance.
There is one other question I want to mention to which I think the government should give consideration in paying the veterans allowance. That is the plight of veterans today in the matter of housing. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) put on record the economic position of a number of veterans as reported in the Legionary, listing them as veteran A, veteran B and so on. I am going to add a little more from that same article:
Veteran A now lives in two makeshift basement rooms seven feet below ground level. They were formerly a basement storage, actually just one room, and the small curtained-off portion now used as a bedroom was a coal bin before they moved in.
That was veteran A. Veteran B:
A small $6 a week room is his home.
Veteran C, a widow, has given up her apartment since her veteran husband died, sold her furniture and gone to live with her niece.
Veteran D, another widow.
She is living in two damp basement rooms and during the winter stays in bed most of the forenoon, partly because of her health and partly to keep warm as she cannot afford an adequate supply of fuel.
That is the treatment which today is being meted out to the men who served in world war I, and to the widows of those men. The prime minister of this country at that time assured these men that the government would take the lead in trying to induce the Canadian people to agree to giving them that to which they were entitled. Does it not seem evident that today the people of
1926	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act Canada have reason to be ashamed of the treatment that we as a -country are meting out to those who served in world war I, and who now can scarcely find enough on which to live?
I think, Mr. Speaker, that when the committee is reviewing this act they may well do so in- the light of the promises which were made to these veterans, and they may well consider giving to these men an allowance of at least $60 single -and $120 married, with -the ceiling on earnings either removed or raised to what the veterans themselves requested, $250 single and $500 married.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I feel that this is an occasion, Mr. Speaker, when the members of this house, particularly those who are not members of the special committee on veterans affairs, should express to that committee their views concerning this bill. I suggest that the Canadian Legion and the other veterans organizations that will appear before the committee should know when they appear what the views of members are. I feel that it is our duty to speak at this time, and I only wish that more members on the government side would speak, so that we can back up the Legion in what some of us believe will be -the requests that they will make to that committee.
I think the first criticism that all of us feel about the bill whic-h has been presented is the inadequacy of -the amounts provided. As members have put on the record repeatedly today, the bill raises the amount provided for single veterans under the War Veterans Allowance Act from $40.41 to the sum of $50 per month. It raises the allowance provided a married veteran from $70.83 to $90.
Mr. Speaker, on the desks of a good many members in the house -this afternoon there is a copy of the afternoon edition of the Ottawa Journal. The main heading reads:
Abbott predicts 10 years of good times
To me it is incongruous, whether or not that prophecy is correct, that on a day when we are told that we are in for ten years of good times we should be asked to accept a bill which provides to our burnt-out pensioners only $50 a month in the case of a single veteran and only $90 a month in the case of a married veteran. When we were at the resolution stage preceding this bill I expressed the view that if the government did not measure up to the requests of the Canadian Legion, the members of the house and of the committee would have to do their best to try to persuade the committee to measure up to those requests. Many of us were deeply disappointed when we received


the bill after first reading and learned of the amounts upon which the government had decided. As I say, there is no doubt in my mind, particularly in view of the amounts the Canadian Legion has requested, that this phase of the matter will be discussed at considerable length and in considerable detail by the special committee on veterans affairs.
I want the Canadian Legion and others who are appearing before that committee to know that, in their request for a larger amount, they have the support of a great many members of this house. They have the support of their veteran colleagues, and -they have the support of those of us who are not veterans and can perhaps speak in a special way for the general population of the country. I urge most strongly, Mr. Speaker, that when this bill is before the committee the government pay attention to the request that will be made at that time, and pay attention to the request of members of parliament generally that the amounts be set higher. I want to say again tha-t I wish a few more members on the government side would speak in this debate, even if only briefly, and express their views with regard to these amounts. If they are satisfied with them, let them stand up and say so. But if they are not, as I am sure-at least as I hope-is the case with a good many members on the government side, I think they should join with us in saying that these amounts of $50 and $90 are inadequate, and that the request of the Canadian Legion for not less than $60 single and $120 married should be granted.
I see that it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 2, consideration in committee of Bill No. 62, to incorporate Boundary Pipeline Corporation- Mr. Larson-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, when
speaking on this bill to incorporate the Boundary Pipeline Corporation last Friday evening for a few minutes I took the opportunity briefly to point out that we in this group are in particular opposed to the granting of charters to companies for the building of pipe lines under private ownership. My time was so short that I had only the opportunity more or less to commence my introduction; therefore I am going to

take the opportunity to elaborate somewhat further on our point of view in this group with respect to the public ownership of pipe lines, and to deal with a few other aspects of this bill which is so important to Canadians generally, and which unfortunately many people in Canada are not greatly concerned about.
We in this group, Mr. Chairman, believe that it would be to the advantage of the Canadian people if pipe lines were nationally or socially owned as common carriers. We believe that national planning on that scale would prevent, as I said the other evening, the duplication of charters for the building of pipe lines across Canada. During the last three or four years we have seen the competition between various companies endeavouring to secure a charter giving them the right to build a pipe line over a designated route. No doubt if three or four charters are granted covering a similar route, then it simply means that some of these companies have a charter which they could sell to the highest bidder without building a route at all. Therefore we believe in public ownership, particularly with respect to national transportation, because a pipe line as a common carrier would be part of our national transportation system. If it were publicly owned it would give an easy opportunity for planning, and an opportunity to prevent duplication as a result of the competition between various companies in the building of these pipe lines.
My second point is that because competition would be eliminated between these various companies and we would not have two pipe lines built where one would suffice, there would necessarily by good management be a lowering of the costs to the consumer. The experience of Canadians with respect to railway freight charges and railway transportation charges would be different today if it had been possible when the railways were built in Canada to have a nationally-owned railroad system and to have avoided some of the expensive duplication that exists today such as the parallel railroads from Kamloops to Vancouver on both sides of the Fraser river and so on. We would have more than lower costs to the consumers. Instead of the profits going to private interests, and in the majority of cases in connection with these pipe lines to nonCanadian interests, these profits would be retained in Canada and would be added to the total revenue of this government for the advancement of social services and things of that kind, which would make it easier for the government to add $10, $15, or $20 to the war veterans allowance that was advocated in the debate this afternoon.
Boundary Pipeline Corporation
Many of us think that the Canadian National Railways is losing a great opportunity by overlooking the possibilities for the national ownership of pipe lines as public carriers in Canada. They have the rights-of-way; they have the grades; they have the bridges built; they have all the facilities to unite a public pipe lines transportation system with their railroad system. It is amazing even today, with regard to the publicity given to the great development of oil and gas in Alberta and to the numerous debates in this house which members on the government side listen to with great interest and enjoyment throughout the years, to find that there is still a great laxity and a great lack of interest and appreciation of what this oil and gas business means to Canada at this time and in the days to come.
To support that argument, Mr. Chairman, I want briefly to quote from the Ottawa Citizen of March 10, 1951, which contained an article entitled: "Gas for Canadian cities"; and also the subtitle: "Lack of interest in pipe lines may result in Americans getting Alberta's fuel." The article reads:
The idea of building a pipe line from Alberta to Winnipeg is too much for the average Winnipegger's imagination, this despite the fact that an oil pipe line now connects the Manitoba and Alberta capitals. Yet even a gas line from Edmonton to Montreal would be a routine construction job compared with some of the lines that have been built elsewhere in the world.
Mr. Chairman, members in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, when we were dealing with this bill, and when the companies' agents were producing their witnesses, emphasized the difficulties of building a trans-Canada pipe line to Montreal. Further on, this article has this to say:
By contrast, the cities of the northern United States are exceedingly aware of the possibilities for growth that would follow the tapping of Alberta's gas resources. The promoters seeking to serve them have shown ten times the activity of those who want to serve Winnipeg. Finally, to complete this catalogue of contradictions, there is no financial problem involved. Money for a gas pipe line, any pipe line headed in any direction, is available in plenty and in fact clamouring for a chance to be spent. If there is one thing that there is plenty of today, it is money for investment in pipe lines. That, more than any other factor, makes this sleepy-headed attitude of Canadian cities utterly baffling.
There is a lot of truth and common sense in that article. While we have American interests competing with one another to build these pipe lines in Canada there is a lack of interest on the part of Canadians themselves to build them. The capital is in Canada, and the government has credit resources with which to build these lines. I am of the opinion that in the days to come

Boundary Pipeline Corporation if we do not change the direction of our policy in this connection we will have cause to regret it.
It is mentioned here that money is available for investment in any quantity. Why? Because in the carrying of gas and oil there is, if one may judge from United States history, an increasing profit. That is why in this group we are continually reiterating our belief that these pipe lines should be nationally owned, that they should be part of the Canadian National Railways system, and that these commodities could be provided at a lower cost, leaving the profit for -the Canadian people.
Last year there came before the house and the committee a bill making provision for the building of a pipe line from western to eastern Canada. The pipe line, to operate as far east as Montreal, was to be operated by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. That bill received considerable discussion in the house and in committee. I should like to remind the house that, as a result of the efforts of half a dozen members in the committee who had tried to make certain again and again that the pipe line bills would be amended so that the main pipe line would be in Canada, an amendment was moved1. The amendment was to make certain that Canadian requirements were served first before Canadian gas and Canadian oil was exported to other countries.
In this application to build the Trans-Canada pipe lines it was proposed to build a gas pipe line from Alberta to Montreal, following an all-Canadian route, paralleling the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways. The pipe line would be approximately 2,200 miles long, and would gather in lateral lines of about 900 miles. The main transmission line from Alberta to Toronto would consist of 30-inch pipe and from Toronto to Montreal of 24-inch pipe.
That charter has now been granted and because we believe that Canadian requirements must be served first some of us in the committee, and some in the house, are concerned about the granting of a charter to the company now applying, in case it may jeopardize the building of the pipe line under the charter now granted.
In that respect, and in connection- with the bill known as the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines bill, I want to quote from a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Engineering Institute of Canada -at Montreal on May 9, 1951, by Dr. G. S. Hume. This paper is entitled "Utilization of Natural Gas in Canada". 1 should like to quote from it some references he makes to the granting of

*a charter to the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company Limited. Dr. Hume has this to say in that connection:
Finally, the last export permit for gas from Alberta is being requested by a group of Texas operators representing Delhi Oil Corporation of United States and Canadian Delhi Oil Limited for a project, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, to bring gas from Alberta, starting in the Princess area, eastward to Winnipeg, and thence across the Pre-eambrian shield via Fort William and Port Arthur, via Sudbury to Toronto, and thence to Montreal, with a branch line to Ottawa.
When we know about the intentions of this company, and what the building of a pipe line would mean, from Alberta to Montreal, some of us are rather surprised that more Ontario and Quebec members have not shown some concern in making certain that Canadian gas goes first to Ontario and Quebec rather than first to the United States. Dr. Hume goes on to say:
Various routes across the Precambrian shield from Fort William to the vicinity of Sudbury are being investigated. This pipe line as proposed would- be 30-inch diameter capable, with the requisite number of compression stations, of carrying initially 365 million cubic feet a day increasing to a maximum of about 500 million cubic feet a day. The cost is estimated at about $250 million.
Then farther on Dr. Hume says, in connection with the pipe line:
There are certain features for a pipe line project of this kind which appear to be essential if the pipe line is to operate with the greatest efficiency and hence provide as reasonably priced gas to the consumer as can be obtained. One such is underground storage as in depleted or partially depleted gas fields of Ontario during the off-peak summer months so that the load factor of the pipe line could be kept up as nearly as possible to the maximum. A low load factor on such a pipe line would make it uneconomic. Thus underground storage facilities for gas is a prime consideration from the price standpoint even if the pipe line could operate economically without such storage. In addition to providing a means of taking care of off-peak loads, storage also gives a considerable measure of insurance in the consuming area against interruptions in service due to breaks of the transmission line. Long pipe lines are operated, of course, without underground storage facilities. There are various ways of taking care, at least in part, of the variable load.
Then, after dealing with that technical problem, he goes on to say:
These are what are known as industrial interruptible sales. This is a partial compensation for more nearly uniform sales throughout the year. There is no doubt all these features will be fully dealt with by competent engineers before the proper authorities when and if consideration of the pipe line project reaches the final stages. No specific data have yet been made available, but it is known that studies are now under way.
That company has already received a charter from parliament. It has been before the board of transport commissioners, and at this stage had spent a considerable amount of money-and this paper was written about a year ago. We are wondering if we would

jeopardize the building of that pipe line to Montreal if we were to grant the charter sought in the bill before us. This bill would make provision for a smaller pipe line to Winnipeg, and we are of the opinion that if the charter were granted for the smaller pipe line it would become economically unfeasible to build the pipe line from Alberta to Montreal.
That is our major argument. We are concerned about the granting of this charter, unless we can be assured that gas will flow to Ontario and Quebec as a result of a firm and sound exchange arrangement between Canadian and United States producers.
Further to illustrate the great value of this natural resource, and the great competition there is in the United States for charters, as well as the influence brought to bear, 1 should like to read briefly from an article in the Ottawa Citizen of May 5, 1951, headed "U. S. Pressure in Gas Deal". The article reads:
Export of Alberta gas to Montana demonstrates how demand for Canada's natural resources mixes in U.S. politics.
But using political influence for corporate gain is part of the warp of American democracy. It is done as a matter of course. Persons or groups who find themselves facing obstacles that they cannot surmount, instinctively turn to the government for help. There is a revealing paragraph in the first letter from Mr. C. E. Wilson, president of the office of war mobilization, to Rt. Hon. C. D. Howe. It reads:
"During the past several months, I have had several letters from interested American groups, urging that I ask your intervention and assistance in persuading-'(Alberta)'-to give assent and encouragement to the construction of a pipe line for the sale and delivery of gas to the American northwest."
Mr. Wilson went on to explain that he had refused to intercede for these groups.
I might interject here to say that I think Alberta is following a very sensible policy by moving slowly in connection with these growing demands for the export of Alberta natural gas. I think that is a sound policy when-


John Horne Blackmore: They are always sound.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -they are not sure of then-reserves. The article goes on:
The Canadian dilemma at the moment is that, through the exercise of influence at Washington, plus a desire to co-operate to the hilt with the United States in re-arming, we may be pressured out of some of our resources which from a longterm Canadian view it would be better to keep.
Title to most of our oil and gas resources In Alberta have already passed into American ownership. American owners naturally think in terms of their operations as a whole. They do not separate in their minds their foreign assets unless they are forced to do so. When they discover that they can achieve their ends in Canada by nudging Washington, they'll nudge Washington.
Boundary Pipeline Corporation
Then the article concludes:
Alberta with its oil and gas, Quebec with its iron ore, are roughly in the same position today that Venezuela was in two or three decades ago. We welcome foreign capital with open arms. We offer them our resources on terms so generous they rub their eyes in wonder. And because we speak the same language they are not conscious of being in a foreign country. It is like being at home where, if they can't get what they want from a state government they hop a plane for Washington.
I read these quotations to indicate that Canadian writers and people interested in the gas and oil industry in Canada are concerned about the lack of interest across Canada in the development of this great natural resource. We in this group urge public ownership of pipe lines. If that is not possible at the present time, then our second policy is to press, in co-operation with other members of this house and other parties, for the provision of Canadian natural resources to Canadians first before they are exported from this country. We believe that we should use this fuel, this power and this heat in Canada to our own advantage before exporting it because it will mean taxes paid to the national, provincial and municipal governments; it will mean the employment of labour and the development of our own industries. The Ottawa Morning Citizen of February 4, 1951, contained a very interesting article entitled "Exporting Natural Resources" by James H. Gray. He has this to say in conclusion:
If the gas, or the iron ore, or the pulpwood, were processed completely in Canada, a dozen tax sources would be created. The production companies would be taxed on income, the workers employed would be taxed on income. The same would be true of the processing companies and the people with the end product.
Curiously enough, one of Anaconda's main competitors in the copper business in Canada is Consolidated Mining and Smelting. Anaconda is protected by three cents per pound tariff against Canadian copper. Without Canadian gas it would have had to use 1,600,000 barrels of oil, or 500,000 tons of coal annually, at two or three times the price. That would have given a competitive advantage to a Canadian company, if it could have used the gas instead of coal.
I have quoted these articles from various newspapers and other sources to try to prove my argument that we in this country should be careful in granting these charters for gas pipe lines when we are not sure of our own requirements or our developments in the future. During the past ten years industrial development in Canada exceeded the expectations of everyone prior to that time. We do not know what the future will bring and a few years may find us in the position where we find it necessary to use our own total gas resources.
I should like to deal briefly with two aspects of the bill as discussed in the committee. I have found from my experience

Boundary Pipeline Corporation in the committee, as I said before, that a number of members have made every effort to be certain that Canadians shall have the first opportunity to use their own gas and oil. When this bill was before the committee I must say that the company had a most excellent witness in Mr. Herring. I do not think any member of the committee doubted that he was an expert in his field and I am sure that all would say that he was one of the most competent and clear-cut witnesses that have appeared before the committee in -connection with any of these applications for charters.
He was asked a series of questions over a period of three meetings of the committee and I know that other members as well as myself were impressed with his frankness and clear explanations of the technical aspects of the production and marketing of gas. I want to repeat what I said the other evening that we were most fortunate in having the hon. member for Calgary West as a member of the committee because without doubt he has a thorough knowledge of the production and marketing of oil and gas.
The witness gave an excellent description of the economic aspects of the project. He described the purposes of the company and its future intentions. He said that the purpose was to proceed to Winnipeg first, but many of us in the committee noted a change of emphasis after two days of cross-examination. There was considerable emphasis on Winnipeg being the first objective of the company with the possibility of building the line to the United States border if supplies were sufficient.
Later on in the committee proceedings the witness rather played down the possibilities of the company exporting gas to the United States. I think other members of the committee will agree with me in that. He saw that there was consistent opposition to this matter of exporting gas to the United States to the detriment of Ontario and Quebec. I should like to quote from page 97 of the report of the committee in that connection, when I was cross-examining the witness as follows:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the witness a question. I would like to be able to understand the situation. Throughout his evidence it seemed to me that the witness emphasized that the real purpose of building this pipe line-I think that during the whole of the time on the first day this witness was giving his evidence he emphasized the possibility of continuing this pipe line into the states, to cities like Minneapolis and other centres, and the possibilities that that offered for the exchange of gas between Canada and the United States so that Ontario could get it. Now, just a few minutes ago in answer to a question the witness stated


definitely that the success of this venture rests upon moving gas to the Winnipeg market. I would like him to explain to me the reason for the change there.
Mr. Herring then replied as follows:
I see your point. Our recommendation to our people is that we feel that if 75 million cubic feet of gas can be obtained from Alberta that would be adequate. We have recommended- an economic pipe line to Winnipeg for that gas. I did not emphasize any other point except that. I have always stated that at such time as additional reserves were available in Alberta that we would recommend to them at that time the most economic application of such reserves to their system, within limitation. If that gas, as it increases in Alberta, becomes available in sufficient volume-and we spoke of the northern natural market over in Minnesota, and that is what we recommend when we come to that point because at the present time we cannot see the economics of going into Ontario and Quebec across Canada.
That is just the point so far as certain members of this committee are concerned. We are hesitant about giving our support to this bill because we believe that the ultimate objective of the company is the piping of much larger quantities of gas to the northern part of the United States than would be used between Winnipeg and the source of the gas. We are hesitant about supporting the granting of the application of this company until we are assured that the interests of Ontario and Quebec are protected so far as the receiving of natural gas is concerned prior to its export to the United States.


Mr. Mclvor:: As a member of this committee I voted for the bill after moving an amendment. There is no more honest or efficient committee than the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and I think this measure was pretty well handled by it. However, I think all hon. members will admit that those who are putting up the money have a good deal of the say as to where the line will go. When a bill of this kind is being discussed there are people who have an axe to grind, and I admit that I am one of them. I have an axe to grind. I object vigorously to any measure providing for a pipe line that will come to Winnipeg but will not come to Fort William and Port Arthur. I supported this bill-


Mr. Hodgson:: It stops at Winnipeg.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: -because the amendment 1 moved was carried. The purpose of my amendment was to eliminate the words "outside Canada" so that it would be an allCanadian route. That may not go far enough but it was as far as we could go at the present time. There are those who think that Fort William and Port Arthur are merely two little spots amidst a lot of bush, rock and great lakes. Fort William and Port Arthur are among the most progressive cities in Canada, and they will need a lot of gas and oil. On

the way to Fort William on the C.P.R. there are towns that will need gas and oil such as Kenora-the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River will support me-Keewatin and Sioux Lookout. At the lakehead there are towns like Nipigon and Schreiber and new places that have sprung up with quite large populations such as Terrace and Marathon. They will need oil. Then there are the mining towns of Geraldton, Beardmore and Longlac. There would be a good deal of encouragement for the building of such a pipe line to the lakehead. I represent those at the lakehead who say that while it would cost a lot to build a pipe line to the lakehead it is only fair that that region should have some consideration when our own natural resources are being sold. I also admit that the dominion government is not investing one dollar in it and is taking no risk. The people who supply the gas and who put up the money are taking all the risk. I am going to support the bill.


Mr. Larson:: I move that the committee do now rise and report progress.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?


John Horne Blackmore: No.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Those in favour of the motion will please say "yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Those who are opposed to the motion will please say "nay".


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Louis-René Beaudoin: In my opinion the yeas have it.


John Horne Blackmore: We could not hear what you said.


Louis-René Beaudoin: In my opinion the yeas have it.


John Horne Blackmore: We could not hear what you said about the motion.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The motion of Mr. Larson was that the committee rise and report progress. I asked if it was the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion. Some hon. members said "no". Therefore I asked those in favour to please say "yea" and those opposed to please say "nay". Then I said that in my opinion the yeas have it.


Solon Earl Low: Let us have a standing vote.
Motion (Mr. Larson) agreed to: Yeas, 53; nays, 6.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I declare the motion carried.
Progress reported.
Private Bills



ROYAL CANADIAN ACADEMY OF ARTS

Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park) moved: that the house go into committee on Bill No. 143, respecting the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Sections 1 to 9 inclusive agreed to.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bills Nos. 10 to 60, 65 to 90, 95 to 142, 145 to 158, 160 to 171, and 173 to 178, inclusive, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Bill No. 11, for the relief of Dorothy Minnie Hogbin Neale.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 12, for the relief of Dorothy Ailsie Jean Coghlin Hands.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 13, for the relief of John: Hellmann.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 14, for the relief of Myrtle Jesse Marie Gangin dit Gilmore Cooney-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of Catherine Vaughan Troy Campbell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Mary Margaret Graham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Bernice Pomp Gates, otherwise known as Bernice Frank Gates.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Elsie Alexandria Thompson Parr.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Cosmo Iellamo. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Joan Mary Hoerner Rawley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Jennie Harris Klaiman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Cecile Emilie Viger Ross.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Kathleen Marjorie Hastings Hawkins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Doris Abbott Watts.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Hyman Krull. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Grace Catherine Piche Lovegrove.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Bruce Edward Steggles.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Alexander Malcolm Dick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Rose Dorothy
Weatherbee Stopps.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Misha Pauno-vic.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Helen Maude Walmesley Cherry.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Margaret Ann Greenaway Worrell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Isabel Welch Remillard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Karl Gunnar Tammi.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Louisa Crawford Gordonsmith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Mary Rita Estella Brennan Henderson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 15, for the relief of Hilda Richardson Tait.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Olga Katchan Parisella.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Frederick James Perkins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Roger Les-sard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Herve Brunelle.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Marie Anna Brassard Bachand.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Sema Rubin Charles.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Dorothy L. Grauer Shapiro.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Mary Mildred Antoinette Castonguay Smithson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Alma Dorothy Lines Robertson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Erita Ethel Elliott Morris.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of Phyllis Joan Cross Cohen, otherwise known as Phyllis Joan Cross Grosvenor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of John Gavigan.- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Frances Bailey Hershbain, otherwise known as Frances Bailey Berman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Dorothy Gertrude French Gorrell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Lillian May Holloway O'Brien.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Jean Marie Weeks Opzoomer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Nancy Jean Tolmie Dawson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Eileen Shirley Guttman Fagen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Rhoda Hayes Goulet.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Malfice Ciccone Nadeau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Andre Roy.- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Libertia Vinivar McClusky Rutherford.-Mr. Winkler.
[The Chairman.]
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Therese Michel Paquette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Alice Courey Salhany.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Alfred Ernest Farebrother.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Mollie Balacan Pantel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Arline Silverman Cohen.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Margaret Lois Long Fordham.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Rose Godfrey Slutsky.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Gladys Cecelia Fisher Waugh.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Sheila Ruth Coppelman Mitmaker, otherwise known as Sheila Ruth Coppelman Mintz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Dora Katz Schneiderman.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Helene Philomena Schenker Champ-Renaud.-Mr Croll.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Gregorij Sergeij Anker-Jakerov.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Florence Margaret Parsonage Velleman.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Georgine Jun Ruzicka.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Joseph Edgar Eaton.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Kenneth Ashby Lambe.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 122, for the relief of Lillian Ethlyn Crouse McManus.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Marie Leopoldine Gabrielle Asselin Adler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Frederick Charles Butler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Thomas Richard Markey.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Vera Jane Carroll Ross.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Ruth van der Walde Crowley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Ruth Friefeld Ragoza.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Cyril Frederick Hembling.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Denise Gelinas Gilmour.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Hilda Irene Gordon Diamond.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Dorothy Esme Graham Snell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Sergius Messier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Samuel Long Adamson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Sadie Isaac
Kannon.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 156, for the relief of Yvonne Yvette Lalonde Faucher.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Edith Olive Catherine Cramp Midgley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth Strange Colton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Irene Britton Lynn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Pauline Augusta McCaskill Foulis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Hilda Avrith Grossman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Sarah Grossman Grotsky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Eva Ena Guenard Brassard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Helen Myrtle Woods Poullos.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Peter Nicol Crowe.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Fred Jenne Fyles.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Olga Pretula McGonnigal.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Vivian Clement Mole.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Frederick Ernest Marlow.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Audrey Jessie Elizabeth Kinnear Park.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Jean Frew Hawkins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Lucy Elliott Dolan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of George Louis Draper.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Ruth Evelyn Seivewright Day.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of George Edward Gumbley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Eileen Roberta Lynn Walker.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Claire Greenberg Ghilcig.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Eva Lubin Greenfield.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Marie Dora Adrienne Menard Chartrand.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Bridget Chias-son Musseau.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Joseph Lionel Bibeau.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Mary Finkel-stein Fogel.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Jean (Janek) Mazur.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Madeleine Therrien Ferron.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Catherine Victoria Howie Burnett Worthington.-Mr. Winkler.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Hazel Rawlings Passnick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Douglas Paul Wilbur.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Arnold Ernest Kirby.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Annie Shaw Young Goudie Corcoran.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Mabel (Karia-noron) Stacey Delorimier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Gordon Eugene White.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Silas Maxwell Barrow.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Nathalie Olga Marianne Pervouchine Petrik.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Lily Stall Wax.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Charles William Silver.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Jochwet Freiberg Rosenstein.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Mabel Elizabeth Jones McKay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Olive Winifred Thistle Gour.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Kenneth Oliver Frawley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Carol Almina Perry Alleyn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Edna Pearl Tait Ames.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of William Payne. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	163,	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy
Lillian Robinson Kay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Emily Eileen Withall Rediker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Joseph Charles Gerard Jean Leduc.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Hilda Miriam Magee Taylor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	167,	for	the	relief	of	Laurent
Langlois.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	168,	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy
Lucille Girard Ward.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Alfred Macha-bee.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Fanny Ian-covici Weissenberg.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Marilyn Apple Bogoroch.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 175, for the reilef of Helen Seme-gen Boodanoff.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Mary Ann Munro Kelly.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Joan Alexander Jacobs Epstein.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 10, for the relief of Shirley Doreea
Rowe.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Edna Gibson Smith Schiller.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Florence Edith Holland Clarke.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Phyllis Muriel Skelcher MacDonald.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Phyllis Kaplan Holloway.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of William Young. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Doris Jane Aitchison Birchenough.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Ada Vera Higgins Montgomery.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Priscilla Theresa Marie Laurin Minyaska.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Emilia Bigelis Kozakiewicz.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Giuseppa Manuri Bartucci.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Sylvia Grace Martin Corbett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Sarah Sybil Aaron Daugaard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 124, for the relief of Joseph Jacques Ernest Demers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Sam Feld-stein.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Mary Duncan Barlow.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of Rowena Ann Christena Turner Rae.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 174, for the relief of Jozefa Majcher Wozniak.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Esther Maron Feldman.-Mr. Winkler.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it the pleasure of the committee that I call all the clauses of these bills at one time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 1 of these bills carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just before you ask the committee to carry clause 1 of all these bills, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a brief word. It is not my intention this evening to delay the passing of these bills in committee, for they are the same bills we have had before us earlier this session for second reading. Since a majority of the house decided we should deal with divorce here rather than elsewhere I had thought other members would be interested in examining these bills clause by clause, but apparently that is not the case. I note that what you are now asking is that we agree to clause 1, which is the significant clause, of all the bills before us. They number some 157. I merely rise to call attention to what the house is doing, putting 157 of these divorce
bills through the stage known as the committee of the whole in what is but a very brief compass of time.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 1 of these bills carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the preamble carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall I report these bills?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Bills reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall these bills be read a third time?


Mr. Fulton:: Before the bills are read a third time, by leave, I wish merely to ensure that it is made clear on the record that they carried in committee on division.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And there were 157 of them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member said that quite clearly on every clause, as well as the preamble and the title.


Alphonse Fournier: He was not the only one.
Bills read the third time, on division, and passed.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the hon. member, who is the mover of the motion, speaks now he will close the debate.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member closes the debate I would like to say a few words regarding this bill. I congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on his persistence on behalf of this amendment. He covered ground again this year which has become quite familiar.

I am not going to attempt to make the same points I tried to make when the bill came up last year. Amongst other things I said then that I would give close study to the pros and cons of this question, and I have tried to do that. Nothing I have seen has caused me to believe that it is a very bad thing to adopt the voluntary check-off when it has been arranged by agreement between the two parties concerned. I think it has many things to commend it, just as so many other items agreed to by collective bargaining have much to commend them. While the present Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is not to everyone's desire, and perhaps would be a sorry document if it were, on the whole it works very well.
Of one thing I have become quite sure, in connection with this effort in encouraging industrial peace in Canada; the spirit of good will and co-operation between the two bargaining parties is of far greater importance than trying to make the act so tight, so rigid and mandatory in the hope that it might be able to cover all contingencies that might come up from time to time. We in the federal Department of Labour have been doing our very best to help create the kind of industrial atmosphere in Canada in which peace and good labour relations might flourish. For the past year and a half I have heard from time to time the most forceful exhortations from those speaking on behalf of wage earners generally. In this house and even more especially outside it I have been told in no uncertain terms in reference to what happened here in September of 1950, in connection with the railway strike, that the principle of compulsion must not-and I repeat must not-be allowed to creep anywhere into our permanent labour legislation.
I take that to mean that if it is possible to avoid it, government legislation should not compel either side to agree to any bargaining item normally coming under collective bargaining. I will admit that the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act does have some compulsory provisions. For example, there is the provision that an agreement must not be for less than one year. These compulsory provisions, however, apply to both parties. I am not going to say for a moment that never again should the act be amended so that this principle might be included. It may be that the time may come when this amendment should be included in the act as part of a well balanced over-all review, based on a reasonable period of experience in its present form.
I am fully aware that there are members in all parts of this house who feel that that time may be now, and I have the greatest
Industrial Relations
respect for their views. But I do maintain that we can afford to go slowly as we have done in adding further compulsory items and particularly a compulsion which, for the first time in federal legislation, would impose duties on one party to collective bargaining and not upon the other. I should like to be sure also that the establishment of the principle of parliament determining such questions as are now active in the area of industrial self government does not run against the long term best interests of organized labour itself. I am confirmed in this let-well-enough-alone attitude when I reflect that parliament made it quite clear in section 6 of the original act that there is no restriction whatever on the rights of parties to collective agreement to include such a provision.
I should like to repeat that this government is not opposed to the voluntary checkoff in those industries coming under the federal labour code. But the government feels that, for the present at least, the checkoff should be made effective only through a freely negotiated agreement by means of collective bargaining.


Charles Delmar Coyle: This is not the first time, Mr. Speaker, that I have had the opportunity of expressing my views on the attempt which is being made by this bill to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. During the debate which was opened by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on April 1, members will have noticed that the discussion tended to show the desirability of applying the principle of the voluntary revocable check-off to industries under federal jurisdiction, without placing too much emphasis on the method which is being advocated to attain that aim. We all agree on the soundness of this principle of the voluntary revocable check-off as the least possible measure of union security to which the trade unions of this country are entitled.
I am afraid, though, that a member who has been listening to the debates which have gone on in the past years, and again this year under this bill, has been misled in some way since the whole discussion has been on the principle of the check-off, the development of check-off provisions in the country, and so on. Figures have been given showing what the situation is in the manufacturing industry, for instance. Tonight I should like to discuss the effect that the passage of this bill would have on the act which it proposes to amend, the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. The bill is directed at inserting in this act a subsection 3 to section 6, which is one of the sections under
1936	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act the heading of "Unfair labour practices", and which would operate upon the request of any certified trade union to compel the employer to comply with the procedure of the voluntary revocable check-off. My point is this. Even if all the members in this house were to agree on the principle of the voluntary revocable check-off, and wished to see it applied in all plants in this country where the workers are properly organized, the method advocated in this bill to achieve that end within the field of federal jurisdiction is wrong and objectionable.
I have taken the same stand in past debates on the same subject, and it is the stand I am taking today against this bill. I was unavoidably absent when the bill came up for discussion for the first time on April 1 of this year. I have read in Hansard the address which my colleague, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Dickey), delivered on that occasion. He has taken the right approach in examining the bill from the angle which I have just mentioned. He made a very fine address and I wish to compliment him sincerely.
As it is now nine o'clock and I should like to proceed further, I move the adjournment of this debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lapointe for the second reading of Bill No. 181, respecting allowances for veterans and their dependents.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock we were discussing the motion for the second reading of the new War Veterans Allowance Act. I had just indicated, as had other members who had preceded me, my feeling of disappointment that the government is asking the house to raise the amount paid under the War Veterans Allowance Act to only $50 a month for a single veteran and to only $90 a month for a married veteran. I had just pointed out that I felt it was particularly incongruous that on this day we should be reading headlines in the papers to the effect that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) is predicting prosperity and good times for the next ten years, and at the same time we are asked to agree to such small amounts for our burnt-out pensioners, to whom all of us feel we owe so much. I earnestly hope that those who appear before the special committee on 

veterans affairs, when they request that committee to increase these amounts, will know that they have allies in a good many of us in the house. We earnestly hope that their pleas for amounts such as $60 a month single and $120 a month married will be accepted and recommended back to this house by the special committee on veterans affairs.
I feel too, Mr. Speaker, it is most disappointing that the government at this time, when it has chosen to rewrite the War Veterans Allowance Act, has retained the means test to the extent that it is retained in this new version of the act. Under the act as it stood before this bill was brought in, a single veteran was permitted to have $10.42 a month other income and still draw the full amount of the burnt-out pension. A married man was permitted to have $20.83 a month other income, and still draw the full amount of the war veterans allowance. Actually, those margins between the amount of the allowance and the total income that a burnt-out pensioner could have, have been reduced. They have been reduced in both cases to the sum of $10 a month.
In passing I want to say at this point that I still think it is unfortunate that we had by accident back in 1949, in connection with the Old Age Pensions Act, the introduction of the idea of the other income being made the same both for a married couple and for a single person. As I have said, it was an accident; it was done for reasons I need not go into, but I registered my objection very strongly at the time. Now that idea has been carried forward in the present Old Age Assistance Act and here we have it introduced for the first time into the War Veterans Allowance Act. Previously this legislation always provided that the amount of other income permitted to a burnt-out pensioner was twice as much in the case of a married veteran as in the case of a single veteran. Now it has been made the same in both cases, and that margin, as it were, has actually been reduced from the former figures down to $10 a month. I realize that the minister can reply-but I suggest to him that it is only a debating point so far as this margin is concerned-that the ceiling has been raised, but the fact of the matter is that the ceiling has not been raised to the extent that the amount of the allowance itself has been raised, and that is what accounts for this lessening of the margin to which I have referred.
In view of the feeling of a great many Canadians that there should not be any means test at all with respect to the war veterans allowance, it does seem unfortunate that this measure now before us provides

not only for the retention of the means test, but for the lessening of the margin that is permitted to a burnt-out pensioner. I hope that this point will come in for considerable discussion in the special committee on veterans affairs. I say again to the representatives of the Canadian Legion, and to the others who will appear before that committee, that in their request that the income ceilings be raised to $1,200 single, and $2,000 married, they have allies and supporters here on the floor of the House of Commons. I know that members of the committee will listen closely to what the representatives of the Legion have to say, and I hope that not only the private members of the committee, but the government representatives on the committee will pay attention to the Legion's request for considerably increasing the ceilings.
It is obvious now that the government is not going to agree to the removal of the means test from the War Veterans Allowance Act. In that circumstance it means that we will have to concentrate on the effort to secure the raising of these income ceilings.
I believe that consideration should be given to the point that was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) when he suggested that the objective sought by the portions of the act that are designed to permit burnt-out pensioners to engage in employment on a monthly basis without losing all their burnt-out pension in other months could be achieved just as well by raising the permissible income ceilings to the figures suggested by the Canadian Legion, and in so doing some of the other difficulties would be taken care of as well.
I think again of the ill-feeling that has developed in a good many quarters over the way in which burnt-out pensioners, on receiving the old age security pension, have had their burnt-out pension reduced. We understand it in this house at any rate that there is no means test in the Old Age Security Act itself. Everyone 70 years of age who meets the other qualification, namely, that of sufficient residence in Canada, qualifies for the $40 pension under that act regardless of his means. Most people in Canada who qualify for the pension under the Old Age Security Act do not suffer any loss in their other income by virtue of the fact that they are in receipt of that other pension; but in the case of war veterans allowance recipients, when they receive the old age security pension, it is taken into consideration by the war veterans allowance board in computing the burnt-out pension under the means test. In other words, they are still under a means test.
War Veterans Allowance Act
I remind the house and the government that it would have been possible, if the government had seen fit to do it that way, to put income received under the Old Age Security Act in the same class as income under the Family Allowances Act. Income under the latter is referred to in the War Veterans Allowance Act, and is not counted as income for the purpose of the War Veterans Allowance Act. In other words, technically speaking, legally speaking, it could have been done. If the government prefers not to do it that way, that is another of the problems that could have been solved if the suggestion of the hon. member for Nanaimo were taken, and the permissible income ceilings were raised substantially rather than following this other method of providing for part-time employment.
As I say, and as he said, if you raise the permissible income ceilings to figures such as have been suggested by the Canadian Legion, a burnt-out pensioner over 70 who is on the old age security pension would not suffer any loss in his war veterans allowance and at the same time you would take care of the burnt-out pensioner who would be able to take part-time employment. They would both be protected by legislation of that kind. I hope the government will not take the view that this bill in the form in which it has been presented to the house is sacrosanct but that it will let the committee examine the whole question, and if the committee in its wisdom feels a different pattern should be drawn up, that the government will let the committee draw up that different pattern and recommend it back to the house.
I express that hope partly on the basis of what the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) had to say in the house this afternoon. I was very pleased to hear him say when he opened the debate on second reading that in view of what he referred to as the misinterpretation to which the bill was being subjected because of the raising of the age from 60 to 65 except in cases of those finding it difficult to retain steady employment, he was prepared for the committee to change the age and put it back to 60 where it had been. Well, obviously that results from public reaction which has already reached the minister, and I hope that the degree-


Hugues Lapointe: Ah!


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right-for any reason that the minister wants. He says, "Ah". I do not know what he means; but it has come to his attention in some way that the wording of the bill in that respect, as he has presented it to us, is not satisfactory.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It lends itself to wilful misrepresentation.
1938	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: I beg your pardon?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It lends itself to wilful misrepresentation, and therefore should be changed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The parliamentary assistant is saying something quite different from what the minister said.


Hugues Lapointe: No, no; that is exactly what I said this afternoon. It is exactly what I said; but you were not interested in making a speech then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Veterans Affairs thinks, even before this bill was debated in the house, that that section of the bill was misrepresented, and he thinks it is wilful-at least so they are now saying. That is of course a matter of opinion. But even if he thinks that is the case, it is interesting to note that because that happened he is prepared to suggest that the terms of the bill should be changed. I hope the same elasticity and flexibility he has shown will be carried over into the committee, and that the whole pattern can be changed, so far as the government is concerned if, after it has heard the representations of the Legion and others, the committee in its wisdom feels that changes should be made.
Another type of change which obviously will have to be made-and it is technical; I do not intend to go into it in detail-is that after the change from 65 to 60 is made in section 3 of the bill it will follow that changes will have to be made in sections 4 and 31, and perhaps in other parts of the bill as well. Otherwise certain features of the bill will not be clear. At the present time it is drafted on the basis of two categories. If a change is to be made back to the age of 60, I hope the government and committee will see to it that no ambiguity is allowed to carry over.
I am glad to note that there is a section in the bill which, if I read it correctly, does carry out the minister's undertaking of last fall that any changes made under the bill would be made retroactive to January 1, 1952. There was never any doubt that that undertaking would be fulfilled, but I am sure it will mean a great deal to our burnt-out pensioners to know that when this bill is finally enacted there will be for a good many of them an adjustment back to January 1, 1952.
I am sorry there is no change in the new bill with regard to the definition of "theatre of war" for those who participated in world war I. It does seem to me that the case we have been making across the years for an ever-dwindling number of men in this category is one which should not continue to fall on deaf ears. There is not only the


plight of the veterans themselves who, through no fault of their own, were not able to get beyond England during the first world war, but there is the plight of the widows of those veterans who, though they qualify in every other respect, are denied the allowance provided under the act. That, too, I trust will be discussed in detail in committee, and I hope that after representations have been made the committee will give consideration to making a change in that definition.
Similarly I support those who have urged once again that the widows of imperial veterans be granted the allowance, if they have had the required residence in Canada, and that they should not be denied it merely because their husbands happened to live in Canada prior to death something less than the full 20 years.
There are other aspects of the matter upon which I might comment. However I do not believe it is necessary to do so at this time. I confess I have spoken with respect to this legislation on a good many occasions. I have done so because this legislation is extremely important to the needy older veterans of this country. There are many who, though they have served their country well, do not qualify as some of us feel they should qualify under the Pension Act. They must fall back on this legislation, and I feel we should take every possible step to make this the kind of legislation which shows for our burnt-out veterans a high degree of respect, and I think it should really show our appreciation of what they have done for us.
I earnestly hope that these important aspects of the matter, the amount of the allowance, the means test, the relation between war veterans allowance and old age security, as well as other aspects, will be fully considered in committee, and that the committee will be the kind of committee we have had in some years in the past. They have not all been the same. There have been committees in which there was a certain amount of wrangling, as indeed there is in most committees of the house. On the other hand there have been committees when it has seemed to us that the veterans have got together and, on a co-operative basis, recommended what was best for their comrades as a whole.
I hope that will happen this time, and that when the members of the committee have so recommended the government will accept the recommendations they make for real improvement in this very important piece of legislation.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a

few words on this subject, and in doing so shall try to brief. As I am not a member of the committee I will not have the opportunity presented to others to discuss these matters at length.
I feel it is useful to draw to the attention of the minister the fact that there is not entire agreement with the legislation he proposes to have enacted at this session. We are grateful that this matter is being dealt with, in line with the promise given last fall. But it is only fair to indicate at this stage that the legislation does not come up to our expectations.
As the debate progressed I was just thinking that this is a clear indication of the tremendous impact of war on society. Thirty-four years have gone by since the close of the first great war, and we are still attempting to settle some of the problems that affected those who served, and their dependents.
The War Veterans Allowance Act affects people who served in the South African war, which was brought to a conclusion fifty years ago this month. Then, there are a few survivors from the northwest field force whose active campaigning in western Canada occurred about sixty-seven years ago. But this does serve to indicate the shocking impact of war.
In 1979, thirty-four years from the close of the second great war, I suppose the survivors of that war will be arguing about the matter of assistance for veterans. I would hope that we could have the matter solved before too long.
Another point I would mention is that the number of people involved under this legislation is very small. According to the figures available at March 31, 1950, the survivors of the northwest field force who were benefiting under this act numbered only 60, while there were 336 from the South African war and about 24,700 from the first great war. Incidentally I hope that the veterans of the second great war will take a keen interest in the veterans of the first great war, just as the veterans of the first great war felt indebted to the South Africa veterans. It is sometimes overlooked that the South Africa veterans played a great part in the organization and training of the armies who fought in the first great war. Because of their experience, the contribution they made was considerable. As the veterans of the second great war mature a bit they may perhaps acknowledge that the veterans of the first world war made a similar contribution toward their activities.
The number is small compared to the total population of this country. In 1930 there were 51,000 in round figures drawing benefits 55704-1231
War Veterans Allowance Act under this particular legislation, and I am referring only to veterans and not to widows and others. That number has since dropped to 25,000.


Mr. Speaker:: It was drawn to my attention earlier in the day that a discussion on pensions generally was not in order under this bill. At the present time is the hon. member discussing the question of pensions to veterans generally? If so, I would ask him to confine his remarks to the principle of this bill which deals with allowances to war veterans and their dependents.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was referring to those drawing war veterans allowances; I was not making any reference to disability pensioners.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the hon. member to refer to the number of pensioners in 1930.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Under war veterans allowance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Burnt-out pensioners.


Mr. Speaker:: He mentioned some 50,000 for the year 1930.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was quoting from the report of the war veterans allowance board which appears on page 140 of the annual report of the Department of Veterans Affairs for the year ended March 31, 1950. That shows that in 1930 the number drawing allowances under the War Veterans Allowance Act was 51,000, which number has now dropped to 25,000. The total number is decreasing at the rate of approximately 1,000 a year. Each year new people are taken in under the legislation, but the over-all total is decreasing at that rate.
I maintain that it is a decreasing obligation so far as the veterans of the first world war are concerned and I think we can afford to be reasonably generous with these men. In order to qualify they must be sixty years of age or over and must prove that they served in a theatre of war. I remember the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) giving in the house what I considered to be the finest exposition of the service rendered by the men in this category.
These men were not wounded during the war but they suffered the hardships of campaigning. It has become quite obvious that men who underwent the campaigns in northwest Europe from 1914 to 1918 have in many instances suffered as a result.
I recall one sergeant, subsequently a sergeant-major, who came from the maritimes. He had served in France, first in an infantry regiment and later in a machine gun battalion, from the spring of 1915 up to the end of the war and then through the occupation in
1940	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act Germany. He was never wounded and to my knowledge had not missed an action except when he was away on annual leave. That is only one instance and I know of others whose service was lengthy. While they were not wounded they have now reached the age of sixty or over and are beginning to show signs of their exposure to the elements during the campaigning they endured. It was to aid these people that this legislation was enacted.
I think that they are as deserving of generous treatment as any of those who come under our veterans legislation. Consequently I think the Legion is well advised to suggest that the allowances should be increased. I would be happy to support their suggestion. It has been pointed out to the minister before that the Legion and other veterans organizations which deal with these matters are responsible bodies. The Legion has not put forward any extravagant claims at any time. They give close attention to matters of this sort and have not wished to be a burden on the country. Their representations have been carefully investigated and have received close attention indeed.
I regret that the means test has not been removed. This ceiling on the earnings of those coming under war veterans allowance is most annoying. I can give the minister instances where the burden falls largely upon the wife of the veteran. Take where a war veteran is burnt-out and unable to work. He finds that he cannot support himself and his wife on the allowance and the wife must go out to work. We must remember that the wives of those on war veterans allowance are not young women. They have reached the time when they should be retired but in many instances, in order to maintain the home and provide food and clothing, they have to go out to work. At that point the ceiling comes into effect.
I know of one instance of a war veteran suffering from arthritis who is unable to do any work. His wife, who is not a young woman, goes out to work every evening cleaning and sweeping up in a business block. The combined earnings exceeded the ceiling permitted and then the means test was applied and the war veteran was threatened with a reduction in his allowance. When the wife discussed this with the officials they drew attention to the possibility of casual earnings. This is a difficult matter for some people to understand, but it amounts to giving up a steady job and just going around to work a few days here, a few days there and a few days somewhere else and keeping your earnings down to a point where they do not exceed the ceiling.


I think one of the worst features of this legislation is the means test and the establishment of the ceiling, and I should like to lodge my protest. These people, few in number, an ageing group, should be given every encouragement. Where you have dependents who are doing their level best to assist, that should be recognized and these people should be given the benefit of the extra work they do. I hope that during the course of the meetings of the committee all these matters will be discussed in detail and that more generous treatment will be afforded these people on war veterans allowance.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a moment on this matter. As one who has been associated with the Legion for many years, in fact from the very first time to which Your Honour referred a few moments ago when the first payments of war veterans allowance were made, and having been here when the matter was dealt with at that time, I have some special interest in this legislation. I am not going into the details of the criticisms and suggestions that have been made. The minister has been here, has heard them, and I know that he will give them consideration and that the committee will do likewise.
Unfortunately I am one of the veterans who cannot be on that committee, and it is for that reason that I transgress on the time of the house for three or four minutes. I think the point made by the hon. member who preceded me is an important one. The group affected by this legislation is small in number and must inevitably become smaller as time goes on. As he says, there will be no replacements for those who took part in the first world war, and it is going to be many years before the veterans of the second world war can be affected by this legislation. We do not know under what circumstances, financial or otherwise, the country and the government will be operating by that time.
In the meantime we have a direct responsibility to these pitifully few veterans from earlier battles and wars. There are only a relatively small number from the first war. Having studied the legislation, and without committing oneself as to any definite figure as to the payments which should be made, there should be substantial increases. We have the recommendations which will be presented, as we know, by the Legion to the committee. I am sure the minister will agree that all Canadians can be proud of the attitude that has been taken by the veterans organizations in Canada in the past, and particularly the Legion. Their attitude has

been different from that which may have been taken by similar organizations in other countries. They have shown a degree of responsibility towards such matters which has inspired confidence on the part of the country.
One reason why the demands of the veterans as expressed by the Legion have general support throughout the country is that throughout all these years the Legion has always taken a sane and rational approach to the different problems. A great many members of the Legion give of their own time at inconvenience and expense to themselves to service and look after their comrades who have suffered disability or are burnt-out as are the ones we are dealing with today. When such an organization appears, as it will, before the committee in the very near future I suggest that its representations should be received with the greatest of respect. I trust that the committee, as I am sure it does, appreciates the fact that not only the returned men who are members of the house but practically all members of the House of Commons welcome their views and are inclined to endorse them.
As I said, the number of men concerned is diminishing, and surely in these times, when we have a degree of development such as we have never known before and when we are looking forward to further thresholds, returned men who suffer from no particular disability except the fact that they were burnt out in the interests of their country should be properly looked after. I suggest it is not right that there should be a ceiling with respect to them such as is imposed by this legislation. There should not be control of casual earnings, whatever they may be, in the way that is proposed by the legislation. I hope that these matters-and I know they will-will be considered by the committee.
While the members on the other side of the house who are returned men perhaps feel for various reasons that they do not want to take part in the debate at this time, nevertheless we know that they are interested. They have exercised influence before in committees and on the government. There have been times when they have exercised very substantial influence in connection with these matters. I simply speak as one who will not be a member of the committee. I think I am expressing the views of everyone. I know I am expressing the views of all who sit around me, and I believe of members generally and of the people of the country. The country expects the committee to deal with this legislation in a most constructive way and to report it back to the house on a scale considerably modified from that in which it is sent to it.
War Veterans Allowance Act


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to add my voice to the protests respecting the regulations concerning supplementary earnings that have been voiced by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and other members of the official opposition. I do so because I consider that it is an economic error. There are veterans of the first world war with considerable technical skills and who from time to time over short periods can command considerable earnings. I have in mind a veteran who appealed to me. He is a radio technician capable of doing special work on electronics. He could earn $1.50 to $2 an hour doing his specialized work but he was informed that if he accepted a job with one of the firms in that line of work he would lose his war veterans allowance.
On the face of it probably that is just. However, this man suffered an eye injury during the first world war, and his age was such that a company employing him could not in any way guarantee him permanent employment. Nevertheless from time to time he was capable of doing extremely valuable highly skilled work but because of his eye injury he could only do so on a temporary basis. No employer could possibly employ him on a permanent basis when his disability prevented him from working steadily. I feel that a man with such skill should be encouraged in every way to do as much useful work as he possibly can. I feel that the regulations limiting extra earnings not only destroy his morale and his ability to do useful work, which is in itself an extraordinarily bad thing, but also prevent a great deal of useful work being done throughout the country, which is also a bad thing.
Third, this man with special skill had to make a decision whether he would undertake the work-and in this case the job sought the man-and thereby lose his war veterans allowance, with the knowledge that should there be a recurrence of the eye injury, which was expected, that would prevent him from continuing with this work, he would become unemployed and would have to reapply for the war veterans allowance.
I mention this case, Mr. Speaker, because in my opinion one thing we should do from an economic point of view is encourage all the useful work that can be done in Canada. Anyone with special skill, anyone who can do work even of a temporary nature, should be encouraged to do it. If a man suffers a recurring disability which from time to time prevents him doing regular work, nevertheless he should be encouraged to work whenever it is possible for him to do so. It

War Veterans Allowance Act is good for the morale of the man. It is good for the morale of the country, and it is good for our economy.
I feel that these regulations are negative. Believe me, a lot of these old soldiers are extremely proud. More than anything else they want to be usefully employed, but these regulations virtually prevent their employment in many cases. This has come up on several occasions through people who have appealed to me. While they have received sympathetic consideration, nevertheless they have had to come to a decision-and it is a dreadful decision for anyone of any age to have to make-as to whether they would do useful work or attempt to live on the allowance the government granted them. It seems to me nothing would be more calculated to destroy the morale of those in receipt of war veterans allowance, those veterans of the first world war, than to so limit their extra earnings as is proposed under this legislation.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: I am not going to detain the house very long; but like the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), since I am not a member of this committee I would like to place before the house the consensus of opinion of the veterans in my riding, who number several thousand. Tonight we are dealing with a bill which will affect a large number of people in my constituency, many of whom have come there to enjoy the better, drier climate we have in that part of the country. Their number is gradually diminishing. I am afraid that unless something is done quickly the benefits we are hoping to render the burnt-out veterans will be wasted. They will not be there; they will have completely burned away.
To me this is a form of adjustment of a debt of honour, a keeping of faith with those who passed on fighting for these very things: higher standards of life, greater security for their fellow men. If we do not carry out what we fought for in the first and second world wars we will be breaking faith with those who have gone before, particularly if we cannot take better care of their dependents.
The disabled veterans are satisfied with the generous treatment they were accorded last session. I certainly hope the same generosity will be shown in dealing with this group of veterans. In the case of the disabled veterans the brief presented to the committee by the Canadian Legion became practically the blueprint of the final legislation. I feel that was because of the careful thought and study put into that brief by the officers and members of the Legion. It represented the carefully collected and studied


opinions of all the branches throughout the dominion. The same careful canvass has been carried on again with regard to the veterans allowance. I may say I know the work of the Legion very well; I have been a past president and am now a life member. I joined the Legion within the first few months after it was formed, so I know the thoroughness with which the brief will be prepared before being presented to the committee.
From information that has come to me I have some knowledge of one or two points I know will be dealt with in that brief, and on behalf of the people I represent I ask the minister to do something about those matters. In the first place they ask that the principle of the war veterans allowance be not changed, but they ask that it be increased from $40 for a single man and $70 for a married man to $60 for a single man and $120 for a married man. I think that is a reasonable request. I do not believe they are asking for too much in view of the high cost of living today. With the dollar only worth fifty cents, they are practically asking for half those amounts. So while the bill does not contain any figures, since the minister has already changed his mind about one matter I hope he will change it about this as well.
Another point is that the total ceiling should be raised to $1,200 for single men and $2,000 for married men; and to carry that out I suggest that the minister go further and entirely remove the means test. I believe we should encourage these burnt-out men to take any work they can do in order to keep up their morale and give them something to live for. Even though they may earn a little more than the minister believes they should, we must not forget that they can still render useful service to society. I have in mind my own district, where for two or three months each year we have a scarcity of labour to pick fruit. It is true that these veterans cannot do any hard work, but they are ideal for this type of labour. They can work for two or three months picking fruit and sometimes it pays very well, because of the rush nature of the work. So I feel the minister should consider allowing money so earned to be added to their allowance without penalty. Otherwise the fruit industry would have to do without the help now given by these men.
Then the widows of imperial and allied veterans with twenty years of residence in Canada should be entitled to the war veterans allowance regardless of the date of death of their husbands. I believe this is absolutely

War Veterans Allowance Act
correct. I am speaking on behalf of the veterans of my riding, and they are 100 per cent behind that thought.
I well remember Canadians serving in England who would have liked to have gone to France but could not. They had to stay behind in a training camp or work in hospitals or in charge of supplies. During the last war, in many cases, these men ran risks equal to those run by men who were in the front-line trenches. I remember that during the first war the men had to work pretty hard at the base looking after the supplies, whether the base was in England or in France. They were pleased when they were ordered to the front, because they went to the trenches for a rest. Therefore the veteran who served only in England may well have rendered, in that time spent in England, service equal to if not greater than that rendered by one who went to France, who perhaps even then did not see the trenches.
I feel that the implementation of this policy to increase the allowance is long overdue. I could name dozens of cases in which there was hardship that have come to my particular notice. On their behalf I urge the minister to reconsider the bill, especially after discussion with the members of the Canadian Legion. I do not believe the cost would be very high, but that can be considered after the numbers have been arrived at, the ages and the amount to be paid. I feel that the implementation of such an act would round out the program of care that we have developed for our ex-service personnel. It would give us a complete program of care. At present we have looked after the disabled, and we have looked after other small groups. This would complete the program, and Canada could be proud of the service rendered to returned men because it would be the equal of any country in the commonwealth of nations. I hope that the minister, who has already shown a tendency to modify his views and change what is already incorporated in the bill, will continue to do so until the needs of these men have been taken care of.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, lest he should assume from the fact that I did not speak that I had changed the views which I had expressed last year, I know the minister, who welcomes serious suggestions from whatever quarter they may come, will not take amiss the fact that I rise for a few minutes for the purpose only of making it clear that I still hold the same views which I expressed when we discussed this subject on November 19 last year. The views which I then expressed can be found at pages 1133 to
1135 of Hansard for that date. I am, therefore, not going to go into the matter at any length or indeed to repeat what I said, except to say that I support the views as then put forward by the Canadian Legion. Nothing has happened since that has in any way given me any reason to change or modify that stand.
The only point in this discussion or anything that was said on the previous occasion to which I should like to refer especially is the subject of the means test. It was one of those points which I mentioned especially on that occasion when I said words which I feel are equally applicable at this time. When referring to that means test and advocating that it should be either substantially raised or altogether abolished, I said that when it is maintained at its present level it is indicative of a mean and a narrow approach to this problem. I still feel that way, Mr. Speaker. I think that, although there have been some modifications, the legislation as presented, with respect to the means test particularly, imposed a limitation on the over-all income of this dwindling number of burnt-out veterans which still represents a mean and narrow approach to the problem. I did hope that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe)-I know he will receive much advice from the committee on this point-would find himself able to accept at least to a large degree the feelings which have been almost unanimously expressed with respect to the raising of the level of the means test.
Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing much to add to what I said on that occasion. I have given the minister the page reference and I am quite sure that with that consideration for the views of others which he always shows, he will be glad, realizing I am not a member of the committee and will not have an opportunity of expressing these views there, to read what was said and give that consideration to it which he always gives.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that the minister is closing the debate.


Hugues Lapointe: It is not my intention to delay the house much longer. I wish to express my appreciation to every member in this house who has taken part in this debate today. The purpose of the debate is to obtain the views of the members concerning the legislation before it is sent to the committee. I do feel however that, in fairness to myself and to the government which is bringing forward this legislation, there are some comments which I should make.
At the opening of the debate I stated that I would ask the chairman of the committee to see that an amendment was introduced to a section of the bill in order to change the
1944	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act qualifying age from 65 to 60. I tried to explain then, but quite possibly I did not succeed, that my understanding, and that of my advisers who have had considerable experience in the interpretation of veterans legislation, is that the insertion of the words 65 years in this particular section would not change anything as compared to the present application of the law. I understand, however, that it might be interpreted as raising the age at which veterans could qualify for veterans allowances. Since I do not want any such interpretation to be given to this legislation, which is an endeavour to make it a more flexible instrument for veterans welfare, I had no objection at all to the changing of the age from 65 to 60. Some hon. members have seen fit to argue the bill as though this change were not to be made. They have not taken my remarks into consideration, or possibly I did not express myself clearly; otherwise, I should think that they would not have spoken as they did.
Much of the discussion which has taken place today has been on the question of ceilings on casual or intermittent earnings by the recipients of war veterans allowance. Many of the speeches this afternoon were on that particular subject. I feel that some hon. members have not fully understood the purpose and effect of the new section 4. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) -I am sorry he is not here-said that the veterans felt that the putting into effect of the ceilings of $720 or $1,200, as they are now, is not only doing a disservice to the veteran but is causing a loss of production which would benefit the country. He went on to ask: How does the government benefit by making mandatory in the legislation that if a veteran is in receipt of the maximum amount of the war veterans allowance he must stay at home and do nothing because otherwise he will interfere with his allowance? This shows a complete misunderstanding of section 4, Mr. Speaker, as I tried to point out to him during the course of the debate. The whole purpose of that section is to permit a recipient of war veterans allowances to take employment, employment of the nature which was described by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) tonight. In fact, I think the best argument in favour of section 4 was the speech made by the hon. member for York West tonight when he described to us the situation of certain veterans who are skilled workmen. Because of ill health certain veterans are not capable of holding full-time employment; but in a period of full employment they are capable of taking a job for three or four months. Under the legislation as it stands today they 

would not take that employment because they would lose their war veterans allowance. That is the case at the present time. But when this new section is in the act any such veteran who is receiving war veterans allowance may take this employment and may receive this salary, whatever it may be. It may vary from a very low salary for unskilled labour to a relatively high salary for skilled labour. And when he ceases to work at this particular employment he will immediately be qualified to return to war veterans allowance and start to draw his war veterans allowance. In other words, as I mentioned when I introduced the resolution preceding this bill, the general effect of section 4 of the present bill is to take away the ceilings on earned income. I do not believe that ever before has any of our legislation gone so far forward. I know that the necessity for such legislation has been urged for some time.
Suggestions have been made that the same result would be achieved through other means in amending the act. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) suggested that this was new phraseology, new wording introduced in the legislation, and that it might bring about difficulties. I sometimes find that certain people would rather be wrong than be recent. I do not believe the fact that new wording or new phraseology is introduced into the act means that the principle which it carries is by any means wrong, and I do not think that my hon. friend would pretend that either. He may fear administrative difficulties. I think he mentioned that. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility of administering this legislation as I have the responsibility of administering the department; I believe that generally speaking hon. members will agree that the officers of the Department of Veterans Affairs are competent. Most of them have been devoting many years to the cause of veterans. They have followed this legislation; they have taken part in the evolution of the legislation, and I believe they are in a position to foresee any difficulties that may arise out of the administration of the new principle.


Howard Charles Green: I suggested that all earnings should be exempt just as casual earnings are now.


Hugues Lapointe: Well, as I understand it, under section 4 the earnings are exempt; that is the purpose of this section, and that is what I am endeavouring to explain to the house.
I just wanted to put forward these views and these explanations, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister permit a question, purely for clarification? Does he

not mean that earnings are exempt from being carried over into a month in which one is on the allowance?


Hugues Lapointe: No, that is not what I mean. Possibly I could best explain it by giving a hypothetical case. Let us take the case of Private Knowles who starts drawing war veterans allowance on January 1.


Mr. Graydon:: General Knowles.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not bumt-out, though.


Hugues Lapointe: Possibly I was unfortunate in my choice of a name, Mr. Speaker, but I said it was a hypothetical case. He starts drawing his war veterans allowance at whatever rate it may be on January 1. That is, his veterans allowance year starts on January 1. He receives an allowance of $50 for January, February, March and April. At the beginning of the month of May, being an expert gardener, he gets a job planting tulips in front of the parliament buildings, and doing other work of that sort, and carries on-


George Randolph Pearkes: You plant tulips in the fall.


Hugues Lapointe: Tending the tulips would be a better term. He carries on with this work until the end of September. Whatever salary Private Knowles draws during that time does not count at all in the computation of his war veterans allowance. On September 30 the head gardener tells him that he no longer needs his services. He may immediately stop work, and start receiving his war veterans allowance in the month of October. That is my understanding. I think my hon. friend will understand that his income during his months of employment is completely exempted as regards his right to receive his war veterans allowance when unemployed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect, I believe that is what I said.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on veterans affairs.


Lionel Chevrier: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill conferring authority upon the governor in council to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to construct a line of railway from Terrace to Kitimat, in the province of British Columbia, a distance of approximately 46 miles at an estimated expenditure of $10 million and an average expenditure of $217,391.30 per mile. The bill will make provision
Canadian National Railways for the issue by the company of securities, which may be guaranteed by the government in respect of the cost of construction. To enable the company to proceed with construction forthwith, temporary loans may be made to the company out of the consolidated revenue fund, upon terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council and secured by company securities.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister make a statement at this stage?


Lionel Chevrier: I was going to make it in committee.


Howard Charles Green: I would prefer to have it made now.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, this resolution seeks to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to construct a branch line of railway between Terrace and Kitimat, in the province of British Columbia, a distance of some 46 miles. The resolution may be divided into three parts: First, that part which confers upon the Canadian National Railways the right to construct the line at a cost of $10 million; next, that part which authorizes the Canadian National Railways to issue securities guaranteed by the government in respect of the cost of construction of the line; and last, that which provides for the making of temporary loans out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of meeting the cost of the line as it is being constructed.
The Aluminum Company of Canada is engaged at the moment in the development of a large-scale aluminum industry at the head of Kitimat Arm in British Columbia. The construction of the railway from Terrace to Kitimat Arm will be the means of enabling the Aluminum Company to proceed with a series of plans it has in that area. These plans I shall discuss in greater detail as I proceed.
The present plans call for initial production at the rate of 91,000 short tons of aluminum annually, and while it is impossible to forecast at the moment what production will be, the assurance is that the ultimate capacity will be in the neighbourhood of
550,000	short tons annually. The production of this aluminum, as the house knows, is dependent upon electrical energy.
The Aluminum Company has, over and above the establishment of the plant, also in mind the production of electrical energy to the extent of 1,600,000 horsepower.
The construction of the proposed branch line from Terrace to Kitimat will not only enable the company, as I said earlier, to proceed with the development of the electrical energy; it would also make possible the development of substantial timber resources

Canadian National Railways in this area. In addition, the opening up of another seaport at Kitimat will have economic significance in not only developing a seaborne trade out of Kitimat, but also in developing trade in the area. Much more tonnage will arrive by water at Kitimat than will depart from there at the outset. But as the plan which the company has in mind progresses it will, I believe, become easier to develop export trade than will exist at the outset.
The full development of the company's plans aims, first of all, at the establishment of a hydroelectric plant at the nearby coastal point of Kemano on the Gardner canal. This plant will utilize a head of 2,600 feet of water which will be diverted by a system of lakes at the head of Nechako river, which will develop the 1,600,000 horsepower referred to earlier.
Also there will be constructed a transmission line which will transmit the electrical energy from the area of the tunnel to Terrace, a distance of 55 miles. There will also be established under this plan a deep-water dock for the handling of waterborne material, equipment and supplies for the outward movement of a proportion of the finished product. And, finally, there will be set up a new townsite in conjunction with the plant, and industrial works, with schools, recreation and other facilities which should accommodate, ab initio, some 8,000 people.
The estimated cost of constructing a line as set out in the resolution is $10 million. This relatively high cost of construction is due to the difficult terrain over which the line will have to traverse. I have before me, and there will be available in the committee- to which I take it the bill based upon this resolution will be referred-a report prepared by the Canadian National Railways, research and development section, which will give not only a detailed analysis of the traffic which is likely to accrue out of the construction of the line, but also the financial return which should come from it.
That report will indicate that there should be an annual freight traffic accruing to the Canadian National Railways of 113,535 tons during the first five years of operation of the line, and 168,685 tons during the second five-year period. The principal sources of rail traffic, other than those derived from the Aluminum Company, would be forest products; and a minor but probably increasingly important resource would be that of fisheries.
There has also been prepared by the research section of the Canadian National Railways a statement indicating the traffic,

from the point of view of revenue, that is likely to accrue during the first five years of operation of the line, and during the second five years.
During the first five years of operation it is expected that there should be a net betterment to the Canadian National Railways operations of $1,100. That is arrived at by total revenues of $1,854,800 and total expenses of $1,503,700, plus interest on the cost of construction, which would leave the $1,100 net operating result for the first five years.
The position is better for the second five years to the extent that it is expected there will be a net operating revenue of $323,000. I need not go into detail, because that can be done at a later stage.
Then, following the practice it always follows-in my experience at least-in connection with the construction of branch lines of this kind, the Canadian National Railways seek to reach agreement with the company in question. In this instance they have entered into an agreement with the Aluminum Company which guarantees a minimum volume of traffic during the first ten years of operation and provides for the allocation of a substantial amount of electrical power for general industrial purposes, and the industrial development of the area.
Under the terms of the agreement the Aluminum Company undertakes to secure to the Canadian National Railways gross system earnings in freight, passenger and express traffic during the first ten years of operation of the proposed branch line equal to the capital cost of the line, but not exceeding $10 million.
The proposed bill would authorize the Canadian National Railways to expend on the construction of this line the sum of $10 million, and would be similar to bills of this nature which have been passed previously by the house. It would provide for the granting of temporary loans to the railways and a government guarantee of securities issued by the railways for the amount of $10 million necessary for the construction. The Kitimat project of the Aluminum Company is of great importance to the economy of Canada. I need hardly say to the house that it is of great importance from the point of view of the production of more aluminium which is required urgently at this time.
I believe that it is fitting that the Canadian National Railways should be the agency to enter into an agreement with the Aluminum Company for the construction of the line. It is fitting also that the Canadian National Railways should have taken such a prominent part in the development of this natural

resource as it did in the development of the nickel deposits in the Sherridon-Lynn Lake area and as it did in the development of the timber resources in the Kiask Falls-Barraute area on the national transcontinental. This measure to authorize the building of the proposed branch line is one which I am sure will commend itself to the house.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition strongly favour the construction of this branch line. The minister has given the house most of the details, but I would like to point out that although the line will run about 400 miles north of Vancouver it will be south of the Canadian National Railways line which runs from Jasper to Prince Rupert. Incidentally that line was the main transcontinental line through British Columbia of the old Grand Trunk Pacific. Half of the province of British Columbia lies north of that line and practically all of that half, with the exception of the Peace river belt in British Columbia, is undeveloped. Therefore this railroad holds great possibilities for the west coast province.
Terrace is an incorporated village on this line from Jasper to Prince Rupert and is about 100 miles inland. It is situated on the Skeena river in the midst of good farming country.
I take it that the proposed line is to run in a southwesterly direction from Terrace to Kitimat, which is a small Indian settlement on tidewater where there will be built an allyear port; navigation will be possible in and out of Kitimat throughout the winter months.
This line is needed because of the huge undertaking by the Aluminum Company of Canada Limited in that area. If their whole plan materializes there will be situated at Kitimat the largest aluminum smelter in the world. That may seem odd to hon. members as I must admit it did to me when I first heard of the plan. Here was this great company going into unsettled territory and proposing to establish this huge plant. However, the main reason for that is the tremendous power potential. The production of aluminum requires vast quantities of power. Materials can now be taken in by ship and when this branch line is constructed it will be possible also to bring them in by rail and of course the products of the smelter can then be transported either by ship or rail.
The project is really an amazing one. The company is building a large dam on the Nechako river about 140 miles inland from the Pacific coast. This river now drains to the east into the Fraser river which flows into the Pacific below New Westminster. They are damming that river and its tributaries and changing the whole drainage system from the -east to the west; at the western end of this
Canadian National Railways system they are boring a tunnel through a mountain to the Pacific coast for a distance of ten miles; this tunnel will have a diameter of 25 feet and, as the minister has said, will have a drop of about 2,600 feet.
The power plant is not to be located out in the open, but is to be inside this mountain in the Kemano district in an excavated cavern 1,400 feet underground; the power plant site will be 1,000 feet long, 80 feet wide and 100 feet high. Those are the dimensions of the cavern which is to be tunnelled out of the mountain and in which this power plant will be installed. That of course will protect the plant against atomic bombs and landslides and apparently will help in the production of the power.
From that power plant transmission lines will run, not to Terrace as the minister said, but about 50 miles over the mountains to Kitimat which is to be the site of the smelter and the terminus of this branch line. That transmission line goes over territory so rough that in spots the materials needed to be taken in by helicopter.
As I say, the smelter is to be located at Kitimat. The first stage of this development at Kitimat is to be completed in the spring of 1954 and it is hoped to produce at that time 83,000 metric tons of aluminum annually. According to the literature of the Alcan people there will be a town there then of from 6,000 to 7,000 people, of whom about 1,100 will be production workers. The cost of that first stage will be about $160 million and I believe the horsepower to be produced is roughly 420,000. Incidentally they are not going to bring bauxite, the raw material for aluminum, to Kitimat; I understand the plan is to process the bauxite partially in the Caribbean and bring to Kitimat a product known as alumina.
World markets for aluminum are steadily expanding and it is hoped by the company that because of those expanding markets and the establishment of other industries at Kitimat it will be possible shortly to go ahead with the whole plan. If that is done there will be eventually a production of over
500,000	metric tons of aluminum annually and the population of Kitimat will be about 50,000. It is expected the total cost will be over $500 million, or half a billion dollars, and the power developed will total 1,600,000 horsepower. That means doubling the Canadian production of aluminum. As I said before, it means the largest aluminum smelter in the world; half as large again as the aluminum smelter at Arvida in the province of Quebec where, incidentally, I believe only 1,200,000 horsepower are produced.
1948	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways
For British Columbia and Canada this is a most promising development. It will mean a great deal for Terrace and the vicinity. Farmers there will have a market for their crops. There is also good farming land to the east along the main line in the north of Canadian National Railways. It will mean jobs for the people who are already in that central portion of British Columbia. It will mean a great increase in population in all the centres along the line from Prince George right through to Prince Rupert.
I believe this Alcan plan will develop the whole of central British Columbia and should greatly hasten the construction of a railway outlet from the Peace river to the Pacific. It will also help to open that portion of British Columbia lying north of the line from Jasper to Prince Rupert.
It can very well be compared with the developments that are taking place in other parts of Canada. In Quebec we have a railway line being constructed into the region of the iron ore deposits, a line running over 300 miles from Sept lies right up to the border of Labrador. Last year we approved the construction in Manitoba by the Canadian National Railways of a new line from Sherri-don to Lynn Lake, a distance of about 155 miles. In northern Saskatchewan there is the development of the uranium mines, and the northern part of Alberta of course is a hive of activity. In the Mackenzie district there are also great developments taking place. All these northern developments are significant and I believe they are of the utmost importance. I think the future of Canada depends largely on expansion of her activities northward.
With regard to this proposal, in so far as Canadian National Railways is concerned the minister intimated that the railway is to be asked to pay the whole cost of $10 million That seems to be a different course from that followed last year with respect to the construction of the railway line from Sherridon to Lynn Lake. In that case the Department of Defence Production undertook to pay $4,725,000, practically one-third of the cost. The railway was not charged with that much of the cost. The reason given was that the opening of the line was partially for defence purposes; that it would mean the production of nickel, copper and other metals useful for defence preparation.
Here we have a branch line being constructed which will aid in the production of aluminum, and I do not understand why help should not be extended to this line by the Department of Defence Production in the same way that help was given to the Lynn Lake line. If my suggestion were carried out
(Mr. Green.]

the cost to the railway would be that much less. Canadian National Railways would have that much more opportunity to make the line pay. When the minister closes the debate, or in the discussion of the resolution in committee, I hope that he will explain why a different course is being followed in this case.
In the construction of the Lynn Lake line the mining company concerned, Sherritt Gordon Mines Limited, undertook to pay $5 million which was a little over one-third of the cost, the other $5 million being provided by Canadian National Railways. There is no mention here of the Aluminum Company having to pay any portion of the cost although they will get most of the benefit from the branch line. It is true that in the case of the Lynn Lake line there was a provision for repayment if the tonnage carried on the line' exceeded a certain figure. However, the minister has intimated that the only agreement made in the case of the Terrace-Kitimat branch line is that the company will guarantee a minimum amount of traffic for the next ten years, and will guarantee to supply a certain quantity of electric power to Canadian National Railways. I believe he did not indicate how much power was to be supplied. In the case of the Lynn Lake line the agreement also covered freight rates. There was provision for the freight rates that were to be paid on the line. We would like to know whether there is any similar provision in the case of the Terrace-Kitimat branch line.
I mentioned earlier in my remarks that it was hoped that other industries would be established at Kitimat. We are getting encouraging news in this regard every day. For example, since my return from the coast after the Easter recess press dispatches have indicated that there is reasonable expectation of a great pulp and paper plant being erected there by the Powell River Company, one of our timber companies, which is planning to act in co-operation with the Aluminum Company. There has also been an announcement that the Canadian Liquid Air Company will establish a plant at Kitimat where they will produce some of the products required by the Aluminum Company. We hope these are only the forerunners of many other industries that will come to the Kitimat district because of the immense production of power.
The official opposition agree that, the bill should be sent to a committee. We suggest the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines where it will be possible to hear evidence from the officials of Canadian National Railways and possibly also from the Aluminum Company of Canada

Limited. The committee of course will have charge of the conduct of its own meetings, but we hope it will be possible to get the full story of the branch line and the developments that are to take place in the Kitimat area.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, as the representative in this house of the area where the whole Alcan development project, including the proposed railway line, is located, it would be impossible for me to let this resolution pass without saying a few words on it. Naturally the first words I say in this connection, on my own behalf and on behalf of the people of the Skeena district whom I represent here, should express our appreciation to the management of the Canadian National Railways, to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) and to the government for the prompt action they are taking to assure adequate transportation facilities in that area at the earliest possible moment, and as soon as they will be needed by the large development which is taking place.
In that connection I would like to invite the Minister of Transport-and again I am sure I am speaking on behalf of those I represent-to come out to that area and be there when this railway is started. I would suggest also that he return to be there when the line is officially opened. In both cases I am sure his presence would be welcome; and if he wished to make it even more enjoyable for us he might bring along his parliamentary assistant as well.
I do not want to let this occasion pass without expressing one other word of approval and commendation which I feel is due. I would like in this house to express the very great debt of gratitude owed not only by the people of Skeena, not only by the people of British Columbia but by the whole of Canada to Hon. E. T. Kenney, minister of lands and forests of British Columbia, for his many years of effort which have culminated in the introduction of a bill to build a railway from Terrace to Kitimat. This railway line is just a symbol of the tremendous development going on in that area at the present time, a development so great I noticed it was mentioned in the British House of Commons no later than the 21st of last month.
I am one of those, Mr. Speaker, who have been guilty-if "guilty" is the word-from time to time of asking for subsidies and artificial aids to be contributed by governments toward the promotion of some industrial developments. This particular development is based on nothing of that sort. It is a sound
Canadian National Railways business proposition following sound business lines, because the resources of power are there. It will be able to carry itself, and in so doing it will be part of the development of a very large, practically new area of this dominion. It is such a large development that its beneficial effects will be felt far and wide. Our suburbs as far south as and including Vancouver will gain some benefits from this development. It is a fact that in such areas as Vancouver-and Vancouver is not alone; this is also true in cities like Toronto, Montreal and other large places you always find people expressing surprise that there should be a major development somewhere else. I do not think there is any call for any Canadian city to express surprise that major development is taking place in what they very often picturesquely call the hinterland, because it was on the hinterland that all these cities were built.
Turning to the line itself, I understand from the minister it is expected that this railway will be completed in the fall of 1954. It is expected by the Aluminum Company of Canada that their smelter will be in the initial stages of production at the same time. I mention that fact for a reason. I have heard the criticism, not in this house or in these buildings but in other parts of the country, that this line was being built in order to enable the company to take in materials for the construction of their smelter and townsite, and that from then on the line would be a dead issue. I point out that the line will not be completed until at least the first stage of smelter construction has been completed. Therefore the purpose of the line obviously is to serve an operating smelter, not to make it possible to build one.
The development of which this is only a part has its lessons which we have to learn. It has a very definite lesson, I respectfully submit, for the government of the Dominion of Canada. They are not only going to have to provide that area with a railway line, through the agency of the Canadian National Railways; it is going to be absolutely essential that the other services provided by the dominion government be brought up to the same standard of development which the Canadian National is now proposing to introduce. Increased population of course will result from this area of industrial development; but I might mention that a great increase has already taken place in the population of that area. Little communities which 18 months ago could number their population by the dozen, or in some cases by the hundred, are now numbering their population by the hundreds and thousands. When I first saw the town of Terrace some 13 years

Canadian National Railways ago it would have had a hard time to count a total population of 700. Today its population undoubtedly will be over 3,000 and in another 18 months over 5,000. Terrace is just one example. The population which is moving into that area will have to be given all those services for which this government and this parliament assume responsibility.
I think it would be only fair to say that this part of British Columbia is going through a period of expansion which will last about five years. During that period it will make the same gain in population and industrial activity that the extreme southeastern part of British Columbia made in forty years. The development based on the Kimberley mine and the Trail smelter, so well known to the members for Kootenay East and Kootenay West, is roughly the same size and importance as this development will be. 1 know that country. It took it from 1913 to the present time to build up to the extent it has. We are going to go through the same development in a period of five years, and we are certainly going to suffer some growing pains in doing so.
This line will run from Terrace to Kitimat. At Terrace we have a municipality which will shortly be a flourishing city. Eighteen months ago the population of Kitimat was 42, including Indians. Within the foreseeable future, say within three to five years, we will have a city comparable to Arvida. The development which will take place at Kitimat is primarily, as we all know, in connection with an aluminum smelter. But this railway line we are now asking the Canadian National Railways to build is not a one industry affair. It is not being built to serve only one company. According to its own figures the company proposes to eventually develop over
1,500,000	horsepower. It proposes to develop immediately 450,000 horsepower, and to use immediately 300,000 horsepower. So 150,000 horsepower of electrical energy will be immediately available. As their electrical production increases it is to be expected that further surplus electricity will be available for sale to other industries. We know of several who are now planning to go in there. So I would not like the impression to get out that this railway is being built solely for one company.
There are those in the country-I am not referring to anyone in this house-who take every possible opportunity to criticize anything in the nature of improvement or expansion of Canadian industry. They will raise the claim that Canada is building a railway for one private company, but that is not
the case. I have no intention of talking out a measure in which I have such an interest.
I shall close by saying this. It would be surprising if the member who represented the district in which such a tremendous development was taking place did not take a tremendous pride in what is going on in his own constituency. I should like to say further that I take great pride in the knowledge that this tremendous development, which will be of such great value to Canada, was engendered and brought to fulfilment in an industrial and economic climate fostered by a Liberal government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So that this resolution will pass, 1 will not keep the house beyond eleven o'clock. I should like to add my voice, however, as another member from British Columbia, to most of what has been said by the member for Skeena (Mr. Apple-whaite). I should like particularly to express the pleasure which all of us from that province feel in the development which is now taking place in an area which suffers so much from climatic and other conditions. These disadvantages are now, to a large extent, going to be compensated by this tremendous industrial development, and thus people will overcome their otherwise natural disinclination to visit that area.
In a serious vein, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of pleasure, particularly to any member from any part of British Columbia, to see the development which is going on in that province, and which has been fostered and is taking place in an atmosphere which is probably unique in the history of this country. One has only to recall the fact that our province has increased in population by fifty per cent or more in the last ten years to realize what is going on out there. It is true that as yet we do not match the pace of the industrial development of Ontario, although in proportion we come very close to it. I think it is correct to say that we match, proportionately, the pace of the development in Quebec.
A list of the projects which are now on the map for British Columbia, starting if you like at the project of Alcan; the project of Kitimat; followed by the prospect of increased and expanded oil refinery capacity; followed by prospects of a tremendous increase in all sorts of natural energy which will flow from the introduction into British Columbia of natural gas from the Peace river district from both Alberta and our own province; accompanied at the same time by tremendous developments in the pulp and paper industry, which both accompany and are assisted by the possibilities of the chemical industry which flow also from the introduction of

natural gas; all those things, Mr. Speaker, indicate that if the twentieth century belongs to Canada, certainly the second half of the twentieth century belongs to British Columbia. There was one thing particularly which the member for Skeena said which impressed me, and which I think will be obvious to all members. It was that these tremendous industrial developments, accompanied as they are by an increase in population, make increased demands upon the services provided by government as well as those provided by private industry.
I regret to say that there are not many minutes left in which to lay before the house some of the ideas with which I wanted to deal in that connection.


Lionel Chevrier: On the bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As the minister points out, some of them may be said on the bill, although remarks are more closely confined when we are discussing a bill. The salient thought which to my mind emerges from the discussion of a project of this type is that, in view of the tremendous commitments which this country has undertaken with respect to social security programs and the current defence effort, we must not lose sight of the fact that in allocating public moneys to various types of expenditures none is more important than those types which will produce a return, and which will contribute to the development of our resources as well as to the industrial and economic development of this country. I believe that unless we concentrate to an even greater degree than we have in the past on that type of activity which will develop real wealth for Canada, we may some day find ourselves in difficulty and in danger of not being able to meet the other sort of nonproductive commitment.
I am pleased, therefore, at this time to add my support, as I am sure other members in British Columbia do and probably other members from all parts of Canada do-the turn of the maritimes will come eventually___


George Clyde Nowlan: If it had not been for the maritimes, there would be no British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: At this late stage, I am not going to be drawn into a controversy of that sort. We are in full support of the project which the minister has laid before us tonight.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, it is now eleven o clock. I had intended to say a few words on the resolution, but because of the lateness of the hour I shall reserve that for second reading of the bill.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I think we had better rise and report progress.
Canadian National Railways


Lionel Chevrier: May I suggest to the hon.
member that he has asked two questions with which I could deal when the bill is before the house. The bill is ready and can be distributed early in the morning. If that happens, it might go to the committee some time this week. I hope to get the resolution through, because it is certainly unanimous if one can judge from the discussion that has taken place.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Chevrier thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 192, respecting the contraction of a line of railway by Canadian National Railway Company from Terrace to Kitimat, in the province of British Columbia.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, there are two government notices of motion on the order paper, one in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the other in the name of the Minister of Justice. I was told by the Minister of Justice and the assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that it was agreed those motions would be referred to the standing committee on external affairs without debate, and that the debates would take place after they are reported from the committee. If that is the understanding with the representatives of the opposition parties, the motions for reference will be moved. If not we will proceed with Bill No. 191, to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, Bill No. 192, respecting the construction of a line of railway by the Canadian National Railway Company from Terrace to Kitimat, in the province of British Columbia; then the two resolutions in the name of the Minister of Transport, one respecting the New Westminster harbour commissioners and the other to amend the Aeronautics Act; also Bill No. 9, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways. If we have time left we will take up the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour, which is No. 6 on today's order paper.


Howard Charles Green: We have not yet had the Kitimat railway bill. We will have the bill?


Alphonse Fournier: It will be distributed the first thing in the morning.


Howard Charles Green: We cannot consider it tomorrow unless it is distributed.


Alphonse Fournier: I am fold the bill
will be distributed the first thing in the

Business of the House
morning. We attended to that this afternoon, and I am told you will have it in the morning.


Howard Charles Green: I would make that reservation. We must have a reasonable opportunity to study the bill.


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, yes.


Howard Charles Green: This resolution has been sitting on the order paper for some weeks, and there is no cause for rushing it through without our having an opportunity to study the bill.


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, yes; it is understood that you will have an opportunity to study and discuss it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is a reasonable opportunity?


Alphonse Fournier: It will not lie on the
order paper a long time if the debate is not too long.


Gordon Graydon: Is it the government's
intention to move to go into supply any time this week?


Alphonse Fournier: No; the only day we could move to go into supply would be tomorrow, and we are taking up this legislation. On Thursday and Friday we will proceed with the budget resolutions.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 7, 1952