1953-05-09

[Stage Direction]
First report of special committee appointed to examine into the operations of the government in the field of atomic energy.-Mr. Mcllraith.


Mr. W. A. Robinson (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the special committee on broadcasting. I am pleased to be able to say that this is the unanimous report of the committee.



LUNAM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, on May 4 the hon.
member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) had before the house a motion which read:
For a copy of all tenders made by tenderers in competition with Lunam Construction Company Limited respecting all projects in Saskatchewan, since the first day of June 1949 and to date, In which the said company was the successful tenderer.
Just before entering the house I was handed by my officials photographic copies of this return. I have not had time to send it through the Department of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) but I am ready to table that return now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



WATER POWER


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) asked when the report of the international joint commission concerning the power prospects on the Saint John river would be available.
In reply I would say now that the report of the international Saint John river engineering board is expected to be complete 68108-318
during the first week of June of this year, after which the international joint commission will give consideration to its report to the governments of Canada and the United States.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Questions
might give aid and comfort to the Queen's enemies.
The attorney general of the United Kingdom gave consideration to a charge of treason against Mrs. Felton, based on a broadcast she made from Moscow, but concluded that there was insufficient evidence. If hon. members are interested in the views she expressed* they are set out in part in column 2678 of Hansard of the United Kingdom, volume 488, for June 14, 1951. I do not intend to quote her, but even if no charge of treason was laid against her, I think hon. members would, after reading the quotations, agree with me that she does not appear to have any special claim on Canadian hospitality.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
GEORGE T. DAVIE & SONS, LTD.-MACHINE TOOLS

Mr. Fair:: 1.	During the years 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953 to date, who supplied milk to Camp Wainwright?
2.	At what price per quart was the milk supplied?
3.	Were tenders called?
4.	If so, who submitted bids and what were the prices quoted?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	1950-no record.
1951-Davidson Dairy.
[Mr. Harris.!
1952-	Davidson Dairy, Silverwood Dairies Limited, Edmonton, and Woodland Dairy Limited, Edmonton.
1953-	Silverwood Dairies Limited and Woodland Dairy Limited.
2.	.64 cents per gallon; .68 cents per gallon; .7225 cents per gallon; .8025 cents per gallon; .25 cents per quart in Perga-type containers.
3.	Yes, when the command medical officer's approval had been granted to more than one dairy in a position to meet the requirements.
4.	Silverwood Dairies Limited-.25 cents per quart for Perga-type containers.
Woodland Dairy Limited-.25 cents per quart for Perga-type containers.


PIAPOT RESERVE INDIAN SCHOOL
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Was a contract let for the construction of an Indian school at the Piapot reserve, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, to whom?
3.	What was the original contract price?
4.	How much was paid to the contractor named [DOT] in part 2, and what was the date of the last
payment?
5.	Was there any local official responsible for supervision or approval of the work done prior to acceptance and payment? If So, what was his position and name?
6.	Has the school been completed? If so, what has been the total of payments made, with a breakdown showing the division of this total if more than one builder or company received payments?


Mr. Harris:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Harvey Lunam Construction Company, Regina.
3.	$34,934. This amount was later increased to $39,042 to provide for the installation of a heating plant and incidental structural changes ($4,108). The heating plant was purposely omitted from the specifications. Its cost is based on the lowest of three tenders obtained by Lunam.
4.	$28,117.89. December 29, 1951.
5.	Yes. Mr. D. G. N. Morrison, supervisor of construction, Indian affairs branch, Regina.
6.	No.


LOBSTER FISHERY, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Balcom:: 1.	What is the number of lobster fishermen operating in each county of Nova Scotia?
2.	What is the estimated number of lobster traps fished in Nova Scotia in 1952?


Mr. MacNaughl:: Number of fishermen-Number of lobster traps-1951*
(1) (2) Number of Number of lobster	lobster
County	fishermen	trapsAnnapolis ...	
140	6,720Antigonish ..	
264	50,000Cape Breton .	
727	59,200Colchester ...	
25	5,490Cumberland .	
277	60,440Digby	
467	44,075Guysborough,	
1,089	133,030Halifax 	
1,282	115,555Hants 	
-	-Inverness ....	
483	60,393Kings 	
53	1,600Lunenburg . .	
776	54,400Pictou 	
488	93,917Queens	
300	21,400Richmond . ..	
735	62,500Shelburne ...	
1,309	164,000Victoria 	
432	28,600Yarmouth . ..	
1,247	127,685Total	
10,094	1,089,005*1952 data not available.	WEIGHT AND VALUE OF LOBSTERS, NOVA SCOTIA Mr. Balcom:	1. What was	the landed weight of	lobsters percounty in Nova	Scotia for 1952?	2. What was	the market value of	lobsters percounty in Nova	Scotia for 1952?


John Watson MacNaught: 1 and 2.
County	Landings (cwt)	Landed value * $Victoria 	
9,362	220,632Inverness 	
13,216	318,368Cape Breton	
11,786	334,302Richmond 	
6,523	240,358Pictou 	
22,841	515,422Antigonish 	
10,113	208,019Guysborough ....	
18,039	520,200Halifax 	
20,330	716,580Lunenburg 	
7,317	310,934Queens	
5,270	216,434Shelburne	
39,358	1,634,730Yarmouth 	
41,665	1,819,318Digby	
13,746	632,197Annapolis 	
1,607	68,933Kings 	
216	9,785Hants	-Colchester	
757	16,388Cumberland 	
8,285	196,301Total 	
230,431	7,978,901
* Marketed value not available. 68108-318i
Questions


TOPSAIL ROAD, NFLD., MACHINERY PLANT
Mr. Higgins:: Are any orders planned by the Department of Defence Production for the new machinery plant at Topsail road. Newfoundland?


Mr. Dickey:: This plant is being given every opportunity to participate in the defence production program.


LOBSTER FISHERY, NEW BRUNSWICK AND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. McWilliam:: 1.	What is the number of lobster fishermen operating in each county of (a) New Brunswick; (b) Prince Edward Island?
2.	What is the estimated number of lobster traps fished in 1951, in (a) New Brunswick; (b) Prince Edward Island?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1.	(a)	New Brunswick
Albert	 6
Charlotte	 466
Gloucester	 1,108
Kent	 757
Northumberland	 485
Restigouche	 80
Saint John	 110
Westmorland	 570
Total	 3,582
(b)	Prince Edward Island
Kings	 927
Prince	 887
Queens	 441
Total	 2,255
2.	(a)	New Brunswick
Albert	 300
Charlotte	 41,800
Gloucester	 92,700
Kent	 105,900
Northumberland	 64,850
Restigouche	 8,500
Saint John . ..:	 8,392
Westmorland		 56,500
Total	 378,942
(b)	Prince Edward Island
Kings	 166,500
Prince	 143,800
Queens	 72,445
Total	 382,745

Questions


THE KING V. LIZOTTE AND SAVARD
Mr. Balcer:: What was the total amount paid by the Department of Justice as fees and expenses of lawyers representing the defence and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in The King v. Lizotte and Savard?


Mr. Garson:: 


$16,454.32. CATTLE EXPORTS AND IMPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Hansell:: 1.	How many head of cattle were exported to the United States in (a) 1950; (b) 1951; (c) 1952?
2.	How many head of cattle were imported from the United States in (a) 1950; (b) 1951; (c) 1952?


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1. Exports to United States	of cattle:
Year	Number
1950 		
1951		
1952 		
2. Cattle, except purebred, are not recorded separately in import trade statistics but are included in one category reading "Livestock, n.o.p.:-cattle, goats, hogs, sheep and lambs".	
Imports of purebred cattle from the United	
States were as follows:	
Year	Number
1950 		
1951		
1952 		
Imports of "Livestock, n.o.p.:	:-cattle, goats,
hogs, sheep and lambs" from the United States	
were as follows:	
Year	Number
1950 		
1951	 127
1952	 4,433
Separate figures for cattle are not available.


MARSHAL TITO
Mr. Hansell:: Was Canada consulted in respect to the recent visit to the United Kingdom of Marshal Tito of Yugoslavia? If so, in what manner?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can give an oral reply to this question immediately, Mr. Speaker. While the Canadian government was informed by the United Kingdom government of the arrangements for the visit of Marshal Tito to the United Kingdom there was never any question of consultation in this matter, since any decisions regarding the visit were strictly the responsibility of the governments of the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many construction contracts has the Booth Construction Company Limited had at Camp Borden, during the past four years?
2.	What was the total amount of such contracts?
3.	How much has been paid to the said company on account of each of the said contracts?
4.	Did the said company complete each of the said contracts?
5.	If not, which of the said contracts have not been completed?
6.	Were the subcontractors of the said company, or suppliers of goods, wares or merchandise or services, in connection with the said contract or contracts duly paid?
7.	If not, what is the total amount of the unpaid indebtedness of the said company to each of the subcontractors or suppliers, giving the amounts owing and the names and addresses of each of them?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I have
a question for the Minister of Justice. Has the attention of the Minister of Justice been called to the unjustified abuse meted out by Mr. Justice Manson to Raymond Sims in a Vancouver court, as reported in the Vancouver Sun of Wednesday, May 6? Has the minister any comment to make on this reported unseemly conduct by Mr. Justice Manson?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wish to thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of his question. I have seen the newspaper report to which his question refers. I do not wish to offer any comment upon it, because I prefer not to interfere in matters which come under provincial jurisdiction. The remarks which were attributed to Mr. Justice Manson in the newspaper report which was attached to my hon. friend's question were allegedly made in a civil matter in a British Columbia provincial court, and of course the administration of justice in provincial courts is wholly the responsibility of the attorney general of British Columbia and his colleagues in the British Columbia cabinet.


Solon Earl Low: May I ask a supplementary
question? Is it not understood that the justices of these courts are supposed to be impartial?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, my hon. friend is quite
right; justices are supposed to be impartial.


Solon Earl Low: Is it not also true that these
justices are appointed and paid by the federal government?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to engage here in a discussion of constitutional practice, but in reply to my hon. friend's question I might point out that the judges of these courts are appointed and paid by the federal government, but once they are sworn in and engage upon their duties they are then under the direction, in so far as the executive directs the judiciary body at all, of the attorney general of the province and his colleagues, under heading 14 of section 92 of the British North America Act.
Under this heading the provinces have the exclusive responsibility for the administration of justice. If, as in the case that my hon. friend is discussing here, a judge has allegedly committed some impropriety which is serious enough to warrant an attorney general in bringing it to the attention of the Department of Justice, then in a sufficiently serious case, which I suggest the one that my hon. friend has in mind is certainly not, we would appoint a court of inquiry, and the judge could be removed by an address of the House of Commons, but not until the provincial attorney general had thought that it was sufficiently serious to bring it to our attention.


Some hon. Members:: A joint address.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, a joint address of the Senate and House of Commons.


Mr. Graydon:: There must be many hon. members who have no background at all with respect to this matter. Perhaps the hon. member for Peace River felt that he could not give the background when he asked the question. Will the Minister of Justice indicate what the point is that is involved?


Mr. Abbott:: Curiosity killed the cat.


Gordon Graydon: You may be, too, before long.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I can allow a debate of this kind, except with the unanimous consent of the house.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think that in fairness to the judge in question I should say that certain remarks were attributed to him which, for my part, I would not wish to pass judgment on until I had seen them in their context.
9, 1953	5039
Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS



NATIONAL DEFENCE, PRAIRIE COMMAND, SHORTAGES, ETC.  SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER, FURTHER INVESTIGATION    ARCHITECTS' AND ENGINEERS' FEES  BARRISTERS, ETC., FEES PAID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Today the Minister of Public Works tabled two returns, but there are a number of others-


Alphonse Fournier: Not two returns, only one.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has only one outstanding; his record is nearly perfect.


Alphonse Fournier: Thank you.


John George Diefenbaker: But some of the other departments are not nearly so good, and if we are going to finish this session there are some returns that I should like to have and I bring them to the attention of the government. A question was asked by me and passed as an order for return on February 18. It had to do with defence contracts. Then on March 2, there was another question that had to do with the investigation into the South Saskatchewan dam. On March 23 and April 9 two very important returns, one having to do with government architects' and engineers' fees, and the other on lawyers' fees in the various provinces where members of the bar have received in excess of $1,000 in fees during the period named. And finally there is one that comes under the Department of Public Works. It goes back to only May 4 and has to do with an Indian school at Piapot.


Alphonse Fournier: May I interrupt the
hon. gentleman? I was astounded to hear that I had left one out. But the hon. gentleman is mistaken. That does not come under my department at all.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall table it on Monday.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine. I did not
know who was responsible.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether or not any information has been received from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in connection with the discussion which he had with the premier of

Supply-Public Works Saskatchewan on Thursday relative to the South Saskatchewan river dam.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister):: No information has been received by myself. I doubt very much whether there is any available.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I ask
the Acting Prime Minister whether at any time today the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) intends to make any statement in connection with his discussions with President Eisenhower?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Here again the Prime Minister
has not informed me of his intention to do so. I understand that he will be in the house later in the day, and I presume he will make his own decision on the matter in question.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Architectural branch-
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
693. Newfoundland, $100,000.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Chairman, would the Minister of Public Works be in a position to give an explanation of the type of public building to be erected at Harbour Grace, and also at Burin, Carbonear, Deer Lake and Windsor?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, at Harbour Grace the amount is required toward the acquisition of a site and the erection thereon of a public building to provide accommodation for the postal service, Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other government services. The Post Office Department have advised that they are in most urgent need of improved postal accommodation at Harbour Grace. The tentative estimate as to cost is about $100,000. What were the other ones to which my hon. friend referred?


William Joseph Browne: Burin, Carbonear, Deer Lake and Windsor.


Alphonse Fournier: This vote provides only toward the acquisition of sites and the preparation of plans. No provision is made for any actual construction. The department


feels that this vote will have some advantage over the usual procedure of having an individual allotment for each place. In the past, when funds were provided under a title "site for public building", it was felt that the amount provided was sometimes regarded by property owners as an amount the crown was prepared to pay for a suitable site in that place.
The department has now changed the procedure so that no one will assume that a figure for a specific site is referred to. We have left off giving details of prices at which we intend to acquire sites. That applies to the repetition of these votes all through the supplementary estimates.


William Joseph Browne: With
reference to the expenditure for Harbour Grace, let me say that I think that is a very good move. Harbour Grace is certainly in need of a public building. The post office was destroyed by fire a number of years ago, and it is a good idea to spend this money at that point.
Then, in regard to Burin, Carbonear, Deer Lake and Windsor, I am also glad to see that they are getting public buildings. I should like to congratulate hon. members in the Liberal party that they have been able to get public buildings at those points, in their constituencies, so easily. I would draw to the attention of the Minister of Public Works, however, the fact that there are two more places outside of St. John's where nothing has been done at all about public buildings, and where the population is much greater. I refer to Placentia and Ferryland. Placentia was the ancient capital of Newfoundland. The building used there is an old one, and there is need for a suitable building at that place.
Then, at the old settlement of Ferryland, which is the capital of the district of Ferryland, a private dwelling has been in use for some time, and I would hope the minister would keep in mind a public building there. Otherwise we will have to wait until a Conservative government is in office.


Alphonse Fournier: I am always pleased to receive recommendations from members of parliament, from whatever side of the house they come. But I have also to follow the advice of the different departments of government making the requisitions. Our judgment is based upon those requisitions. You would be surprised to know how many people think they should advise us in these matters.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Architectural branch-
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
695. Prince Edward Island, $25,000.
Mr. McLure:: What is to be the total cost of the building at O'Leary, Prince Edward Island? Is it to be a post office?


Alphonse Fournier: This amount at
O'Leary is to provide toward the purchase of a site and the erection of a public building to accommodate the post office and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police there. The proposed work is requested by the Post Office Department, who state that they are at present provided with insufficient space. They require about four times as much as they have. This was strongly recommended to us by the Post Office Department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Architectural branch-
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
698. Ottawa, $400,000.
Mr. Green:: I note that this vote is for public buildings in Ottawa. Yesterday when we were discussing the estimate for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited I pointed out the unfortunate position in which the radioactive branch of the geological survey are placed because of improper accommodation for their work. I said that at least in one instance they have expensive equipment they are unable to use, because it is impossible to air condition the room in the basement of the museum. In the course of that discussion the Minister of Defence Production said, as reported at page 4985 of Hansard:


Clarence Decatur Howe: Blame the Minister of Public Works.


Alphonse Fournier: Don't you think I have been blamed enough?


Howard Charles Green: But there is a ridiculous position.


An hon. Member:: They are falling apart over there.
My statement of yesterday is confirmed today by the report of the special committee of the house on atomic energy. I refer to two portions of that report, one of which deals with the radioactive resources division of the geological survey of Canada, and the other with the radioactivity division of the mines branch.
In that part of the report which deals with the radioactive resources division I find this paragraph:
Your committee finds that the work of the radioactive resources division, geological survey of Canada, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, is being hampered by a lack of adequate accommodation and your committee recommends that the government give immediate consideration to providing adequate accommodation for the important work being carried on by this division.
Supply-Public Works
The minister will note the adjective "immediate". And then in that part dealing with the radioactivity division of the mines branch I find this paragraph:
Your committee finds that the work of the radioactivity division, mines branch, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, is being somewhat hampered by overcrowding. Your committee recommends that the government give immediate consideration to this problem.
I hope the Minister of Public Works will heed these recommendations. New government buildings are being erected in Ottawa all the time. I realize that other departments need buildings, although I sometimes wonder why we have to keep on putting up half-size buildings to house records. Field Marshal Montgomery said the other day when referring to NATO that there was so much paper work that he had never realized there was so much paper in the whole world. I am afraid that the government of Canada is getting into that position. One of these days Ottawa will be half full of records, which might better have been sent down the Ottawa river. However, that is merely an aside.
In this country where there have been such important discoveries in recent years and where the whole country needs the assistance given by the radioactive resources division and the mines branch I think it is poor business to have them improperly housed. The conditions under which the radioactive resources division are working are simply intolerable. I wish the Minister of Public Works would take a trip through that basement himself and if he does not break his neck falling over boxes or one thing and another I am sure he will come away convinced that something should be done at once to give these people proper accommodation. I should like to know today whether he proposes taking steps to meet this urgent need.


Alphonse Fournier: We have an item of $7 million in the main estimates for Ottawa which is allocated among the many buildings under construction. In that list the hon. member will find four items concerning mines and technical surveys. The building program in Ottawa amounts to millions of dollars and therefore we cannot expect to have them all done at the same time. I would hesitate to put too large an amount in the estimates for the capital city because, as the hon. member knows, that has been criticized before.
I believe the hon. member is right in the instance he has mentioned. I always give serious consideration to recommendations made by committees dealing with these matters and the hon. member may be sure that that project will be on the list. But when they say that this is up to the Minister of

Supply-Public Works Public Works, while they may be correct to a certain extent the fact is that I am under the thumb of other authorities which hand out the money. They do not give me an unlimited amount to spend. These items must be screened and they decide on the priority of the projects. I am glad to say that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, is always quite fair to public works, but at certain times he does take drastic action and projects do fall by the way.
I think Field Marshal Montgomery is perfectly correct in what he says about records, and it may be that records dating back to confederation should be disposed of; but the government is always faced with questions asked by the opposition as to the administration of departments. Personally I would be ready to get rid of a lot of documents, but I cannot influence the departments to agree. They tell me that they never can tell when they will be needed. If we were caught short I know what my hon. friend probably would say. He would tell us that we should not destroy important documents even though they go back fifty years. I think we have to use some judgment, but I shall try to meet the request of the hon. gentleman.


William Joseph Browne: Could the minister explain just why there is a power plant at Tunney's Park. I do not see any-think in the main estimates dealing with such a power plant.


Alphonse Fournier: Technically I am not in a position to give a description of the power plant. I have some efficient officials who would be ready to meet the hon. gentleman on short notice and take him on a trip through the plant and explain these technical matters. The hon. gentleman realizes that I act on the advice of my officials who know about these things.


William Joseph Browne: Would the
item of $300,000 to cover site for departmental buildings be in connection with buildings already erected or is that to improve the ground before the building is put up?


Alphonse Fournier: Probably. It is to
extend the site needed for this establishment at Tunney's Pasture, for the city, and Tunney's Park, for the property we own. We put it into condition where we can develop the site for government buildings.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: May I revert
briefly to item 695. The minister informed me during some correspondence I had with him that consideration would be given to having an item in the supplementary estimates to provide for a federal building in

Charlottetown. I see there is no such item and I am wondering what the minister has to report in connection with this proposed building.


Alphonse Fournier: The information I
have is that they are proceeding with the preparation of the plans. As this is going to be a monumental building the plans and specifications are taking some time to prepare. I hope I shall be around to see that this building receives due consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: This Ontario item gives
me an opportunity to rise on a question of privilege in connection with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the reply made in connection with the Booth Construction Company. The questions asked and answers given are as follows:
1.	How many construction contracts has the Booth Construction Company Limited had at Camp Borden, during -the past four years?
Answer: 4.
2.	What was the total amount of such contracts?
Answer: $2,148,336.32.
3.	How much has been paid to the said company on account of each of the said contracts?
Answer:
(a)	Construction	of	204	housing	units $ 884,393.75(b)	Construction	of	100	housing	units	570,956.25(c)	Construction	of	90	housing	units	509,895.54(d)	Construction	of	sewers	andwater mains	
38,794.39Total	
$2,004,039.934.	Did the said company complete each of the said contracts?
Answer: No.
5.	If not, which of the said contracts have not been completed?
Answer: 3(b)-Construction of 100 housing units, 3(c)-Construction of 90 housing unts.
6.	Were the subcontractors of the said company, or suppliers of goods, wares or merchandise or services, in connection with the said contract or contracts duly paid?
Answer: Although the contracts are with the prime contractor, the Booth Construction Company Limited, only, the prime contractor and some of the subcontractors and suppliers have informed Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that there remain outstanding accounts to some subcontractors and suppliers of material.
7.	If not, what is the total amount of the unpaid indebtedness of the said company to each of the subcontractors or suppliers, giving the amounts owing and names and addresses of each of them?
Answer:
While Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has received representations from Booth Construction Company Limited, and suppliers and subcontractors, the representations are insufficient to provide an answer to this question both as to a list of all creditors and as to the amounts owing on account of these two jobs.
That answer, Mr. Chairman, is a travesty. That answer simply places Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in a position of being superior to parliament. If they cannot give all of the records, let them give what they have, for my understanding is that it

runs into a tremendous amount and that the reason that the subcontractors have not been paid is the failure of the corporation to withhold moneys from the Booth company, the contractor. That last answer, Mr. Chairman, is a denial to parliament of information, and it is not the first time that we have had that experience with this corporation. Unless an amended return is made giving this information, however distasteful it may be to the corporation, I intend to move for the information at the beginning of next week. If my hon. friends want to get the session through, let us have information that does not consist of the selected type of information given in 6 and 7 rather than the facts and the truth.


The Chairman:: When the hon. member says "if my hon. friends want to get the session through" that may be considered to be in the nature of a threat and threatening language is not in order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no hurry to finish the session.


Mr. Winters:: I simply want to say that if any question of privilege is involved here it should not come from the hon. member. The type of language he has used this morning reveals an ignorance of the construction industry. As my hon. friend realizes, there is no way of knowing if the subcontractors who have told us that their claims have not been paid constitute a full list of creditor subcontractors. Nor does Central Mortgage know whether or not the list submitted is in respect only of contracts in default. My hon. friend can see from the return that of the four contracts there was default on two of them, as I recall it.


John George Diefenbaker: Did this company have other contracts besides this one?


Robert Henry Winters: I am referring to the four listed in the return made this morning. The hon. member is asking that we give information to the house that might be incorrect and which might thus be unfair to particular subcontractors. The whole purpose of tabling the return in that form was to give the information that we had and to give it on the basis of fairness to the contractor, to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and to the subcontractors. The last thing I would wish to do would be to give incorrect information to the house, and at the same time the first thing I wish to do is give the house all the information to which it is justly entitled and which I can give correctly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.
Supply-Public Works


John George Diefenbaker: I rose on a question of
privilege.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member raised a question of privilege-


John George Diefenbaker: Parliament is entitled to full information.


An hon. Member:: You are not running
things.


Louis-René Beaudoin: -and I allowed him to carry on. May I point out, however, that normally a question of privilege arising out of a matter dealt with before the committee of supply or committee of the whole is constituted should have been taken up when Mr. Speaker was in the chair. Therefore I could have risen and asked the hon. member to resume his seat the minute he stood up to raise his question of privilege. I allowed him to do so, and I allowed the Minister of Resources and Development to give an explanation. That is the limit to which I think I should go in fairness to hon. members who have met here at this time to study the supplementary estimates of the Department of Public Works. We are on item 699, which has nothing to do with the return the hon. member received respecting a question having to do with national housing when Mr. Speaker was in the chair.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, with the
greatest of deference, I cannot allow that statement to pass unchallenged. Parliament is always jealous of the privileges of parliament.


Mr. Dechene:: Just making noise.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member is debating the matter about which he has complained, namely not having received a complete answer to his question. He does so in debating my ruling.


John George Diefenbaker: In what?


Louis-René Beaudoin: When the hon. member
stands up and says he is very jealous of the privileges of parliament and that parliament should not tolerate receiving reports that are not complete, he uses those words following my ruling that discussion should not be continued on the question of privilege that he raised. I should like hon. members to carry on with the study of the estimates. Item 699.


Robert Henry Winters: I should like to say one
word.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I cannot allow the
minister to speak at this time. Shall the item carry?
5044

Supply-Public Works


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Chairman, you said that a threat had been made against the house.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


George Matheson Murray: That is a very serious matter.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I have made my ruling and it is not debatable.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of
public buildings-
701. Saskatchewan, $50,000.
Mr. Argue:: I want to tell the Minister of Public Works that I am very pleased indeed to see in this item for public buildings provision for the acquisition of a site for a public building at Radville. I am sure the progressive community of Radville will welcome this announcement. Can the minister tell me whether arrangements have been made to obtain a particular site, where the site will be and when the minister hopes that actual construction will commence?


Alphonse Fournier: What is the name of the place-Carrot River?


Hazen Robert Argue: Radville.


Alphonse Fournier: The proposed building will provide accommodation for the postal service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which are presently located in inadequate and unsuitable rented accommodation. I have no description of the site and I would not like to designate a site without receiving a report from my officials there. I know that the request comes from the departments that need the building.


Hazen Robert Argue: Could the minister or his department provide that information privately?


Alphonse Fournier: Oh yes, I will take a note, try to inquire and let the hon. gentleman know.


Hazen Robert Argue: I want to bring a further matter to the minister's attention. Has the minister received further representations from the community of Assiniboia for the same type of public building as is now being provided for Radville? If the minister looks into the Assiniboia case I believe he will find that accommodation for the R.C.M.P., the post office and so on is very unsatisfactory for a community of that size. I thank him for the consideration that he has given to Radville, and I am hopeful that similar consideration may be given to Assiniboia.
* Mr. Blackmore: Before the item carries, inasmuch as the hon. member for Assiniboia has mentioned the gratitude of his constitu-
[The Chairman.]
ency, I wish to express the gratitude of Lethbridge federal riding to the minister for the various public buildings which are being constructed in Lethbridge. We deeply appreciate it.


Howard Charles Green: A few days ago we were discussing the question of what had been done or was to be done with the holdbacks in the Lunam case in Saskatchewan. At that time the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce intimated that where a job had been completed the money held back in respect of that particular job would go to the subtrades who had done the work or supplied materials for the job.
On the other hand the Minister of Public Works in his statements on April 8 and during the debate to which I have referred, on April 29, intimated that he was taking the holdbacks from all these contracts- whether the jobs had been completed or not- and was using the holdbacks to finish jobs that had not been completed. I would like to know from the minister what is actually being done on this point-whether the money which has been held back is to be allotted to the different jobs and, where jobs have been completed, whether it is to be paid out to the subtrades who have not been paid by the contractor; or whether the minister is going to keep all the holdbacks from all jobs and use them to complete buildings on which the contractor failed to complete the job.
My second question is whether the minister is proposing to make any change in the way in which his department handles payments on contracts generally. In the debate on this question he has taken the attitude throughout that the department had no responsibility whatever to see that the subtrades were paid; that the head contractor would be paid by the government and once that was done there was no further obligation on the department. Some of us urged that the Department of Public Works should adopt a policy of making contractors produce receipts to show they have paid subtrades before the contractors themselves receive payment. That, obviously, has not been the practice of the department hitherto. In my opinion it is this failure of the government to take an interest in the subtrades which has caused so many people in Saskatchewan to lose out in the Lunam contracts. I should like to know whether the department has now changed its policy and will assume some responsibility toward the subtrades.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, those
are two really serious questions. After listening to the hon. member for Lake Centre and to other members speaking on the disposal

of holdbacks, I had quite a study made of the claims that have come in and which are not what we consider legal claims. When a company says that Mr. So-and-So owes them a balance of $900-and that is all they say- we generally notify the contractor to see that he pays that bill. That is what is done when we get a claim of that nature, and although we do not get them very often we do get some. If we do not hear anything further it means that the contractor and subcontractor have come to some agreement.
In the case of Lunam Construction, in looking over the files I see that some people have sent in claims stating that Lunam Construction owes them certain amounts. Well, we have no evidence where that material was supplied, on what project or on what building. Our difficulty is to try to untangle the story about where those supplies were delivered. The man who writes in usually does not say that he delivered a carload of cement for this building or that building. It is delivered to Lunam Construction. As that contractor had many contracts it is quite difficult to know exactly where supplies were delivered. We can make one thing quite clear: the government or the Department of Public Works as such has no contract, no legal relation with the subcontractors or suppliers of materials. Our contract is a straight contract with the contractor who, under his responsibility, takes on this work. He obligates himself to fulfil the terms of the contract. It is only when some subcontractor or supplier of materials writes in to us that we know the contractor is purchasing material from Mr. So-and-So or that he is employing a certain subcontractor. If we start dealing with subcontractors then I would have to bind the subcontractors by a similar contract.


Howard Charles Green: No.


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, yes; because the department has developed this system of contracts over many decades, and after cases went to court, and so on, the contracts were modified and changed. Would it be a good policy to give the contract on a firm price basis and then go around to the subcontractors and tie them down to a holdback for any work they did? I do not think that would be good administration or something easily administered. However, there may be something in it.
With respect to the holdbacks against these people, we are looking into the matter. I was a little sorry that, during the three days on my estimates, the impression went abroad that we were tyrants or dictators of a kind and that we would sweep everybody aside.
68108-319i
Supply-Public Works Our relations with the public are far better than that, you know. We have pretty good public relations with these people.
I represent a department which is staffed with officials in whom I have confidence. I would go so far as to say that some of those higher officials came into my office, and I am going to give them credit for this: after reading the press reports, where I was called about everything you could call a man- although I do not mind that, and after all I am in public life-


Howard Charles Green: What were you called?


Alphonse Fournier: First of all, a liar, and then all kinds of things.


Howard Charles Green: Not in the house.


Alphonse Fournier: That was in the press. Certain of my officials came to my office and said I should not take the blame for that. They said: "If the information you are given by us is not right, we would rather take the blame." I said: "No, you cannot do that.
I am the man who is administering the department." I may say here that I try to be the boss of that department and I am going to take any responsibility or blame that may be put on me. Those men will be in the service of the department long after I have reached-


Howard Charles Green: When you are in the exchequer court.


Alphonse Fournier: If you were making the appointments I would hope you would be right; but you have not that authority yet and I will have to wait. However, I may be out of public life a long time while these gentlemen will be serving the department. I do not say they are perfect and I do not say they do not make mistakes; but, my goodness, they have not been criticized since I have been in the department. I do not think they are the greatest people ever, but statements have been made which are not very good for the morale of people who are doing their best.
Even if they make mistakes on dates, for instance, and tell me that this was done a certain date or another date when it was not, I am going to take the blame. I do not want them blamed for those details. If there were wrongdoing, of course, the law would follow its course, but I have nothing on which to base a change of mind regarding the officers of my department.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has made a very pleasant little speech but perhaps he could answer my question. I want to know whether he is going to use the money which was held back on a contract which had

Supply-Public Works been duly completed in order to make payments out to sub trades; or is he going to gobble up that money and allocate it to help finish another contract?


Alphonse Fournier: The government does not need so much help, you know. The answer is that if I become convinced that material suppliers and subcontractors have claims in regard to certain buildings, and if there are holdbacks in excess of the amount needed, I am sure the department and the government will consider the matter seriously. Further than that I cannot go.


Howard Charles Green: The minister says the government will consider it very seriously but I suspect they have been considering the problem rather seriously for the past few weeks. Apparently they have not reached much of a decision. Surely the minister should be in a position to tell the committee today whether he is going to take money which has been held back on a contract which has been completed and pay it over to the subtrades and material suppliers who have been done out of their money by this man Lunam.


Alphonse Fournier: Do you want me to
give the answer-


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Alphonse Fournier: -that I gave when I spoke on my main estimates?


Howard Charles Green: On which?


Alphonse Fournier: On my main estimates. In connection with these contracts the minister, if he has read the act and knows what it means, is bound by the statute. If you follow that, you read that statute. I am bound by the statute and I cannot go to the right or to the left. I am obliged to follow it. That is what I have been trying to do ever since I have been in the department, and I am going to do that. Certainly I am bound by the contracts the government has approved and signed with the parties, and I am going to follow them.
I am a believer in the tender system and I am not going to depart from it. If you adopt that system of tender, and the lowest tenderer gets the contract, and then you sign a contract, you are bound in two ways. You are bound by the act and you are bound by the contract. If any hon. member wants to stand up and say that the system we follow is not the right one, he will take the responsibility; I will not. I do not think public works could be administered if you gave me discretion, as I have heard it suggested in this chamber, to pay those subcontractors and those suppliers of materials.

It has been suggested to me, "Why not pay them? You have the money." Why should I pose as a judge and-


Howard Charles Green: You are going to be a judge.
You might as well start now.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. gentleman
is under the impression that I shall be leaving quickly. Twice this morning he has appointed me to the bench.


John George Diefenbaker: And there is no appeal.


Mr. Knowles:: But he is keeping you here.


Alphonse Fournier: But he is keeping me here just the same. I cannot take unto myself, as a minister, the discretion to settle difficulties between creditors and debtors. If you put me in that position, I would really rather be on the bench. You just put me in an impossible position. You give me a statute to administer; you make me sign contracts; and then you say, "Don't follow them."


Howard Charles Green: Nobody is making you do anything.


Alphonse Fournier: You say, "Don't follow the contract". The contract and the statute are made to protect the public treasury. You say, "Don't do that." You say, "Pay Mr. So-and-So to whom a contractor owes $900 or $1,000 or $2,000." You see my position if-


Howard Charles Green: Terrible.


Alphonse Fournier: -I have to go and, as between contractor and subcontractor, try to be a judge instead of putting up public buildings. It would be an impossible situation.


Howard Charles Green: I think you would succeed in being a judge better than you do in putting up buildings.


Alphonse Fournier: My hon. friends are good lawyers and have been before the courts.
I say to them:	Do not make me a judge
whilst I am Minister of Public Works. That is not my duty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, my lord.


Howard Charles Green: We have had two extremely good speeches from the Minister of Public Works. Suppose a subcontractor can prove to the Department of Public Works that he did work on building A which was duly completed. Then is he going to get his pay out of the money which the government has held back on that contract? That should be quite apart from all these inspiring speeches about public works, about the minister not wanting to be a judge too fast, and all these other things. That is a perfectly simple question and the minister should be able to

answer it. I am sure he is quite able to answer it.


Alphonse Fournier: I am going to try to explain the way these things work. Here is a claim I have against the Lunam Construction Company. I will not name the claimant. It dates back. We only received this-it was in the mail a month before this man had his accident.


Howard Charles Green: A month before he had the accident?


Alphonse Fournier: About a month. It was on the 1st of December. It was a letter we had. When it came in the office, I do not know. On January 8, I am told, he had the accident. On the file the hon. member for Lake Centre asked for there is a letter from my then chief architect telling my department that we had received a claim.


John George Diefenbaker: These people gave the minister some poor information the last time.


Alphonse Fournier: That may be. That is where I take the responsibility myself. I am not going to start a fight in my department and say, "Why didn't you tell me exactly on what date you received this?" If I made a mistake, I take the blame.


John George Diefenbaker: The officials did not give the minister the facts, apparently.


Alphonse Fournier: They came in, as I
explained a moment ago, and they said, "You should not take the blame. A question was put and you just asked us for the answer and we gave it to you." The answer was not accurate. There was a few days' delay probably in the office. But just to explain the matter to my hon. friend, may I say this. Here is the way this bill reads. It dates back to September 30, 1950. The subcontractor sends in a bill for $2,100 to the contractor, then another for $7,000 and another for $4,000. In January of 1951 he receives a cheque of $9,305. Then if I go from September 30, 1950, up to November 22, 1951, I see that the amount received was between $45,000 and $50,000 by this subcontractor, and on November 22 there was due and owing to him $902.27. You can see the payments all along and the bills that he filed. I suppose from that date of November 22 the contractor did not pay this amount of $902 and on December 1 we receive a claim here that the contractor owes this man approximately $900. Would we right then take the moneys out of the vote and say, "All right. He did not pay you that $900. He has paid you $46,000. We will send you the $900?" Do you think I should take that responsibility?
Supply-Public Works


Howard Charles Green: Out of holdback, not out of
the vote.


Alphonse Fournier: The holdback? This money is due to somebody; and when there is any dispute about it, do you really think it is the minister's duty to make a decision?


An hon. Member:: No; not the minister's duty.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not think so. I
do not even know whether this claim is admitted by the contractor. I am not entitled to protect the contractor more than anybody else. We have courts for something in this country. When parties do not agree on claims, where do they go? They go before the courts. If the man is really not solvent- something which he seems to deny in this case-then do not ask the minister to join in there. Why do these creditors not make a petition in bankruptcy? I should like to know why they do not do that.


Howard Charles Green: And get five cents on the dollar?


Alphonse Fournier: I should like to know who their lawyers are. I would have given some attention long ago to that feature. If I were practising law and were consulted, I would have said, "We will file a petition in bankruptcy." The whole assets and liabilities would come out.


John George Diefenbaker: What company would
take an assignment when there are no assets?


Alphonse Fournier: If they had no assets, why did they do business with them? You tell me why you are doing business with a man who is absolutely broke.


John George Diefenbaker: Because the government was behind it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alphonse Fournier: They should have read the contract. Ignorance is no excuse before the law, if they cannot read contracts. Would you suggest keeping on doing business with a man if he is publicly known to be broke and to be a deadbeat? I would not do business with people like that.


Howard Charles Green: There is just one other point I should like to raise. The minister's statement just now proves conclusively that what should have been done-and I hope it will be done in the future-is to make the head contractor produce receipts from his subtrades. Any civilian owner having a building erected would do that.


Mr. Schneider:: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.
5048	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works


Howard Charles Green: These experts can speak for themselves.


Alphonse Fournier: Everybody is an expert with respect to public works, on both sides of the chamber.


Howard Charles Green: He has to do it because if those bills are not paid, under the provisions of the provincial mechanics' lien acts a lien can be filed against his property and he would have to pay these men. In order to protect himself the owner requires production of receipts, if he has any sense at all.


Alphonse Fournier: Will you allow me to answer that point?


Howard Charles Green: The government should not place itself in a preferred position simply because a mechanic's lien cannot be placed against dominion property. If these subtrades could have put on liens against the dominion government, the Minister of Public Works would have had to pay their bills, whether he had paid Lunam or not. I urge on him that he have his department adopt that practice of making the head contractor produce his receipts before he is given his money. At the present time the department is following exactly the opposite course. It is paying the money and then trusting the head contractor to pay the subtrades. In this case the head contractor did not do the fair thing, and the subtrades are made the victims, in effect, of the government's incorrect policy.


Alphonse Fournier: On point number one, with respect to a mechanic's lien, when you do register and file your claim it is accompanied by an affidavit. In this instance we receive a letter saying that the contractor owes me $900. There is no mechanic's lien registered against these government properties. That is understood.


Howard Charles Green: It cannot be done.


Alphonse Fournier: I know it cannot be done, but even if we had had the time it has to be registered within a certain time-I know that is true in my province.


Howard Charles Green: In my province it can be registered thirty days after the completion of the whole building.


Alphonse Fournier: Then there is the justification of the claim based on an affidavit which may be contradicted if it goes further. When we receive a claim in public works those two conditions generally are not there. Therefore we are not taking anything away from the subcontractor or the supplier of materials, who has not been paid because he himself, even if he had the benefit of that mechanics' lien act, would not have


fulfilled the condition. That is my answer to that point.
As to the second point, the hon. member says: "Get from the contractor receipts in every case." Well, he may be buying these materials for different buildings. He could get the receipts, but what is better than the receipt is the affidavit of an honest man.


Howard Charles Green: But the receipt is signed by the subtrade; that is the difference.


Alphonse Fournier: By the subtrade? I do not know who they are. If he is not an honest man-


Howard Charles Green: The inspector gives-


Alphonse Fournier: It may come from anybody. We do not know who the subcontractors are and do not know who are the suppliers-


Howard Charles Green: The minister himself said on April 8 that the head contractor was sending him lists of the subtrades all the time.


Alphonse Fournier: He does.


Howard Charles Green: We read it in his own speech.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, that is after we receive progress reports.


Howard Charles Green: With the progress reports you have the name of the subtrades.


Alphonse Fournier: No.


Howard Charles Green: You said you had.


Alphonse Fournier: Not on the progress report. I should like to take the time to enlighten the hon. gentleman. The progress report is the report of our field man who is on the job making the inspection. Here is a file that I tabled at the request of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I have one here in my hand on an Indian hospital. It starts off on August 5, 1950. Our man on the job reports that on that day 50 per cent of the excavation was completed and forms commenced for footings of west wing. He says that the septic tank and roof slab are poured and the forms for the pumping chamber are proceeded with. He says: "Gravel hauled to site for footings is considered too fine; have ordered supplies of crushed rock to be hauled before proceeding with footings." That was the first report on the start of that building. The second progress report-


Howard Charles Green: Whom is that from?


Alphonse Fournier: That is from our field man who every week-


Howard Charles Green: Your inspector.


Alphonse Fournier: -sends a report to his resident architect who later on sends it to headquarters.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the name?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Glennie, and he continues on this building every week and we follow on that report the percentage of the different works he has executed. That is the way we check the statement of the contractor, his sworn statement, or the sworn statement of his accountant or representative. We compare what our man says here with what he reports and that is how we advise the comptroller of the treasury to make payments. If that procedure is not perfect, it is the best that has been devised in any department of government that I know of.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister this question? Why did he tell the committee on April 8, as reported at page 3618 of Hansard the following:
Every month, on special dates, a contractor makes progress reports as to the work done and the materials employed, and gives us a list of those who have sold him materials. That list is part of the progress report, and it is accompanied by an affidavit of the contractor. On that we send out our cheque, less a 10 per cent drawback. We have a 10 per cent security.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes; well, the only mistake I made in that is that I called it a progress report from the contractor. It is not exactly that. The progress report is made by my official in the field.


Howard Charles Green: But you did get a list of the subtrades.


Alphonse Fournier: The contractor, when he makes his claim for money, states the work he has done and the materials that have entered, and names probably-I cannot recall now because I filed one of these statements. In the head office we compare our own man's report and this claim from the contractor. That is how we can follow to see if the work has been done. If the man sends in a report that he has paid for this work, or his manager or accountant swears that to his personal knowledge it has been paid, and we receive no complaints, I cannot see how I can proceed otherwise.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has given his explanation in answer to the questions asked by my hon. friend. He has taken the very proper constitutional stand that, however unjustifiable and however unsupported by the facts the information that was given to him by his officials may have been, he as minister accepts the responsibility.
I think the Lunam case reveals a situation in the Department of Public Works that indicates a careless disregard by these officials of the authority of parliament. For as one goes through the record he will find with
Supply-Public Works amazement that the revelation of some matters placed before parliament bear no relationship to the facts. During the course of the debate I asked the minister whether or not any endeavour had been made since February, 1952, to locate Mr. Lunam. The minister in the earlier debate, apparently acting on the information of his officials, said in effect that Lunam could not be located.
I suggested that possibly with the mounted police this elusive person might have been located. I was of that opinion because of the fact that within hours of the two occasions that I mentioned Mr. Lunam, the reporters for the Regina Leader-Post were able to locate this man.
Naturally one must accept statements from the minister, and he in turn secures the information from his officials. After the first debate in the house Miss Judith Robinson went to Regina and made an investigation on her own. According to her report in the press, on arriving in Regina she phoned the Drake hotel-Mr. Lunam's name being in the phone book-and Mr. Lunam advised her that he had never been away. That is a peculiar circumstance. It is peculiar that these efficient officials of the Department of Public Works who were trying to find this man Lunam were unable to locate him in a period of thirteen or fourteen months, yet a reporter, without having to use anything more than the ordinary capacity to read a telephone book, was able to locate him. I would suggest that the officials of the department had some facilities available to them to locate him, had they been trying.
And then the minister also said that there had been an endeavour to find this man. I then asked for the production of a copy of all letters, telegrams or other correspondence from February 1, 1952, to date, which had passed between the Department of Public Works and representatives of any department of the federal government in the city of Regina and elsewhere in Saskatchewan, and replies thereto, in connection with efforts to locate Mr. Harvey Lunam of the Lunam Construction Company. And I was surprised when I got a return which said that there was no correspondence in regard to the above matter.
That answer was an answer as well to the information the minister gave in the house, which he accepted from his departmental officials, and which was totally at variance with the facts.
Now then, the next thing that arose was this, that during the course of the discussion in the house the minister said that at no time prior to the accident sustained by Mr. Lunam had there been any knowledge on the

Supply-Public Works part of the government or information given to the government as to the financial incompetence of Lunam or the Lunam Construction Company. We accepted that.
Now we find out, from a document brought down the other day, that the government knew of this weeks and months before.


Alphonse Fournier: No, no. You are not
reading the document.


John George Diefenbaker: I will give the dates. On January 5, three weeks before the Lunam accident-


Alphonse Fournier: No, the accident was on January 8-three days.


John George Diefenbaker: Well then, everything changes, because when we were discussing it previously the information that the department had was that the accident was early in February. That was what was given to parliament-


Alphonse Fournier: Certainly.


John George Diefenbaker: -by the officials. Now, let me go on. On January 5 C. G. Brault, chief architect of the Department of Public Works, wrote to Mr. Lunam:
Department has received communication from Trail Plumbing and Heating, Saskatchewan, Limited stating that up to date their firm has no payment on the work they carried out on the public building at Fort Qu'Appelle.
That was on January 5. The minister says, "We did not know previously. We did not know prior to the accident." That is what he said, when he answered the question a few weeks ago.
Now then, we found out as well in a return brought down in answer to my question that on December 8, 1951, the following message was received:
Charles H. Buck, chief engineer, construction services, Indian affairs branch. Department of Immigration-
Which department was also having work done, construction work.
-telegram just received by-


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, that part of the return does not come from my department. Would the hon. member please wait until that department is under his scrutiny. I will answer everything the hon. member has to say about my department.
He has made two points. Miss Judith Robinson did find Mr. Lunam, admittedly. You have never heard me say a word about any young lady who might find gentlemen in hotels better than architects can. My instructions were-my officials did not write, or send telegrams, but telephoned to our office in Saskatoon.


John George Diefenbaker: No recorded copy of it.


Alphonse Fournier: Now, now-


John George Diefenbaker: No record.


Alphonse Fournier: We will send you the whole of the records of the whole department, if you want them. You are making some kind of a big mountain out of this little case, where three days elapsed between one thing and another. As to locating Mr. Lunam, I am told by my officials, whom 1 believe more than I can believe some other people-


John George Diefenbaker: You certainly cannot rely upon what they told you in this.


Alphonse Fournier: I would not go that far. My hon. friend has been in this house for years, and he knows that the high officials in my department have been model public servants; certainly they have been to my mind, and they have helped this country- and they will still be here giving service, probably, after both my hon. friend and I have gone.
Now, they called their office in Saskatoon and told the people there, "Try to locate Mr. Lunam". They could not locate him; that is the report.


John George Diefenbaker: The head office is in Regina; why call Saskatoon?


Alphonse Fournier: Probably they did call Regina, for all I know. I could not start calling morning and night everywhere in the province to locate Lunam; I have not the time. It takes all my time to answer you in the house.
Now you make this terrible story about not locating Lunam. Supposing I located him in his room-whatever number it was- where Miss Judith Robinson found him. Supposing I had, what would I have done with him when I located him? You say he has no assets. You say he is not worth anything. He has been a nuisance in the department in connection with completing these buildings. He had fallen down on the job he was to complete.
It is not that we do not care; I have to do a job, I am a man of action-but I am not a man of speeches. I try to get the work done. Now, we did not find Mr. Lunam, but you did. What has happened since you found him? Did it change the situation? Did he complete the work?
The rumour is that he wants to sue the department, and I am waiting anxiously for this to come before the courts. You say there is a letter on January 5 from our chief architect. He was our past chief architect, a man who has been superannuated after 40 years. He was a good man, and wrote a letter stating, "We have received a claim

against you, Lunam; why do you not pay it?" -or something of that sort.
I suppose before Lunam received it he had this terrible accident and was laid up in the hospital for two or three months. What is important in that? Do you think the house, the country and the press are impressed by all these small things in a department that handles $125 million of works during a year? You are too intelligent to get down to these small things, which do not change anything in respect of the personnel of my department, or the administration of my department.
We are good friends. You may point your finger at me, shake your head at me, or pull your hair, but it will not change what my officials have been doing, or what they are doing today.


Howard Charles Green: That is the whole trouble.


Alphonse Fournier: I think they are doing well. You may be affected by your own temper, but it does not affect me very much.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, after all-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Alphonse Fournier: There is no item for this discussion. It is just by way of courtesy to my hon. friend.


John George Diefenbaker: Are we to be muffled
again?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I have been listening
intently to this discussion for some time. Now, I have looked at the details of this item at page 26. This is item 701, making provision for an expenditure of $50,000 in Saskatchewan, and the details state:
Acquisition of sites and preparation of plans for public buildings at Carrot River, Grayson, Pun-nichy and Radville, $50,000.
May I ask the minister and the hon. member for Lake Centre what relationship there is between this item and the discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: I will answer that.


Alphonse Fournier: I suppose that, as
minister, I should give an explanation, because perhaps the hon. member would not know. Yesterday I took the precaution to tell the house leader of the official opposition that this morning I would bring up my supplementary estimates. Generally they go through without debate. However, I knew the hon. member for Lake Centre and some newspaper people were interested in them. So I gave them advance notification that they would come up. Then I went up to my office and said, "How can I help them to discuss it? I do not see it under my supplementaries." I think I will let the thing go on and if they are going to discuss it I shall not object too much. However, the fact is that we are not
Supply-Public Works voting money for this project at all; it is not mentioned. If you gentlemen have made your case, I have tried to rebut it. If I have not succeeded, then I will wait for what the press will say or what the people will say about the seriousness of these two instances that have been mentioned in the press.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Lake Centre spoke on the Lunam affair. The minister gave a rebuttal. When he was through I rose and asked the minister and the hon. member for Lake Centre whether this matter came within this item. Hon. members will realize that I do not know exactly what is contained in every item that is before us. The minister rose to explain that it was not under this item. If it is in order to discuss the Lunam affair that is splendid, but if it is not in order it must be done by unanimous consent. That is why I rose at this time. As it is apparent that it is not in order, that it does not come under this item, I ask the committee if it is willing to consent that there be a discussion of the Lunam company. If there is, then the hon. gentleman can carry on. Is that agreed?
It must be understood that this discussion of the Lunam contracts which are outside the estimates which we are considering is being carried on only by unanimous consent. If unanimous consent is withdrawn at any time we shall have to revert to the item.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think there will be much further time taken on it except to say that the minister regards this as a very small matter. He said it is of no significance, that we spend millions. My answer to that is that-
Mr. Abbot!: He did not say that.
. Mr. Diefenbaker: -in so far as parliament is concerned, if the information that members of parliament secure in answer to their questions is as far removed from the facts as the information that was furnished to the minister, as he said, and which he gave the house two or three weeks ago, then we are in the position where we cannot rely on any answers that are given to us.
I conclude with this: As far as this question is concerned, I intended to suggest to Your Honour that it was in order to discuss it because if contracts are being discharged and executed in the way this one was, if this is the general practice, then a very serious situation exists. The minister said, "after all, why don't they put this company in bankruptcy." It started as a company whose only capital was political, and it has not increased that capitalization since. It has no assets. All that this man had, as I am reliably informed, was a house which he transferred to his wife, thereby leaving nothing for the creditors.
5052	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
I think instead of the minister saying that a matter such as this is of no importance we should receive some consideration of the suggestions made that the time has come to reform some of the present procedure, if this represents what is done where wares and merchandise and goods are supplied by subcontractors. It was because of the fact that on every other occasion I know of the government has insisted that in the progress reports, when payments are made, the list of the subcontractors shall be set out in detail showing that they have been paid, and that is confirmed by a statutory declaration or affidavit.
I conclude by saying this, and I have nothing more to say on behalf of the subcontractors: The government has taken this stand. Many of these contractors supplied tens of thousands of dollars' worth of goods after the contracts had been cancelled by the government although it appeared that the Lunam Construction Company was in existence. The government had the advantage. Strange as it may seem, there is only one who can prosecute in this case for the wrongdoing that was done, for the offence that was committed-the government.
First they said that they could not find him. They searched in Saskatoon when the address of the company is Regina. Then they said that they tried for 13 months to find him, but there is not a scintilla of evidence on the record that bears that out. The minister says that they phoned. One would have thought that there would be memoranda setting out the telephone conversations. All I can say is that if what has been revealed here exists in connection with other contracts it indicates that money is being wasted; that there is no proper or efficient discharge of responsibility in the department of which the minister has any knowledge even now, and that something should be done. Provision should be made for a bond in order to assure full execution by the contractor of his responsibilities before payment. Otherwise people cannot take the chance of dealing with government contractors from now on.


Alphonse Fournier: I never wish to have the last word in any discussion. It is bad politics. It is better for you to let your friend think he is right when you know he is wrong. But on the other hand the hon. member said two things against the officials of the department and after thinking them over he will see that he is wrong. He based his case on the two points he tried to make, the first of which was that we had received claims before Lunam's accident. The delay was such that any official could have made a mistake of a few days, and I think the hon. gentleman is going too far when he tries to blame them
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l

and say that they are not good civil servants because of that.
The second point was that the officials could not locate Mr. Lunam. Perhaps I was the one who made a mistake. Perhaps I should not have asked a man who specializes in construction work to try to be a detective. Probably I was wrong in so doing. These are the two things that have been brought up in the house not only today but on my main estimates. These are the two facts that seem to impress certain newspapers. What I said was that the fact that we did not find Mr. Lunam was not very important to the progress of the work, and that it did not seem very important to me whether we had received claims a day or a week before his accident. I said that anything done in a wrong way in the department was important.


John George Diefenbaker: The Indian department had notice five weeks before.


Alphonse Fournier: Please, I am not minister of Indian affairs.


John George Diefenbaker: No, but you are a member of the same cabinet.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, well, that is news.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member is a member of the Conservative party, but will he endorse everything they do?


Robert Henry Winters: Will they endorse everything he does?


John George Diefenbaker: Is that your idea of cabinet solidarity?


Robert Henry Winters: The pride and joy of the Tories.


Alphonse Fournier: If we took the hon. member's speech and his arguments we could turn them over and his head would be down on the floor and his feet up in the air. I can say that, because every argument he has brought forward with respect to this matter had but one object in view. He has forgotten the administration of the department and the legal aspect of the question and has just been thinking of politics.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there no information passed with respect to a company with contracts from the architects and officials of one department to those of another, or are they closed compartments?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
702. Alberta, $1.
Ernest George Hansell: I wish to thank the minister for the progress that is being made on a couple of projects which I have brought to his attention on previous occasions. I refer

to the public building in the town of Coleman, Alberta, which is in my constituency, and which I have attempted to get for several years. I also refer to the project at Claresholm, Alberta, another place in my constituency, which appears to be hopeful. Since we have an item here covering those two and several other Alberta projects-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. May I point out to the hon. member that any suggestions as to the construction of public buildings elsewhere than where these moneys are to be spent should have been made on the main estimates. All we have before us now is an item of $1, and if the hon. member will look at the details on page 26 he will see that where the buildings are to be erected is all spelled out. Therefore I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the item under discussion.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect, you took a couple of minutes to explain something that was not necessary because I am going to confine myself to these particular items. I am not going astray, not even a mile outside these places. When does the minister expect that the work of acquiring sites and the preparation of plans for these buildings will be started? In asking that question there is one other point I should like to raise. In reality this is a vote of $1, but the items in the details show an expenditure of $50,000 for the building at Vegreville and the acquisition of sites and preparation of plans for several other buildings to the amount of $80,000, making $130,000 in all. Then there is a footnote indicating that this amount is less the estimated amount by which actual expenditure on all projects listed falls short of the total of amounts that may be required for such.
Therefore my understanding is that all we are voting is $1 and that in voting the $1 we are also voting approval of the projects listed to the amount of $130,000. It is also my understanding that the projects will be proceeded with if there is money to spare from other projects or if other projects do not cost the amount of money we have voted for them. Is that correct? If so, then I ask the minister what are the prospects of some forward steps being taken with respect to these particular items? I congratulate the minister on the indication of progress on these projects for which we have been asking. The vote gives approval of the projects, but I trust that their inclusion in the estimates does not mean that they are merely something to be dangled before the people and that the simple result is to say to the people: These are what we have in mind; we have approved
Supply-Public Works of going forward with these projects and we will do so if there is enough money left after we have finished those on which we have already embarked. Do I understand the situation correctly?


Alphonse Fournier: I can put the hon. member right. First of all, the explanation of the $1 item is that it is to authorize the department to draw on the main estimates for the province of Alberta in the construction of buildings or acquisition of sites. We expect that the main vote will be sufficient to cover some of these projects, if not all of them. The hon. member has referred to dangling something before the public. Would he turn around and ask his colleague, the hon. member for Battle River, who happens to live in Vermilion, if he is going to dangle that project before the people when he returns home?


An hon. Member:: Ask him about the
$125,000 for Banff.


Mr. Chevrier:: Who is asking for what?


Alphonse Fournier: He has asked me if I am going to dangle them-oh no.


Mr. Johnston:: You are doing a pretty fair job of it.


Ernest George Hansell: When things of this kind appear in the estimates they receive a certain amount of publicity. The people in the areas concerned say: Well, thank goodness, we are going to have a public building. Are they going to have one or are they going to have one provided there is enough money left to pay for it?


Charles Edward Johnston: This is an election year. Don't you know that?


Ernest George Hansell: I appreciate the hon. member's explanation, and I can assure him that if I go back to my constituency I will tell the people that the Minister of Public Works has approved of these projects. I am not afraid to remind them that the minister is a Liberal and I will give full credit for what they are doing. I make no mistake about this, I think that the government has been very fair in my constituency. Most of my constituency is somewhat rural and I have no cities. The largest place has about 4,000 people and I cannot expect million dollar buildings in those places. I cannot expect every place to have a public building and I say that the government has been fair to my constituency. I do not suppose, when they estimate for what they are to build, that they are going to say: "Well, a Social Crediter represents that constituency and not one of our lads." I am fair enough to say that I do not think that is what the minister does. He explained to me on one occasion

Supply-Public Works that he has a whole list of projects and that they go from the top to the bottom. There is a certain formula that they follow and I take it that the time has now come when these projects will be carried out. I do trust that the work of at least acquiring sites and making plans and preparations will go forward this year. Does the minister think they will go forward this year?


George Matheson Murray: I see an item here-


Ernest George Hansell: The minister was getting up to answer my question.


Alphonse Fournier: I just wanted to say to the hon. gentleman that it is not the minister who approves of these; it is parliament as a whole which is asked whether we shall go ahead with these projects. Now, parliament has great confidence in the Minister of Public Works and if they give him that authority I will see that my officials, although not perfect, will proceed as hastily as possible with the different projects.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Chairman, there is an item with respect to Dawson Creek.


Alphonse Fournier: Is that in Alberta? If it is not in Alberta we should wait.


Louis-René Beaudoin: We are still on item 702.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
703. British Columbia, $200,000.
George Matheson Murray: The minister is so broad-minded and such a statesman that he does not pay any attention to the imaginary lines that divide constituencies. The 120th meridian divides the Peace River riding from the Cariboo riding, east of the Rocky mountains. Requisitions were made at the same time for public buildings at Grande Prairie in the Peace River riding and Dawson Creek in the Cariboo riding. Grande Prairie is represented by a man who is constantly attacking the government, attacking the minister and attacking the great Liberal party, while the Cariboo riding is represented by a man who sees a great deal of virtue in the minister and in the great Liberal party. What was our delight then last year to see a magnificent public building opened in Grande Prairie in the riding of our enemy.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I do not see any money oeing voted for Grande Prairie under this vote.


George Matheson Murray: Well, the Grande Prairie building is something that has been accomplished. A magnificent building was built there.


Alphonse Fournier: If I listened to all of the accomplishments I have achieved during my term in this department it would take a long time.


George Matheson Murray: I am pleased to see this item in respect of Dawson Creek now. It is a very flourishing metropolis and certainly a much more important one than Grande Prairie. It is the terminus of a great railway and the entree to the Yukon and all that great country. There is an item here of $50,000 which I take it to be merely for the purchase of a lot on which the building is to be erected. I know this is not just something which is to be dangled before the people of Dawson Creek and I know that a magnificent building will be erected there-because the minister has already erected four or five splendid buildings in the Cariboo riding-buildings which were justified by the growth and development of those communities there. We have Quesnel, and Prince George, flourishing centres of-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


George Matheson Murray: I want to express my thanks to the minister for his consideration of that northern territory.


Mr. Cruickshank:: I would like to say a word on this as it is not yet one o'clock. I see there is an item for a building at Huntingdon. I want to thank the minister as I am sure it will be an excellent building. It is one reason why I am perhaps in a different position from that of my hon. friend from Vancouver-Quadra. I want to get home and see the commencement of that building.
You know, Mr. Chairman, I have had a little experience in filibustering myself. As a matter of fact, I have been accused here of being the champion filibusterer, so I rather resent my hon. friend trying to usurp my championship in that line today. I want to get home and see this building opened.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Go ahead.


George Alexander Cruickshank: As a matter of fact I am going home because I am proud of the fact that I am a Liberal and I want to get back and take a certain interest in a little affair that is going on there. I can sympathize with my hon. friend from Vancouver-Quadra who might not want to join me in seeing the Huntingdon building started. He is not in the position I am in, and is not anxious to get back to his constituency.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: When this Huntingdon building is opened we plan a big celebration and to that opening we are going to invite-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Before the hon. member plans a celebration for the opening of the building could we not pass the item? What he says now is not in order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, I take two minutes and I am told that; but my hon. friend from Vancouver-Quadra is not going to see Tilly Rolston and Bonner, his Conservative friends-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Alphonse Fournier: I will answer immediately. We are going to construct this building in Huntingdon and I hope the celebration will be a great one. We have been quite a while on this item and will the hon. gentleman agree that it pass?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want just half a minute and you can time me. It will not be Quadra's friends Tilly Rolston and Bonner that will be there, it will be somebody else. I am not afraid to go back and support my party.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Chairman, if you could be somewhat indulgent about the pertinency of the few remarks I wish to make to the item of the estimates under discussion, perhaps hon. members would be glad to have just a short report on the visit which the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I have just made to Washington. I can assure hon. members that it was most interesting and extremely pleasant, and I think we have some good reason to expect that it will bear some fruit. I found that the President, his cabinet ministers, the heads of departments and the leaders in the two houses of congress were anxious to give us a great deal of time in order to discuss with us the problems that were of mutual concern to us and to them; and in the course of those discussions they were most sympathetic and most anxious to ascertain all the possible implications of whatever might be contemplated or done on either side of our boundary.
I have just had time barely to glance at our Canadian newspapers but, from what I have been able to see in the less than an hour since I left the plane, there have been fairly full reports of what took place, although I have not seen in the papers the complete text of the communique that was issued last night after the second quite long interview in his own office with the President
External Affairs
and several of his cabinet colleagues. Perhaps it might be convenient if I tabled a copy of that communique.


Mr. Coldwell:: Would it not be well to put it on Hansard?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Would hon. members wish to have it read?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes; or put it on Hansard
anyway.


Mr. Brooks:: It is not long.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: The full text is as follows:
May 8, 1953


[Stage Direction]
The President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and other members of the cabinet have held discussions during the last two days with the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. Louis S. St. Laurent and the Secretary of State for External Affairs! Mr. L. B. Pearson. The meeting continued a longstanding practice of visits exchanged across the border between prime ministers of Canada and presidents of the United States. The conversations consisted of a full and frank exchange of views on the world situation in general and on United States-Canadian relations in particular. They were conducted in that spirit of friendship and co-operation which has long been characteristic of official discussions between the two governments and they revealed a far-reaching identity of objectives.
In a survey of the world situation today, the President and the Prime Minister gave particular emphasis to recent developments in the U.S.S.R. and the Soviet orbit and their effects upon the free nations of the world. It was agreed that while every effort should be made to bring about a relaxation of current tensions, the free nations could not afford to diminish their efforts toward the achievement of united strength and ability to meet aggression. Acts, not words, would be proof of communist intentions. Though recent developments in Korea where Canadian and United States troops are fighting side by side have seemed more hopeful, nevertheless, in Laos a new act of aggression has been committed which might have serious consequences for Thailand and the whole of southeast Asia. These developments in southeast Asia must cast doubt on communist intentions.
In the discussions on the European area, emphasis was placed on the necessity of maintaining the momentum of vigorous support for NATO. The achievements of the recent NATO ministerial meeting were noted with satisfaction. It was agreed that both countries must continue to do their full share to further NATO objectives.
Views were exchanged concerning progress made toward the expansion of world trade. It was recalled that trade between the United States and Canada is greater than that between any other two countries. The Prime Minister stressed the great importance attached by Canada to the liberation and expansion of world trade and expressed the hope that the United States would play a role of leadership in this field. The President stated that, as an interim step, the administration has recommended to the Congress the one-year renewal of the Reciprocal Trade Act and intends to submit to the Congress shortly its proposals regarding customs simplification. The President also pointed out that he has recommended to the Congress the establishment of a commission to study all aspects of United States economic foreign policy so that future policies will be comprehensive, constructive and consistent. '
[Stage Direction]
External Affairs
The Prime Minister emphasized the importance to Canada of an early start on the St. Lawrence project and the especial urgency to Canada of the power development. The President assured the Prime Minister that the United States is fully aware of Canada's urgent need for St. Lawrence power. He said that he favoured the development of the United States share of St. Lawrence power under the authority of New York state and that he hoped for an early favourable decision by the federal power commission in this matter. The President in this connection referred to the decision of the cabinet on this subject announced today. The Prime Minister said that the Canadian government was still prepared to discuss United States participation in the international section, provided that arrangements for power construction are completed and provided the whole seaway would not be delayed. He stressed again Canada's readiness to proceed at once with the work under the Canadian St. Lawrence legislation of 1951.
Recognizing the importance to the free world of the adequate defence of the North American continent, the President and the Prime Minister emphasized the desirability and effectiveness of co-operation on the basis of the Ogdensburg declaration of 1940, which established the permanent joint board on defence between Canada and the United States. Post-war arrangements for continental defence have continued in this framework. It was recognized by the Prime Minister and the President that joint defence facilities erected in Canada under these arrangements strengthen the defence and the security of both Canada and the United States. The President assured the Prime Minister that the United States, for its part, in such joint actions will continue scrupulously to respect Canadian sovereignty.
The Prime Minister and the President reaffirmed the importance of continuing the wholehearted co-operation between the two countries in the field of continental defence, and in the wider field of international action designed to preserve and strengthen peace.
Hon. members will have noted the reference to a cabinet decision announced earlier before the communique was put out. In the headlines in the morning Citizen I see this: "New Problem in Issue of Seaway". It may create a new problem or express new urgency in connection with what will have to be done by our good friends in the United States, but it creates no new problem for us. Our position remains the same. At the present time the only thing that is under consideration officially is the application of the state of New York with respect to the power development. If there is an early and favourable decision, as the President has expressed the hope there will be, then we are in a position to go ahead right away with both the power development and our part of the undertaking to provide a seaway even in the international section; but we will still be disposed to listen to and discuss any proposal that might come from our United States friends, provided that it can be made and discussed and disposed of in such a manner as not to retard the completion of the project.

It is necessary in the United States that there be some legislation. There is no legislation now under which any agency of the United States can act to take part in the development of the seaway, but there are proposals before congress. I felt quite satisfied that this cabinet decision was intended to intimate that the time was growing short. There was this application; but there was the hope of the President and the administration that the application would receive an early favourable decision and that therefore the way would be opened to act, and that if they were really anxious in wishing to have some part now in providing the seaway there ought to be action and speedy action. I take it that that was the purpose of this statement or this declaration by the cabinet.
I was asked by the press club yesterday when I expected there would be a decision. I had to say of course that while I was a lawyer I never ventured to predict when a decision in a case that had been taken under advisement would be handed down. But I am quite satisfied that the administration is doing everything that it would be proper for it to do to have the federal power commission realize that an early decision is desirable, and that the present administration feels that that decision should be in the form of granting the application of the state of New York.
There were of course quite lengthy discussions about trade. Perhaps hon. members will have noted the summary of the very encouraging speech made by the President in New York on Thursday evening. The headline is: "Ike calls world trade vital. Says policy is essential to American prosperity. Stand is opposed to that of some in party clamouring for high tariffs."
Well, I found that that was the attitude of the President and his cabinet colleagues. Of course they are not in a position to forecast what congress will do or may do; but I was speaking with several of the leaders, both of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and those I had the opportunity of speaking to seemed to share the views of the President with respect to the interest of the United States in expansion of world trade. It emboldened me to say at the press club yesterday that we were very hopeful there would be nothing done in the United States that could be regarded as a retrograde step at this time instead of an advance toward the liberation and expansion of world trade.
On the whole I think the atmosphere that grows out of these personal contacts is of value, just as I thought was of value the

atmosphere that prevailed and the form of relations that grew out of the conference of the commonwealth prime ministers in London last November and December. I am confident that we shall again find at the next conference the same sincere desire to co-operate, in spite of the difficulties which are serious and which exist in all our various areas. We shall find the same unanimity about objectives, and the same sincere desire to co-operate again in the manner that will be most apt to enable us all to achieve those objectives.
The President and his colleagues expressed the hope that there would be other opportunities for these personal contacts, and I told him that I was not speaking as the leader of a party. I left with him a copy of the unanimous resolution that had been passed by this house and I told him that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and I were there speaking for the people of Canada and not for any one party of the people of Canada.
(See also page 5063.)
Gordon Graydon: On as important an announcement relating to such a far-reaching discussion as has taken place between our own Prime Minister and the President of the United States something ought to be said on behalf of those who sit in other parts of the house.
I agree with what has been said with respect to the great advantage and benefit which comes from a close personal contact between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. These talks help knit closer together the two great nations that compose this North American continent, whose objectives, aims and future destiny are so closely bound up together. These exchanges of views on the personal level between the Prime Minister and the President ought to be maintained and ought to be more frequent so that the least possible area will be open for disagreement on any point between Canada and the United States in the future. We have everything to gain by being together and everything to lose by being apart in even a small way.
I was interested in what the Prime Minister said with respect to the St. Lawrence seaway. This is a matter which is of concern to many people in Canada if not to all people. I was concerned this morning to read, as I suppose most hon. members were, of the new proposal by the President and the cabinet with respect to the United States part of the seaway. It seemed to me to come at a rather late hour in the discussions with respect to the St. Lawrence deep waterway. I have not been aware, and I do not suppose other hon. members have been aware, that the United
External Affairs
States government contemplated that kind of policy, and it must have been somewhat of a surprise to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs when it was brought out of the cabinet meeting yesterday. I imagine most people will be concerned for the simple reason that while it is hoped it may not involve a delay, still when the avenue is left open for participation between the United States and Canada, which the Prime Minister has left open, the undoubted result will be to constitute a delay. I say that because one of the problems that this government and this parliament face in dealing with the United States government is that it is one thing for the government to take a position, and it is another thing for the congress to take the same position and for that congress speedily to carry out the decision that is made.
Frankly, I am concerned lest some of these new things thrown into the St. Lawrence seaway discussion may have the effect of causing delay. I would ask the Prime Minister, when the appropriate time arrives today, and after his having sized up the situation personally in Washington, to tell the house what his own idea is as to when the first sod will be turned on the St. Lawrence seaway project, and when it is likely to be finished.
Those are questions which will be asked every member of parliament in each area when we go home. While it may be a difficult question to answer, it is a question which will come to the front in every conversation concerning the St. Lawrence seaway development. I think parliament ought to know, before it recesses, what views the Prime Minister holds on that point, after his personal contacts in Washington.
Then, I have been interested in the question of trade, and dealt with it myself briefly in the discussion of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. I was glad to note that the matter was raised again by the President and the Prime Minister. Because it does seem to me that while for some considerable time we have been facing the threat of actual aggression by the Soviet union on the military front, we are now definitely faced with aggression which is just as grave, just as menacing, just as serious and just as dangerous to democracy, on the economic and trade fronts.
That is why I think it is important that article II should at this time be the subject of most careful examination, consideration, study and action. While we may be holding our own on the military front, wa must also see that at least we are holding our own on the economic front as well.

External Affairs
The Prime Minister made reference to his representations to the President regarding the unanimous resolution passed by the house the other day. I would ask him to go a little farther on that point, and to indicate to the house what reception he got from the President concerning these various moves which seem to be on foot by various groups in the United States, with influence in the congress, as a result of which particularly agricultural commodities either have been subjected or are about to be subjected to regulations which will have the effect of barring the entry of our agricultural products into the United States.
That is one of the most serious problems now facing this country, and I suggest parliament ought to have something more than the simple and formal statement made by both the President and the Prime Minister on that point. Because that is another matter concerning which questions will be asked the membership of the house when they return to their constituencies after prorogation.
It is of vital interest to agriculture as well as to some other branches of our economy that we know just where the congress and the United States government are going in the matter of barring entry to the American market in respect of some of our most important products.
I do wish to say to the Prime Minister that I hope this is but the beginning of a series of meetings between prime ministers of Canada and presidents of the United States which may occur at intervals sufficiently frequent to bring about some kind of common voice in the councils of the world on the military, economic and other fronts. With so much in common, so far as the peace of the world is concerned, I would hope that this country and the United States might go forward in the friendly manner to which they have now grown accustomed, so that not only would our friendship be maintained but that it might be advanced and promoted in years to come.


Major James William Coldwell: I am
sure all hon. members are happy indeed to have had this report from the Prime Minister. I know there is unanimity in regarding such a conference as one having great value to our country, and I believe also to the United States.
Concerning the matters discussed, the Prime Minister has given us a considerable amount of information. I agree with what the hon. member for Peel has said regarding some ominous signs in the United States which would indicate that the congress may not agree entirely with the President's view

concerning international trade. I hope, too, that the St. Lawrence seaway will be proceeded with.
But there was one omission in the Prime Minister's statement which struck me, and that was that he made no extended reference to the situation in Korea, and the negotiations at Panmunjom. Would the Prime Minister inform the house on that matter, indicating to what extent the possibilities of arriving at a truce were discussed?
I do not wish to add anything further, except to say that I think the country is interested in that problem as well as in the others mentioned, and if he could give us some information concerning any discussions in that connection I am sure it would be appreciated by the house and country.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: With respect to the question by the hon. member for Peel, as to when work can be expected to start on the St. Lawrence power and seaway project, I cannot say anything more than I have said.
There is going to be a change on May 15 in the chairmanship of the federal power commission. A new chairman will be sworn in on May 18. Obviously, I had no personal contact with the members of the federal power commission; but the impression of those to whom I spoke was that there would be apt to be a decision shortly after the new chairman assumed his functions as such, and that the hopes, which the President had already expressed in a letter to Senator Wiley, of which he sent a copy to the Hon. Thomas C. Buchanan, the present chairman of the federal power commission, on April 25, might be realized.
And I think it was to strengthen and to give more publicity and weight to that letter that this decision of the cabinet was made yesterday morning, and the statement about it issued yesterday afternoon. I have been told-not directly, but a message was sent to me by the chairman of the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission-that, within hours from the time a decision is made, he is ready to start work. I cannot go beyond that.
Of course if the application were denied we would have to try to devise some other method of getting results. We could develop a portion of the potential power in the international section of the St. Lawrence, and we could build a canal on our own side. But we would be losing for Ontario and the Ontario hydro commission almost half the potential that can be developed if there is a dam that stretches from one shore to the other shore. The economic value of that | power to Ontario, I am told, is not less than $30 million a year. Now, that represents.

interest and amortization on a very substantial sum of money; and we would have to i take all those factors into consideration in | trying to arrive at some conclusion as to | whether or not we should go ahead and do i what can be done on our side, leaving the 1 other side open. And if that were to be done it would have to be recommended to parliament-because parliament has not authorized anything of that kind.
But I share the President's hope that there may be an early and favourable decision on the application of the state of New York to do its part of the power development. If that decision is made, it may be contested in the courts. However, I have been told by Mr. Saunders, and the President expressed the view that he had obtained advice, that this would be quite constitutional. There might be court proceedings, but they were not apt to be successful. That is the information the Ontario Hydro has about the legal situation and that is the basis which the chairman regards as being sufficient to justify making an immediate start even if there may be court proceedings taken. Of course, that is provided there was no injunction; but if an injunction is sought I am told that an application will be made for a bond against damages which would be quite impressive.
With regard to the second question, as to where the congress and the United States government are going in respect of trade policies, especially with regard to agricultural products, I am sure that not even the President could answer that question. The President would be able to say in what direction he wants them to go, but he would not be able to say in what direction the majority of congress will really go. I think the President is making a valiant effort to enlighten the public of the United States.
Mr. Cold well: That is where our Prime Minister has an advantage over the President, and it is a good advantage.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The advantage is in the good sense of the members of the house and perhaps to a certain extent in the form of our constitution. As I say, the President is doing a splendid job of enlightening the United States public by stressing that it is not to help anybody else that this is being proposed; it is because it is in their own interest in the United States that the benefits arising out of expanding trade do come to the various partners in the free world making us all better able to save ourselves.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is the only way to appeal to them.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That appeal was very strongly made at the $100 a plate dinner that
External Affairs
filled both the Waldorf and Astor hotels in New York on Thursday night. I think it was made to the kind of people from whom it is apt to spread.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked if there had been any serious discussion of the situation in Korea. I can assure him that there was and that I got the impression the administration was most anxious to have an armistice that would mean something. All the developments are being dealt with at the highest level, not only by the negotiating teams. I think that that is all that I should say.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: 
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think the hon. gentleman will be glad to know that the chancellor of the exchequer left a most favourable impression on the minds of the President and those cabinet members with whom we were having our discussions during these last couple of days.

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


[Stage Direction]
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects-further amounts required-
707. Newfoundland, $585,000.
William Joseph Browne: The first item under this vote is for Bonavista, towards fishing harbours, $60,000. Three years ago there was a vote of $305,000 for deep water dredging and two years ago a vote of $683,600, or a total of about $1 million, and I am wondering why there is such a small vote in this instance.


Alphonse Fournier: This amount of $60,000 is to provide towards a fishing harbour consisting of dredging, landing and mooring facilities to accommodate small fishing craft in the area known as Harbour pond.


William Joseph Browne: I suppose this is to complete the other work.


Alphonse Fournier: This is the continuation of the work on the inner harbour for small fishing craft.


William Joseph Browne: The next item is for $115,000, and there was a vote of $50,000 in the main estimates. The same applies in connection with the Fortune item. Here there is a vote for $100,000 and there was a vote for $50,000 in the main estimates. Perhaps the minister can explain why the double vote is necessary here, because there
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1

would not likely be any work done during the winter.


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that this $115,000, together with the sum of $50,000 in the main estimates, 1953-54, is originally required for dredging the bar in the entrance channel to permit larger boats to enter the northeast arm of the harbour and to provide safe anchorage in stormy weather.


William Joseph Browne: Then with regard to Port aux Basques. A large undertaking is going ahead there under the Department of Transport. Is there additional money being spent on dredging? There was a previous vote of $103,000 in the main estimates.


Alphonse Fournier: This amount of $62,000 in addition to the sum of $103,000 in the main estimates 1953-54 is required to complete the contract with J. P. Porter Company Limited for dredging an entrance channel into Port aux Basques. The harbour is to be used by the new Canadian National ferry which will run regularly between North Sydney and Port aux Basques as requested by the Department of Transport in March, 1951. The Department of Transport awarded the contract for the construction of the new ferry. I am told by the Department of Transport that the operation of this larger craft requires that this dredging be done.


Mr. Ashbourne:: I should like to voice my regret that there is not a single dollar for my riding in these supplementary estimates.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. May I ask the hon. member to speak to the items before us and not to items that are not included in the vote.


Thomas Gordon William Ashbourne: With due deference to your wishes and your ruling, Mr. Chairman, 1 should like to put the fact on the record that of the three ridings in Newfoundland which have a chance of getting a part of this $585,000, the amount allocated to the riding of Burin-Burgeo is $362,000, the amount allocated to Trinity-Conception is $142,000, and the amount allocated to Bonavista-Twillin-gate is $81,000. I am pleased to see these items and to be able to vote for them. I also realize that the people of these localities will be glad to learn that these amounts have been voted. In the past, however, a considerable amount of money has been voted for Newfoundland by the House of Commons but a lot of it has not been spent. I doubt very much whether this money will be spent but I hope it will be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
709. Prince Edward Island, $130,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I am glad to see that there is another $130,000 for Prince Edward Island, making $155,000 in all in the supplementary

estimates. But the minister has forgotten that there are three constituencies on the island because this money is for Kings and Prince. I am very glad to see them get the money, but I am in the same position as the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay in that there is not a dollar for the constituency of Queens. I am sure this is an oversight on the part of the minister. I notice that this morning he gave an answer to my colleague about the plans for the new building at Charlottetown and I thought perhaps he might have been thinking about putting something in here. I know a great deal of money has been spent on the plans for this building for which we in Charlottetown have waited so long, but I was surprised to pick up an old paper this morning and find a picture with the plans all completed-


Alphonse Fournier: Sketches.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: -for an eight-storey building.


Alphonse Fournier: Sketches.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That was about three years ago. I guess they were destroyed and new sets are being made. I only wanted to mention that to the minister because he has forgotten to put in a little extra here to complete the plans for the much talked about post office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
710. New Brunswick, $380,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I see that there is an item here for Courtenay bay at Saint John. It is an amount of $264,000 for dredging out of a total of $380,000. I am not like some of the members who have spoken. I am not disappointed in not having something for my own riding because I have become so accustomed to that that I have ceased expecting anything. However, I should like to ask the minister about this work that is being done at Saint John. Who is asking for the work? So far as Courtenay bay is concerned, ever since I was a boy millions and millions of dollars have been spent on Courtenay bay harbour. Enough money has been spent to make it one of the finest harbours in the world, but even so it is still used very little. Around election time particularly we nearly always find that a large amount of money has been put in the estimates for dredging Courtenay bay harbour. This year we are again having an election.
I am not objecting to the vote but I should like to have the minister tell us what it is for, who is asking for the work, whether it is going to be commenced this year and whether tenders will be called for. I might
Supply-Public Works also point out that the facilities we have at Saint John today are not being used to their fullest extent. For instance, the winter port this year had very little to do. We also spent a lot of money on an immigration shed, one of the finest in Canada, and it is not being used as it should be. With all this money being spent, I should like to see a guarantee from some department that these facilities are going to be put to some good use. I hope the money is not being used for election purposes.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. gentleman asked who requested the work. Under date of July 3, 1952, the Minister of Transport forwarded a letter addressed to him by Fraser-Brace Terminal Constructors of East Saint John, New Brunswick, enclosing a petition that these areas be dredged in the interests of several companies operating bulk storage terminals for petroleum products at East Saint John.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Can the minister name the companies?


Alphonse Fournier: This amount is
required to dredge a basin 640 feet by 100 feet to a depth of 32 feet below low water at the Irving Oil Company Limited dock in Courtenay bay and to dredge a channel to a depth of 20 feet at low water leading from this basin to the main channel. The company requests this dredging to accommodate a new tanker they are acquiring. The proposed dredging will considerably increase the importance of Courtenay bay as a petroleum distribution centre, the Irving Oil Company wharf being also used by other companies who operate storage terminals at East Saint John. Shipments over this wharf vary in value from $4,600,000 to $5,600,000 a year.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will the work be commenced this year, and will there be a call for tenders?


Alphonse Fournier: I suppose the moment I get this vote the officials will go to work to ask for tenders to get it under way. That information does not appear in my notes. I do not know what stage they have reached prior to the voting of the money.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister cannot say whether the work will be commenced this year?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know-maybe after the election, for all we know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
712. Ontario, $400,000.
Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I certainly sympathize with you, Mr. Chairman, in your

Supply-Public Works difficulty in getting members to speak to the particular item before the committee. I notice that all these expenditures for Ontario deal with harbours and wharves of one kind and another, and the total amount is $879,500. I have before me a return tabled in my name dealing with a question I asked on the main estimates which was not answered. I asked how many ships other than pleasure boats had used the docks at Kagawong, Ontario, during each of the four years, 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952 (a) to discharge cargo and (b) to take on cargo. I also asked what was the total tonnage in each of these years of cargo discharged and of cargo shipments.


Alphonse Fournier: Is that in the supple-mentaries?


Harry Oliver White: No. I am dealing with the $879,500 that we are now discussing, and in doing so I referred to a question that I asked on the main estimates about the harbour at Kagawong.


Alphonse Fournier: But this place is not mentioned?


Harry Oliver White: Not in this list, no.


Alphonse Fournier: After I am through I will get the hon. member that information because I have not got it here.


Harry Oliver White: I have the answers here. The questions were answered by the Minister of Transport. The answer to 1 (a) and (b) is:
The following numbers of ships, other than pleasure boats, have used the docks at Kagawong, Ontario in providing a regular freight service during the season of navigation: 1949-3; 1950-2: 1951-2; 1952-2.
The answer to 2 (a) and (b) is:
Wharfage is collected by the case, article or package, or by the pound weight, according to the type of commodity shipped, and accordingly the total tonnage discharged or shipped cannot be determined.
I say that here is a case of spending $160,000 and in four years only nine boats called there.


Alphonse Fournier: I am still sorry. This passed under the main estimates and I have not got the notes of the department concerning that project.


Harry Oliver White: Yes, I know; but I am pointing out that a lot of people wonder why we are spending $160,000 on a place where only nine boats called in four years. If it were spent for a hospital or something of that kind people could understand it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

713. Manitoba, $79,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: In the details respecting this item, which appear on page 29, there is included the sum of $62,000 to be spent at Winnipeg on a wharf extension and repairs. I believe this is the Alexander avenue wharf in the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre. It is used in relation to the very important shipping up and down lake Winnipeg. I discover that last year we voted $61,000 for this purpose and this appears to be a revote of that $61,000 plus an additional $1,000.
Can the minister say what progress is being made in connection with this extension and the repairs to this wharf which, as he knows, were requested by the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commissioners?


Alphonse Fournier: This amount of $62,000 is required for the construction of an extension to the Alexander wharf to relieve the present congestion during the shipping season and to carry out repairs to the existing structure. Because of the steadily increasing volume of shipping the present wharfage space is entirely inadequate and serious delays and traffic congestions are experienced all through the navigation season.
The wharf services nearly all shipping for lake Winnipeg. The following traffic passed over the wharf in 1951: 3,464 tons of fish, 3,790 tons of general supplies and running equipment and 3,960 m.f.b.m. of unfinished lumber.
The plank covering of the wharf is now becoming unsafe and is breaking down under heavy traffic. Owing to the increased volume of inflammable material handled over the wharf, in line with recent departmental policy, it is thought advisable to instal firewalls.
Proposed work includes the construction of a round timber pile bent extension, one hundred and forty-seven feet long and forty-two feet wide, on the downstream end of the existing wharf. It also includes the redecking of the wharf including slips; the construction of three fire-walls; the replacing of the existing curb.
The estimated cost of the extension is $44,000 and of the repairs $18,000. In 195253 we had a vote but we did not do the work. We are hoping to proceed with it as soon as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was the point of my question and, although I am glad to have the minister make the statement about the importance of that wharf, can the minister say the work will be proceeded with this year?


Alphonse Fournier: I see that on March 21 of this year authority was granted to enter into a contract with Harris Construction Company Limited of Winnipeg for the wharf repairs on the Alexander avenue wharf in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The amount of the contract was $13,572.97. In answer to public advertisements nine tenders were received for the work. The lowest was Harris Construction Company Limited at a figure of $13,572.97 and the highest was Erven and Fraser, $20,297.85.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It sounds as though the work will proceed this year.


Alphonse Fournier: I am sure of that.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps I might be allowed to revert for a moment to what I was saying at the beginning of this sitting with respect to my trip to Washington. There is one thing that, by oversight, I did not mention.
This morning before leaving Washington I met some of our Canadian newsmen and, in discussing with them what had taken place, I incidentally referred to the fact-as indicative of the genuine desire to find helpful ways of overcoming possible embarrassments -that a suggestion had been made that we might possibly have a joint committee that would look into possible sources of embarrassment and to try to suggest ways of relieving those sources of embarrassment without creating greater difficulties. The fact that we had a permanent joint board on defence was referred to in the discussions as a board that had been very helpful in removing possible causes of embarrassment.
The president asked the secretary of state and Mr. Pearson, who were there, to look into the matter and see if there could not be something suggested that would be a board or committee to which grievances could be referred. That committee or board could make suggestions as to how such matters could best be handled without creating any appearance of retrograde steps in the liberalism of trade policies-and that is to be looked into.
Hon. members know that we have that kind of committee with the United Kingdom which makes suggestions for the improvement of trade. I omitted mentioning this matter and I have heard since that it is going to be referred to in the reports of the conversation I had with our Canadian newsmen this morning. I would not want members of parliament to feel that I had intentionally withheld anything at all in respect of the discussions I had. I think that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and I took that as quite a strong indication of the president's sincere desire to avoid
Supply-Public Works having things done that would be disturbing and remain disturbing.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask a question?
Would the committee be composed of congressmen and members of parliament or would it be strictly on an official level?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The matter did not go very far. It was just something that was incidentally referred to. The president turned and said to the secretary of state: "I want you and Mr. Pearson to look into that and suggest something which you think could help us." It did not get beyond that.
The permanent joint board was referred to, and that is a board of appointees of the two governments who go into like matters, examine them carefully and make recommendations. The board does not make binding decisions; it makes recommendations to the government and its work has been extremely helpful and I think it is one of the contributing factors to this background, which enables the president to say: "Whatever we do in your country, we are going to respect your sovereignty."


Gordon Graydon: The only reason I raise the question is that I think there is quite a difference between the type of subject that would be dealt with by the permanent joint board on defence and by a committee on the economic and tariff front. I think there is a vast difference in what could be done.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and all of us in the house agree that what Canadians are most concerned about on the tariff front is the possibility of pressure groups in the United States influencing congress to the extent that they affect our entry into their market. Whether a committee of this kind would have much effect on the type of influence that is abroad down there may be another matter. I quite agree that it may be a little gesture but I am afraid that it will not go very far.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In the past we have been able to take steps ourselves and thus avoid having measures taken against us and something of that kind could help take care of situations which might otherwise develop into more serious irritations. The hon. gentleman knows, as I do, that we fear a great many terrible consequences that do not materialize, and that they look much more serious when we are looking forward towards them. I know from experience here that there have been many cases where we have been able to relieve possible causes of irritation by actions taken by ourselves with our own people. It might be possible for something of that kind to be done, to avoid allowing molehills to become mountains.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
715. British Columbia and Yukon, $1,285,000.
Howard Charles Green: Item 715 includes a vote toward the dredging of the first narrows in Vancouver harbour. Can the minister give us any idea as to when tenders will be called for that work?


Alphonse Fournier: This amount is required towards the cost of deepening the first narrows to a depth of 40 feet below low water. The proposed work is strongly urged by the Vancouver chamber of shipping, Vancouver merchants' exchange and the greater Vancouver metropolitan industrial development commission, to accommodate the larger size and greater draft of the modern merchant ships using Vancouver harbour. Proposed depth of 40 feet is necessary properly to manoeuvre these vessels. A committee has been set up to study the report. To deepen the channel of first narrows to a depth of 40 feet below low-water level, it is estimated that the cost would be $1,800,000. I do not wish to give the unit price because tenders will probably be called in the near future, as soon as possible. This request was made not only by the various bodies I have mentioned but also by the two ministers of that province; I see here there is also a gentleman by the name of Howard Green, M.P., who insisted on having this vote, and also Mr. Arthur Laing, M.P.	.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, ex-M.P.


An hon. Member:: The next premier of British Columbia.


Alphonse Fournier: And Captain C. Clax-ton. It seems that everybody agrees with this expenditure. I will do my best to please them in the near future.


Howard Charles Green: I would ask when the minister expects that tenders will be called. There is a great deal of urgency about this matter.


Alphonse Fournier: I have here the whole plan describing it, but what stage it has reached I do not know. My officials always hesitate to undertake work before parliament authorizes the amount. If we pass this amount, I will give instructions that they get to work immediately.


Howard Charles Green: Does it take a matter of months to have tenders called?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know much about dredging; but if they have the reports on the soundings in the area to be dredged, it should not be very long. We will publicly advertise and get some tenders; and I think we will proceed in the near future.


Howard Charles Green: Has any agreement yet been reached between the minister's department and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration concerning the site for the fishermen's wharf in False creek, Vancouver?


Alphonse Fournier: I know that negotiations are going on between the two departments and last week I was told that they were nearing completion. I recall that fact because another member, the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard, inquired. I think we can come to a settlement with the Indian affairs branch of that department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE Welfare branch-
2S2. Administration of the Old Age Assistance and Blind Persons Allowances Acts, $108,893.
Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, as I started out to say on the first item-but I agreed to postpone my remarks until later on-the matter of the Old Age Pensions Act and its continuance has led to considerable confusion. A number of statements have been made by various people, both in the provincial administrations and in the federal administration, none of which has done anything to clarify the situation.
I might say that scarcely a week goes by that I do not read a letter to the editor somewhere, or receive a letter myself, from some person who is greatly concerned over the fact that the Old Age Pensions Act is still on the statute books, and consequently the provisions of that act are still in force.
There have been a few occasions on which questions have been asked of the minister or of officials of his department, and the answers which I have seen have not dealt with the Old Age Pensions Act at all but rather with the new act, namely, the Old Age Security Act. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this situation cannot be clarified until one of two things happens, either the Old Age Pensions Act is repealed or the minister undertakes to make a clear-cut statement of dominion policy with regard to claims on pensioners' estates. The fact is that this act, not having been repealed and having been superseded by the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act, still leaves on the statute books the other regulation which requires the provinces, if they adhere to the letter of the law, to make claims on all estates of pensioners in excess of $2,000. The new acts-the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act-make no provision at all for recovery from estates.
To give the committee some idea of the confusion which has arisen from time to time,

1	should like to quote information which has been given to me. I understand that under date of February 16, 1952, the deputy minister of national health and welfare wrote in part as follows:
I must take the view that until such time as the Old Age Pensions Act is repealed, the provisions of section 9 (2) thereof remain in full force and
2	fleet-
Later on the minister himself, on October 2, 1952, wrote as follows:
Section 9 and 2 of the Old Age Pensions Act, chapter 156, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, together with relevant provisions of the agreement entered into under this legislation between the provincial government of Ontario and the federal government, clearly lays down the conditions under which recoveries from estates are to be made.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure the government is under no misapprehension as to the wishes of the provinces in this regard because 75 per cent of all claims come back again to the federal government and the 25 per cent which stays with the provinces does not even compensate them for the claims which are made. In so far as Ontario is concerned, the Ontario government has requested the repeal of the act before now; but still the act stays upon the statute books.
This matter has been the subject of some discussion in the press, in both news articles and editorials. For instance in the Windsor Daily Star, under date of April 4, 1953, I find an article which is headed "Age Pension Leaves All Estates Clean." It says that under the Old Age Security Act no claims will be made. Then it refers to a statement made in the house with regard to claims under the Old Age Pensions Act and it sets out that under this act claims were made upon estates of pensioners but still leaves the impression that that practice has been discontinued. In the Winnipeg Tribune of March 17, 1953, there is an article headed: "Reason for dunning pensioners is tabled". It talks about the question placed upon the order paper by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the answers which he received. It quotes an exchange of letters from the Hon. F. C. Bell, minister of health and public welfare for Manitoba and the Minister of National Health and Welfare for the dominion. In his correspondence Mr. Bell explained that there had been no material advantage to Manitoba in pursuing the policy of making recoveries, which action had only been justified under the federal act. He said at that time that he would be glad to have the federal government confirm the fact that it was not insisting on such collections.
I have another article here which gives the amount of collections made or which have finally accrued. This is the portion that went
Supply-Health and Welfare to the federal treasury in the last couple of years. It is given by provinces all lumped together. It amounts to $208,000. That amount was collected in a matter of two years. It seems to me that while $200,000 is a considerable sum of money, when you consider that it was all taken out of small estates of people who had, under a means test system, been adjudged eligible to receive old age pensions, and then upon their demise had been found to have had in excess of $2,000, and when you remember that to this $200,000 would have to be added the 25 per cent that went into the administration, and when you consider that the provinces, by reason of the continuance of this act, are forced to keep at least some staff for administrative purposes, I think you will admit that some definite action should be taken to clear up this regrettable situation.
While I am on this subject I should like to say that I personally, and also on behalf of those who have had some experience along the lines of my own, would like to express appreciation of the very fine services which have been rendered by Mr. Fred Jackson, the regional director of the Department of National Health and Welfare in Toronto. He has done an excellent job there during a very trying time. He has been most co-operative. I am sure everyone is highly pleased with his services, but I should like to press for definite action and to reiterate that there are only two things that can be done to clear up the situation of misunderstanding which is causing great worry to people with small estates and who did benefit under the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act. I think myself the act should be repealed without delay. But if there are administrative difficulties which would prohibit that, the least the minister can do is to make a clear-cut statement of dominion policy in this regard.


Gordon Graydon: We want that clear-cut policy.


William Joseph Browne: Is the minister in a position to say how much it would amount to if the means test were taken away for the blind? Would it cost the government very much?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The amount of money involved is not the main consideration. As I said last night, the main consideration is that we would have to consult the provinces in respect of the matter to get their agreement; and, as I indicated last night, I understand some of the blind organizations are making representations to the provinces, as indeed they have made them to us. The amount would be roughly about $1,500,000.
50SS	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and. Welfare
On two previous occasions this year I have dealt with the question the hon. member for Hamilton West has just raised, and I do not know that I can add anything more to it.
I know my hon. friend has read the statements I gave in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but so that there shall be no doubt about the situation, may I say this-the confusion arises, of course, because of the existence of the Old Age Pensions Act at a time when the Old Age Security Act and the Old Age Assistance Act and the Blind Persons Act are the law of the land. I think it desirable, so that there may be no confusion about this matter, to make a short statement that might be read in conjunction with what I have already said in direct answer to the kind of question raised by the hon. member a few moments ago. It should be clear that no recoveries are made from the estates of persons seventy years and over who receive benefits under the Old Age Security Act; the act does not permit it. Second, no recoveries are made from estates of persons 65 to 69 years of age who receive benefits under the Old Age Assistance Act; the act does not permit it. Third, no recoveries are made from estates of persons 21 to 69 years of age who receive benefits under the Blind Persons Act; again the act does not permit it. Fourth, no recoveries are made from the estates of persons now living and in receipt of benefits under old age security who formerly were beneficiaries under the Old Age Pensions Act. It is considered that to all intents and purposes the right to claim against the estates of these persons lapsed on January 1, 1952, when they were transferred from old age pensions to old age security. This means that the only instances in which claims are being maintained against the estates of deceased pensioners relate to instances where the pensioner was on old age pensions in 1951 or earlier when the Old Age Pensions Act was fully operative and before our new legislation came into effect. In all cases, such pensioners must have died before January 1, 1952, otherwise of course no claim would have been laid.
Claims were laid against certain estates by the provinces in 1951 or earlier but the lawyers handling the estates in some of these instances, or the executors or relatives or other interested parties, so we have been advised by the provinces, have been stalling or hesitating for one purpose or another and otherwise delaying settlement of these claims in the hope that the Old Age Pensions Act would be repealed and the claim abandoned.


Some of these cases have been pending now for over two years.
This statement I think will clear the situation in so far as the Old Age Security Act, the Old Age Assistance Act, and the Blind Persons Act are concerned. With regard to the Old Age Pensions Act, that matter is one that depends for action on the instance of the provinces. We have been in touch with the provinces, and four of them, that have a number of these cases outstanding, have not given us yet their consent or their agreement to repeal of the Old Age Pensions Act. I suspect that they wish to clear up some of these matters. In respect to some of these matters, I am sure that if my hon. friend were administering the act in the provinces- I say this because I have nothing to do with this phase of the matter-she might agree that in a particular instance there was justification for present provincial policy but there can be no question about the situation under the new federal legislation.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Of course I understand there is no question about the two new acts, and really that is what has given rise to much of the confusion. My question had to do with the Old Age Pensions Act and the answer had to do with the Old Age Security Act, which are two entirely different things.
The minister has said that he has not received the sanction of the provinces. I do not think that is true either of Manitoba or of Ontario from the information I have at hand. I find in the statement of March 17, 1953, that the minister did inform the Manitoba government that the federal government was not insisting on the provincial governments collecting the overpayments, nor did it advise them not to make such collections.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is now discussing overpayments. She is not dealing with recovery from estates. There is a difference.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, I realize that, and that particular point was on overpayments. But in the matter of recovery from estates, did I understand the minister to say that where a person was a pensioner under the Old Age Pensions Act and qualified under the means test provisions of that act, and received that pension, and transferred to the provisions of the Old Age Security Act, and such person subsequently died leaving an estate in excess of $2,000, no claim could be made against that estate for the portion of the pension received while he was still under the Old Age Pensions Act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have no power to deal with the provinces. The provinces have their

own legislation, and administer that portion of the act. As I said when I spoke in answer to the hon. member before, we cannot interfere with them. The provinces, within their sphere, are sovereign bodies. We have no authority to tell them what they shall do. So far as we are concerned, there is no doubt about that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Does the minister say he does not wish the provinces to collect from these estates under the Old Age Pensions Act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already said we wrote to all the provinces and asked them what their views were, because the hon. member will recall they were paying a portion under the Old Age Pensions Act. The benefits the old age pensioners received came not only from us but from them. The situation now is different under the Old Age Security Act. I have no authority, nor has parliament, nor has this government any authority to tell the provinces what they must do in respect of matters which are their own concern.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Some of them at least have said that the 25 per cent, which would be their share of any recoveries from estates, does not cover their cost of administration. There is no secret about the fact that at least some of the provinces want to have this repealed. If there are provinces which do not want it repealed, and of which the minister knows, will he say that he will take no steps because such provinces have ignored the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We do not take steps against any province.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Are we not discussing a matter which was fully debated not long ago in the house?


Gordon Graydon: No.


Mr. Gillis:: The minister said he had written to all the provinces for their opinions in the matter. Is he in a position to put on record the answers received from them?


Mr. Marlin:: I would not want to do that without having first consulted the provinces. I did lay before the house the situation with respect to Manitoba, after I had received consent pursuant to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Winnipeg North Centre.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would be prepared to do that with respect to the other provinces; but first I would have to have their consent.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Gordon Graydon: I should like to be clear in my mind concerning one question connected with the matter we have been discussing. An elderly lady came to see me not long ago, stating she had been a recipient under the Old Age Pensions Act, and had been receiving the pension for four or five years before the old act was superseded by the universal Old Age Security Act. A certificate was registered against her property. Now she comes under the Old Age Security Act. This point arises:	Can she sell
the property with that certificate registered against it? I called the provincial office first, and they seemed somewhat vague about the situation. Then I called the dominion office and they were just as vague. It may be that I did not speak to the right person, or to the person who knew most about it. I am not suggesting that the officials in either case were at fault, because if I did I would be unfair.
On the other hand the question arose as to whether or not this lady could sell that property, or whether the new legislation actually vacated that situation.


Murdo William Martin: The new legislation could not touch that title at all. When my hon. friend refers to a certificate I suppose he is referring to liens?


Gordon Graydon: Yes.


Murdo William Martin: Liens were levied against estates in some provinces. In Ontario I think that practice was abandoned in 1952. But wherever there was a lien, that was initiated not at our instance or pursuant to our act, but pursuant to the act of the provinces. That was the case in the province in which both my hon. friend and I reside. But liens such as that were not the result of legislation passed by us, or anything we could do in connection with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, yes, it was.


Gordon Graydon: I think the minister is going a little far afield. I believe if the officials of the Ontario government were here they would say that the dominion has a supervising hand over all this, and makes sure that these collections are made.


Murdo William Martin: I can only say that my hon. friend is a lawyer, just as I am, and if he will look up the act he will see that there would be no authority for the federal government to require that. That is entirely dependent upon provincial decision, and in no way as a result of any suggestion on our part, or according to any legal authority which we could exercise.


[Stage Direction]
Supply-Health and Welfare
Gordon Graydon: I can understand the minister's point, that under the dominion act there would not be any right to interfere to that extent in property and civil rights. But on the other hand, as I understand it, your general regulations have to be carried out by the provincial government; and for that reason, of course, this question would arise.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I help my hon. friend out?


Gordon Graydon: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What we did require in the regulations under the Old Age Pensions Act was that they should recover. But that is quite a different matter. The provinces did not all have liens. If a particular province used the machinery of liens, that was the decision made by it-not at our suggestion, or as a result of any authority we have. We did require, naturally, that there should be recovery. But the method of recovery was to be decided on by them.


Gordon Graydon: Will the minister answer this -I do not know whether it is within his jurisdiction or not-but are those certificates still outstanding in respect of all the titles where they were filed before the universal Old Age Security Act came in?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; it was 1952 in Ontario. 1 am not sure about the other provinces. But in Ontario they were abandoned in 1952 by a special act of the legislature of Ontario.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A moment ago I felt I would have to try to straighten out the record between these two lawyers. In the meantime, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has at least laid the basis for straightening it out.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The court of appeal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us keep it perfectly clear that, as the hon. member for Peel says, the filing of liens is a provincial matter. It comes under property and civil rights. The federal government could not instruct and never did instruct the provinces to file liens. But the federal government legislation, under the former Old Age Pensions Act, did require that the provinces agree that they would make recoveries.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And most of the provinces- I think all but British Columbia-found that the only way they could give effect to that requirement was by filing liens. It seems to me the Minister of National Health and Welfare is playing on words a bit when he says that those liens were not in any way filed at the instance of the federal government.


I think they were filed at the instance of that part of the federal legislation which required the provinces to agree to make recoveries.
However, I am not concerned about pursuing that phase of the argument, because for the most part it is now water under the bridge. In most provinces the liens have been cancelled, even in those provinces where recoveries from estates are still being effected. Nevertheless in most of the provinces acts of the legislatures have been passed cancelling the liens. From here on the provinces that are seeking to collect the money they feel they have to collect, or think they have to collect, are doing so as ordinary creditors, rather than from the preferred position of having liens against estates.
I do not wish to enter into this in detail, but there was one point I wanted to make. I confess it has been said twice already; but to my mind it is of considerable importance and should be underlined. I refer to something good that has come out of this discussion. As the minister has made clear, two questions are being discussed here this afternoon. The first has to do with recoveries from living pensioners of alleged overpayments and the other has to do with the collecting from estates of deceased pensioners.
With respect to the first question, that of collecting from living pensioners now on old age security and who were formerly on the old age pension, this now seems to be completely ended. I am glad to see the minister nod his head. Manitoba quit the practice not long ago as a result of something we need not repeat now. I think that ends that.
Apparently the other matter of collecting from estates has not yet been ended, and it is that point which the hon. member for Hamilton West has raised. But to get back to the good point that has come out of this discussion, I know there are people in Manitoba who are wondering, even after that province quit collecting alleged overpayments, what would happen if they were to die and leave estates. It is good to have the word of the minister that no claims can be filed against the estates of those who die later than January 1, 1952.


Paul Joseph James Martin: So far as we are concerned they need have no concern whatsoever.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says, "so far as we are concerned they need have no concern whatsoever". Can he not also state that that is the position taken by all the provinces, that they will not file claims against estates of pensioners who might happen to die and leave estates?


Murdo William Martin: I could not guarantee that; I cannot speak for the provinces. I do not think they will, but I would not want my words to be interpreted as expressing the policy they will follow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister made a definite statement a while ago that no claims would be filed against the estates of pensioners now living and drawing old age security pensions in respect of any portion of the old age pension that may have been drawn prior to January 1, 1952.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Paul Joseph James Martin: As far as the federal government is concerned, that is the case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is progress and we hope more will yet be made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I promised last night to give the figures we give every year with regard to old age security, old age assistance, blind persons allowances and family allowances. These figures indicate the number of old age security beneficiaries as of March 31, 1953; the monthly cost for March, 1953, and the estimated yearly cost for 1953-54. The figures follow:
Case Load March 31, 1953
Old age security	 $ 686,127
Old age assistance	 87,675
Blind persons allowances	 8,332
Family allowances (children)	 4,729,172
Actual Cost March, 1953 $27,428,325 1,638,060 244,707 28,456,441
Yearly Cost 1953-54 $334,916,000 22,000,000 3,100,000 348,852,000


Ernest George Hansell: Before the minister gets off on another track I should like to bring up one more item, because I do not think we are through with this discussion of recoveries from estates. The minister will recall that a week or two ago I spoke to him about a case. He took the correspondence and was going to let me have an answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think I can shorten things by giving the answer now.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know that I want an answer now unless it is favourable.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have done the only thing I could do. As I told my hon. friend, we have examined the situation and the matter is not one that rests with the federal government; it rests with the province of Alberta. I have written to the appropriate minister in Alberta, as I said I would, making the representations which were made to me and in respect to which I have no authority to dispose of the matter.


Ernest George Hansell: I would not want to interfere with the process through which this case is going, but I cannot understand the minister's explanation in respect to the matter being the entire responsibility of the province of Alberta. The correspondence I had with the province of Alberta was to the effect that they could not write off their claim against this small estate until the Old Age Pensions Act was repealed. They said they could not do it because the act was still on the statute books, and until the government chose to repeal it they were unable to release their lien.
I could not understand that because a year or two before I had a similar case. This 68108-320i
was before the Old Age Security Act came into operation. They had a lien on an estate valued at only $1,500. I searched through the records of the old age security committee and discovered that the amount recovered from estates was almost infinitesimal. I pointed out to the authorities in Alberta that recoveries from estates were progressively being reduced until the total for the previous year amounted to approximately $5,000. I pointed out to them that the estate involved was only $1,500 and that only $5,000' had been collected by way of liens. I argued that there must be larger estates in the same position and asked them to release their claim. They did that, and the woman who was the beneficiary collected.
In this instance the estate is similar, but I cannot get the provincial government to release its claim because they say this government will not permit them to do it until the Old Age Pensions Act is repealed. That is something I cannot understand. I may be mixed up, and I think the more we get into this the more we are likely to be mixed up. Do I understand that if an old age pensioner died on December 31, 1951 the province could if it chose release its claim against the estate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Ernest George Hansell: But if the pensioner died the next day, January 1, 1952, the province would have no right to release their lien on that estate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not right.


Ernest George Hansell: Whether the pensioner died before December 31, 1951 or since January 1, 1952, if the provinces want to do so they can

Supply-Health and Welfare release all claim on their portion of the estate. Is that correct?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot say any more than I have said on the matter. We have gone over it so often. I know the case to which my hon. friend has referred very well, because he showed me the correspondence and I agreed to assist him in any way I could. The estate there is under $2,000. If I remember rightly it is $1,700. There is no difficulty. I will not say that the province of Alberta will release it, but they have the authority to give a release in an estate under $2,000. If my hon. friend will just leave this with me I think he will find that we will achieve the same success through my intervention with the province of Alberta as we did in the other case.


Ernest George Hansell: I thank the minister and I hope he is right. I wanted to settle the question of whether or not the provinces were bound because the Old Age Pensions Act is still on the books. The minister evidently says they are not, and that if they wish to release their liens they can.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sorry, but I am still not satisfied. I do not think the minister has said yet that the province has a right to relinquish its claims upon the estates of these people against whom they had claims under the Old Age Pensions Act. I know it is perfectly true that the federal government does not instigate these actions or make any claims against these estates, but is it not true that the provinces are still responsible to the federal government for collection from these estates? It seems to me that it is in line with what I said previously about the 25 per cent which is coming to the provinces not being sufficient even to pay the cost of administration. It is the old, old story. The coat and the pants do all the work and the vest gets all the gravy.


Howard Charles Green: Two hon. members have mentioned the allowance for the blind. Last night the matter was brought up by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and this afternoon the hon. member for St. John's West again raised the question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We covered that last night. I thought we had an agreement last night that we had covered it.


Howard Charles Green: I did not hear any agreement reached about the blind allowance being covered, and actually it comes under this particular vote. The minister replied on both occasions that nothing could be done about removing the means test from the blind allowance without first reaching agreement with the provinces. He made no further comment whatever about the suggestion that the means test should be removed. I think he should go a little further, because I do not believe

that answer has anything whatever to do with the proposal put forward by the Canadian national institute for the blind and by the Canadian council of the blind.
As I understand it, the situation with respect to pensions and security is that before the Old Age Security Act came into effect, old age pensions and blind pensions were on the basis of the dominion paying 75 per cent and the provinces paying 25 per cent. When the Old Age Security Act came into effect the dominion took over payment of everything both for the sighted and the blind 70 years of age or over. In other words, the provinces are now paying nothing towards old age security.
On the other hand, the old age allowance for people between 65 and 69 is paid on the basis of 50 per cent by the dominion and 50 per cent by the province, subject to a means test. But the allowance for the blind under 70 is still paid on a basis of 75 per cent by the dominion and 25 per cent by the province. If I am wrong, perhaps the minister will correct me.


Murdo William Martin: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: What has been asked is that the blind allowance be put on the same basis as old age security, in other words that the dominion make the whole payment so the provinces will not come into the picture at all.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend asks me a question. The C.N.I.B. have not asked that. They have asked that the means test be abolished, but they have not asked us to shoulder the responsibility because the provinces make a contribution. They have asked that the means test be abolished, which involves action by us and by the provinces.


Howard Charles Green: I do not believe the minister is correct in his understanding of what is being requested. So far as I am concerned, I believe the proper course to follow would be for the dominion to pay the allowance in full rather than getting 25 per cent from the provinces, and I also believe that it should be paid without a means test. I suggest that for these reasons. When the pension was made available for the blind the thought was that they were being treated in exactly the same way as Canadians who were getting the old age pension. Right down through the picture the Canadian people generally thought that the blind were being put in the same position as old age pensioners. I think it is reasonable that they should be. Because of their great handicap they should be treated in the same way as former old age pensioners who are now the recipients of old age securtiy. I am quite

confident that a large majority of the members of the house feel exactly the same way. Members from all parties believe that the blind should be put on the same basis as recipients of old age security.
The reason this measure for the blind was first adopted was in order to help them in some small way to get on an even basis with the sighted. It was meant as a compensation for their disability and to give them a chance to get an even start with sighted Canadians in the race of life. The trouble with a means test is that it has the effect of discouraging the blind from trying to carry on and earn their own living. That is particularly true in the case of people who have become blind after becoming adults. I have been associated with work for the blind for many years. No doubt other hon. members have as well, and when these people face this terrible disaster of blindness it is frightfully difficult for them to make the decision that they will go ahead and earn their own living in spite of their handicap.
The very fact that there is a means test and that if they do get out and make a living they may not be able to obtain the help arising from the allowance is enough to discourage some of the blind. I do urge that the means test should be abolished and that the dominion government should take full responsibility for payment in exactly the same way as is done under the Old Age Security Act. The two associations that presented the brief to the minister, which I believe was dated January 14, 1953, are thoroughly responsible associations, as he knows.


Murdo William Martin: No one knows that better than I.


Howard Charles Green: They have a splendid record of statesmanlike leadership of the blind over many decades.


Murdo William Martin: I am sure my hon. friend would agree that I know that even better than he does.


Howard Charles Green: They have summed up this request in a very reasonable way, and I should like to read from their comment on the suggestion that the means test be abolished. I am quoting from their brief of January 14, 1953:
The loss of sight for any human being is a tragic occurrence and brings in its train, fear, frustration and insecurity.
Since over SO per cent of the blind lose their sight in adult life, it is obvious that each of these individuals has actually been deprived of a priceless possession. When we lose something that we have grown accustomed to and have become dependent upon, the implications are obvious. We recognize the desire and applaud the obvious intent of the government of Canada to assist the blind through the allowances provided under the Blind
Supply-Health and Welfare Persons Act. However, when these allowances are made conditional, subject to the means test, notice is served on a newly-blinded person, already suffering from a sense of desperation and insecurity, that he must accept the allowance in comparative idleness or be willing to take a chance of loss of the allowance by reason of earnings, however insecure. This choice too often reacts as a negation of ambition and effort. We who are interested in the fullest exercise of all talents by the blind and stimulation to the most normal range of activities, including work and productivity, deplore this effect. We respectfully draw attention to the fact that in our competitive form of society, we encourage individual ambition and effort to achieve a normal standard of living.
That sums up the situation very clearly, I think. Also, the aim of the leaders of the blind is very well shown by the attitude of Colonel Eddie Baker who has been a key man in the work for the blind ever since he lost his sight in the first war. I remember walking down the street in Vancouver with Eddie one afternoon. He is not the type who holds your arm or hangs back. He walks right ahead as though he had his sight. I said to him: "Eddie, you are going to hit a telephone pole if you walk ahead like that." He does not admit that he has any handicap, and he said "I walk like other people, and if I hit a telephone pole it is going to be too bad for that pole." That is the attitude Colonel Baker has taken right down through the years, and I think the parliament of Canada could do nothing less than to remove this means test on the blind of Canada.
I realize that it cannot be done at the present session, but I would hope that it would be one of the first moves of the next parliament of Canada, no matter what party may form the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We of this group would like to urge that the minister and the government give more serious consideration than they have yet given to the representations made by the Canadian national institute for the blind and the Canadian council of the blind. The minister has indicated that he knows what their requests are. He has indicated his knowledge of these people and his interest in them. Well, I hope he will show that interest by more active consideration of this whole question.
I think I know, as a result of having been on the old age security committee three years ago, something of the thinking of the department with regard to this question. I believe there is a feeling on the part of the officials that at least the government has done nothing in the change that has been made to worsen the position of the blind. They are still getting the same amount of pension they were getting before. From age 21 and up they are still getting that amount, and there has been a slight improvement over what the

Supply-Health and Welfare situation was prior to January 1, 1952, in that if they are over 70 although these people do not get the blindness allowance they get the old age security pension free of the means test, as does everyone else.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that what is overlooked is the fact that under the former legislation, before January 1, 1952, we did give to our blind persons in receipt of pensions a very slight advantage over sighted persons on the old age pension.
In common with the member for Van-couver-Quadra I would like to have the attention of those to whom I am speaking.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can listen to you, too; time is going on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the official to whom you are listening is an important one.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I find you both interesting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, prior to January 1, 1952, we did give to the blind a slight advantage over sighted persons. It was not an advantage in dollars as far as the pension was concerned, but there was an advantage in that the means test provision was less strict. That meant that those over 70 who were on the blind pension could, if they were able, earn a little more outside income than was the case with the ordinary old age pensioner. As far as those from 21 to 69 were concerned they had a slight advantage, in that they not only received the blind pension but they had a means test which was a little less strict than the old age pension means test.
Now that slight advantage has been taken away, at least in so far as the blind person over 70 is concerned. He is no different from his counterpart who is sighted, although between the ages of 21 and 69 there is the slight difference as far as means test is concerned. Even in respect of burnt-out pensioners under the War Veterans Allowance Act-and we are complaining about the means test there-we make it possible for the veteran who is over 70 to draw $20 of the burnt-out pension and, as well, the full old age security pension; but we deny that advantage in the operation of the blindness allowance to a person over 70 who goes on old age security.
I am not going to take time to develop it further. Indeed what I am arguing for now is a lot less than I think should be done, a lot less than is suggested in the brief of the two blind organizations. I would urge the government and the officials dealing with this matter to face up to the fact that in our view, and in the view of many members of the house, we have not dealt squarely with
[Mr. Knowles.l

our blind people. We owe them much more, as an act of ordinary decency, than we have given them thus far.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall just take a moment. I am sure my hon. friends would agree with the observations made by the blind people themselves when I saw them a short time ago. They regard the treatment we have given them as not deserving of the description that we have not given them square treatment. No person in the association would say that. They have always said the opposite. They are very grateful; they know of the sympathy of this government; and they know that the problem is one which involves both the federal and the provincial governments.
It is all very well to say that the federal government can do it all. That is easy to say; but one forgets that, as a result of the passage of the Old Age Security Act, we have relieved the provinces of a total annual commitment of over $18 million in respect of old age pensions, including pensions for the blind. In asking the provinces to bear their share we are not only living up to good social standards but we are also asking something which, at the present time under the constitution, is necessary.
I just want to remind the house that in 1937 from this side of the house we introduced blind pensions. It was from this side of the house that the age was reduced to 21, and it was also from this side of the house in 1951 that the residence requirement was reduced from 20 to 10 years. It was also from this side of the house that the income ceilings were raised in 1944, 1947, 1949 and 1951; so that we on this side of the house have a deep and genuine interest in this program as have, I know, those hon. members who have spoken and as indeed have all hon. members of this House of Commons. I can say that I am sure this matter will be explored and that the federal government will be most anxious to ascertain the results of representations that are being made in other quarters. This matter is receiving our active and enthusiastic interest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister just take a minute to clear up what I think is some confusion with regard to figures. I asked him a question last night to which he gave the answer as reported at page 5032 of Hansard:
The result would be that only about 5,000 blind pensioners would be involved.
I thought at the time that he had said 4,000, and I repeated it as 4,000. But Hansard reported him as saying 5,000.


Murdo William Martin: I gave the correct figure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I asked some questions as to what that figure involved. A few minutes ago this afternoon the minister gave us figures indicating that there are 8,332 persons in receipt of the blind pension. Can he straighten out those figures?


Murdo William Martin: Seventy-five per cent of those are already getting the full pension; I mean 7,500.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Seventy-five per cent?


Murdo William Martin: 7,500 of those are already getting full pension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Seventy-five per cent would be about 6,000. That means that there are about 2,000 under 69 who are not getting the full pension and 3,000 over 70?


Murdo William Martin: 7,500 of the 8,300 are getting the full pension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Seventy-five per cent?


Murdo William Martin: I say, for the third time, that 7,500 of the 8,300 are getting the full pension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So the figure of 5,000 is made up of the other 800 under age 69 and-


Murdo William Martin: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the balance are blind persons over 70 who are on old age security rather than on the blindness allowance?


Murdo William Martin: I will give that information to my hon. friend. Surely we do not need to go into those details at this late stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it would take about two sentences for the minister to put the matter straight on the record.


Murdo William Martin: All right. More than 6,000 blind persons 70 years of age or more are presently getting their old age security pension free of the means test. That would be over 30 per cent of the total blind in Canada. The proposal to abolish the means test would not be of any help to those.
More than 8,300 of the 12,000 blind between the ages of 21 and 69 are already receiving blindness allowance. Ninety per cent or more of these are receiving the full amount of $40 per month. The average amount paid to all 8,332 blindness allowance recipients in March, 1953, was $39.57. The abolition of the means test from the blindness allowance would therefore benefit the 8,300 present recipients of blindness allowance by only 43 cents a month on the average. In actual fact, it would not benefit 7,500 of the 8,300 at all. The remaining 800 would benefit partially, of course.
Supply-Health and Welfare
None of the 2,000 blind persons under the age of 21 would benefit from abolition of the means test.
Apart from the 800 recipients of partial benefit mentioned already, the only persons who would benefit from abolition of the means test are approximately 4,000 blind persons between the ages of 21 and 69 who are not presently in receipt of blindness allowance.


Clarence Gillis: I should just like to say this, Mr. Chairman-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope that what I have just said does not provoke more discussion.


Clarence Gillis: No. It is not going to.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is the third discussion we have had on this item already.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the first time the minister has given those figures, though.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know that.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, when he rose, stated that he was making a statement for the group in order to save time. I just want to clear up one point arising out of the minister's statement. He said, to the group he mentioned, the abolition of the means test would result in benefit to the amount of about 43 cents per month on the average. The point I want to make is that what the ordinary blind people are concerned about are the permissible earnings and how those are affected by the means test. So there is no way of arriving at actually what the amount would be.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure my hon. friend will find that what I said is correct.


Mr. Fulford:: Before this item passes, Mr. Chairman, I want to make one short observation. I wonder whether the minister noticed in last night's Ottawa Journal an advertisement published by the Progressive Conservative party of Canada. In case he missed it, I should like to point out that the advertisement is a facsimile of the short income tax form, 1952, but the facsimile is eclipsed by the large, bold words:
For a change be Conservative . . . not Liberal, with your own money!
Strangely enough, about the only part of the facsimile not overshadowed by the words just quoted is this:
Your old age security tax for 1953 and subsequent years is 2 per cent of taxable income . . .
And so on. I trust that this advertisement does not demonstrate the attitude of our Conservative friends toward social security generally: "For a change be Conservative, not Liberal, with your own money".
5074	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare


Howard Charles Green: In reply to that, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might suggest to the hon. member that he could best help get the money to make improvements such as this if he took a few of the horses off the payroll.
' Item agreed to.


William Alfred Robinson: Item 283 and supplementary item 683 deal with the same subject, namely the National Physical Fitness Act. Would it be the wish of hon. members to deal with those two items together?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Welfare branch-
National Physical Fitness Act-
283. To provide for the administration of the act, the sum hereby provided, notwithstanding sections 8 and 9 of the said act, to be credited to a separate account in the consolidated revenue fund, to be subject to section 35 of the Financial Administration Act and to be paid out	by	the	Minister	ofFinance upon the requisition	of	the	Minister	of
National Health and Welfare, $68,824.
National Physical Fitness Act-
683. To provide for the administration of the act, the sum hereby provided, notwithstanding sections 8 and 9 of the said act, to be credited to a separate account in the consolidated revenue fund, to be subject to section 35 of the Financial Administration Act and to be paid out	by	the	Minister	ofFinance upon the requisition	of	the	Minister	of
National Health and Welfare-further amount required, $12,400.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Chairman, it will be a good change to turn from old age and old age security and all that sort of thing to something that has to do with the youth in our country. I think this money is probably being better spent than is any other tax money. But I understand that the physical training program, during the recent chaotic political conditions out in British Columbia, has been put aside and that British Columbia therefore will not want any part of the amount which comes under this head.


Murdo William Martin: That is not my information.


Charles Edward Johnston: Wrong again.


George Matheson Murray: I think the information is well known in British Columbia, namely that the fine physical training program that was launched there many years ago by George M. Weir and under the direction of Ian Eisenhardt at its inception, and which received a subsidy from the government of Canada, is being discontinued in the name of saving and thrift, and cutting down the cost of government. I just wanted to know whether that would mean that the department 

would withdraw any grants to British Columbia.


Murdo William Martin: I can save time perhaps by saying that is not my information. We have an agreement with the province of British Columbia that has another year to run.


George Matheson Murray: It has been publicly announced that it is being discontinued and that those able persons in charge are being discharged from the employment-


Mr.   Johnsion@: Wrong again.


George Matheson Murray: -of the government of British Columbia.
This is something which is of national interest, because out in that country we have many thousands of young men and women who have received great benefits under this training program. It is my belief that it is better to treat with the youth and build up their health and strength through wholesome training such as that which was initiated in British Columbia than it is to wait and to take care of them later on in life as physically unfit persons who are to receive pensions under the Department of National Health and Welfare for disabilities which could easily be overcome if this physical training plan were carefully administered and carried out. In this connection may I say that I think the minister himself is a splendid example of what physical training can do for a man.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Matheson Murray: I think his personal attention to his own health is an example to everybody in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has lost ten pounds trying to get his estimates through.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is one of the observations made today with which I fully agree.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
National Physical Fitness Act-
284. Assistance to provinces, $150,000.
William Joseph Browne: Has Newfoundland yet come under this assistance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; there is no agreement yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil defence-
287. To provide for the civil defence program, $6,506,287.
Ernest George Hansell: I shall detain the committee for only a moment. I am interested in this matter of civil defence, and I am wondering

whether the minister under whose department this item comes has given any thought to what might be a wider scope of national defence by doing something to prevent saboteurs from stopping industry, wrecking trains and so forth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Permit me to indicate that the estimates of the Department of Justice will be up shortly, and in so far as sabotage is concerned the work of civil defence is carried on by the officers of that department along with others in the Department of National Defence. It is not a matter that specifically arises out of this vote.


Ernest George Hansell: I could wait, but what I have to say I shall say only once anyway. Let me put it this way. Has the minister given any thought to the opportunity for poisonous chemicals to be used in sabotage? The other day the minister was asked by the hon. member for Peace River a very important question in respect to the fluorination of water. The minister may carry my observations to the Minister of Justice if he wants to. If the enemy should desire to do so, what measures would there be to prevent them from placing men in strategic places in Canada where they could poison the waters of certain cities overnight in the same way as they would apply fluorination, only in extra quantities using some other chemical, so that by breakfast time next morning the city would be a graveyard?


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend can be assured that this matter is being followed very closely by the officers of the departments I have mentioned as well as by our own industrial hygiene division and by the defence research board.


Mr. Churchill:: In connection with this item, can the minister give us a general statement as to the progress that is being made? This matter of civil defence has been under his supervision now for a period of about three years. The importance of it is evident to all. In view of the number of volunteers across Canada who are participating in this activity, public attention by the House of Commons is proper in the circumstances. Perhaps the minister would favour us with a general statement as to progress. We have in his annual report noticed the progress made up to March 31, 1952, but a year has elapsed 68108-321
Supply-Health and Welfare since that date and there are quite a number of items of considerable importance that we might discuss.


Murdo William Martin: I can only say, as I said last year, that the government looks on this difficult matter of civil defence as a matter which should engage government efforts on all levels, municipal, provincial and federal.
Our civil defence plan is modelled on that of the United Kingdom, where emphasis is laid upon the important part, the all-important part, that must be taken by local bodies. A civil defence organization is incapable of successful action unless on the local level there is the greatest of interest, co-operation and contribution. We have given expression to that principle in a financial way, more generously on a comparative basis than is done in the United Kingdom whose plan we have followed.
We have felt that our responsibility at the centre is to train the people who carry on this work at the local and provincial levels. And at our school here, under the chief direction of the co-ordinator of civil defence, General Worthington, we have trained over 3,000 individuals who have gone out to the provinces and the municipalities and in turn have taken charge of civil defence direction on these levels. We pay the expenses of the individuals who come from afar to Ottawa, provide their maintenance and of course provide completely for the upkeep of the school.
We provide certain types of equipment, all based on agreements we have had with the provinces as to the course of action that should be followed. We provide the sirens, and under the matching arrangement we have with the provinces we provide for the installation by assuming half of the cost thereof. We provide the equipment for civil defence workers; we take practically exclusive responsibility for the educational material, represented by our budget of some $300,000 odd, composed of film strips, films, radio talks, pamphlets and the like. In addition we supply such things as fire pumpers.
We have engaged in programs of standardization of hose couplings with at least two of the provinces, Alberta and Ontario. We have regarded as our exclusive responsibility the stockpiling of medical supplies, perhaps one of the most important things that we at the centre can do. We bear the full responsibility of that. It is a program that when com-
5076	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare pleted will entail an expenditure of about some $9 million. But it does not represent an actual expenditure, an actual loss, because most of the supplies purchased are capable of redemption for other purposes. We have not gone into the business of dealing with perishable drugs, but by an arrangement that we have with drug [DOT] companies we will have available the required amounts in the light of what we can now see.
We provide rescue vehicles and maintain warning systems. We have a warning system here at the centre, of course, altogether independent of the communications system of the Department of Transport and of the Department of National Defence. I think we can say that we are building our civil defence organization on responsible and sound lines. No one can ever say that a civil defence organization is adequate, and I would not want to say that ours is, nor would I want to say that any country's civil defence organization is adequate.
We have to take into account the assessment based on what we believe to be the state of international tension at the moment, and we have to govern ourselves accordingly. That is not always an easy thing to do. It would be easy to build up an organization to key pitch that would be capable of being destroyed by inactivity or non-use, and that is something that we have had to guard against just as they have been guarding against it in Great Britain. Sir John Hodsoll, who was head of civil defence in Great Britain during the war, and who is perhaps the most experienced in civil defence certainly known to us, is in continual liaison with Canada. He visits us periodically, and our officers visit him. Some of our officers take courses in his school, and there is a reciprocal arrangement in that particular.
So I can say that a civil defence organization has been built up which provides, as we now do, for the volunteer effort of some
135,000	people in the country. This represents a contribution indicating the extent to which our preparations have led us thus far, and the sincerity and determination which lies behind that effort.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I represent a constituency which is particularly conscious of civil defence, because of certain circumstances. A number of groups there during the last two or three years have given a great deal of their time to the organization of civil


defence on a local basis, and have been most successful.	.
During the last two or three years a number of these men have come to Ottawa to attend the school. Let me inform the minister that, naturally, they all came to see me when they were here-and they were pleased to see me-and they have all told me they were pleased with the arrangements at the school, pleased with the course and with the instructors. In all cases they were the type of men well able to judge administration and organization. They were also pleased with the emphasis now being given to doing this work from a long-term viewpoint, and considering it not only as civil defence in the event of a war but as civil defence by way of organizing communities so there will be permanent organizations able to cope with disasters at all levels.
There was one point they all brought to my attention, and which I noticed the minister mentioned in his remarks. They all informed me they were anxious to see standardization of hose couplings, concerning which I understand arrangements have been made with two provinces.


Murdo William Martin: We are prepared to make arrangements with all the provinces, but thus far arrangements have been made with only two.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: These men were deeply interested in the subject. That was the one point on which they were all agreed, that they hoped it would not be long before there would be dominion-wide arrangements to bring about a standardization of hose couplings.


Murdo William Martin: I thank the hon. member for what he has said.


Gordon Minto Churchill: With regard to the minister's statement that 135,000 people have received training in civil defence, I wonder if he could give a breakdown by provinces to indicate the progress being made.


Murdo William Martin: Yes. If hon. members wish,
I could take the time to read it. However, if it is satisfactory I would be prepared, with consent, to place it on the record.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Murdo William Martin: The table is as follows:

Supply-Health and Welfare -(1) 30 Sep. 52	STRENGTH STATES
+ (2) 31 Mar. 53	April, 1953
Provinces	"A" (Full-time)	"B" (Volunteers)	Total	Training	-a)	+ (2)	(1)	(2)	a)	(2)	(1)	(2)13 339	14,502	18,459	20,840	31,798	35,342	3,612Alberta	9,741	12,374	6,500	8,125	16,241	20,499	2,677	4,448Saskatchewan	2,405	3,122	3,076	3,725	5,481	6,847	572	718Manitoba	1,748	1,748	5,904	6,121	7,652	7,869	460	42515 537	15,537	17,193	17,193	32,730	32,730	Quebec	19,741	15,917	3,408	3,415	23,149	19,332	127	586(Montreal only received)	550	586	1,433	1,790	1,983	2,376	1921,296	2,949	4,245	500	3	2	13	41	16	43	28	29	3,000	3,600	3,028	3,629	197
Grand Totals		64,386	63,817	61,935	64,850	126,323	128,667	4,336	10,178


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are all anxious to complete the business of the session, but this matter of civil defence is important. The matter of hose couplings was mentioned a moment ago, and the minister said Ontario and Alberta had completed arrangements with the federal government. What has caused delay in completing arrangements elsewhere?


Murdo William Martin: As my hon. friend understands, the standardization of hose couplings is a matter which would not only be valuable in civil defence or in the event of disaster, but something which would have a permanent all-time value in any community. Having that in mind, we have offered to the provinces one-third of the cost of the program in each province. Ontario now has such a program under way, and so has Alberta. We are now negotiating for the same arrangement, under which we would assume one-third of the cost, in British Columbia. No such accord yet exists in my hon. friend's province.


Gordon Minto Churchill: 
Murdo William Martin: In common with other countries, we are experimenting with shelters. I would want to examine more closely the precise statement my hon. friend has mentioned. I would not want to say that any shelter with which I am familiar would be capable of complete invulnerability. However, we are examining this matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When we were discussing the estimates of the Department of Public Works some time ago I raised the question as to whether or not public buildings now being constructed or to be constructed in the future could be built so that shelters would be provided in the basements for the protection of the general public. At that time the Minister of Public Works intimated that, this would involve many millions of dollars of expense.
Is any suggestion being put forward by the minister's department or by other departments of government suggesting that some such provision be considered from the standpoint of civil defence? I should not think this would necessarily involve any tremendous
5078	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare additional expenditure. Shelters would be underground, and provision would be made whereby the upper floors would not cave in, and would thus provide general shelters for the public.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What my hon. friend has said has reminded me that we now have a committee made up of representatives from the Department of Public Works, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Transport, the national research council and this department, engaged in a consideration of this matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Naturally I am concerned with civil defence in Winnipeg, and have taken some part in the voluntary work in that area. Would the minister inform us as to the civil defence situation in respect of the government buildings in Ottawa, and particularly this building?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We now have in the civil service in Ottawa 3,000 people who are trained in civil defence requirements. That covers this and other buildings. Then, with respect to Winnipeg, I am happy to tell my hon. friend that under the direction of General Penhale that city has one of the best civil defence organizations in the country. If my hon. friend has participated in it, as I am sure he has, he will want to share some of the glory of that success.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I regret
taking a few moments at this time to discuss the matter before us but, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has said, this is a very important matter. After all, the minister has to have certain responsibilities if he is to enjoy the position of great white father-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought the hon. member was going to say "a great man".


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And in addition, the minister has confided to me in private great belief in the absolute efficiency of everything this government does. The figure of 135,000 is very imposing; but I would like to know more about it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should have said 128,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We will not split hairs over 7,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, but I am a purist.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister has made reference to a school, and the hon. member for Kootenay West has said it was a very good one. How many of these 128,000 have been trained, and of what does the training consist? It may be my own fault,


but if a bomb were suddenly dropped in the city of Toronto I do not know just what I would do, except that I would be in a great state of agitation, and most certainly would be very sorry that I had not communicated with the nearest official to find out everything I should do. I imagine there is a large number of people in that situation.
I shall ask my second question while I am on my feet. Again I realize the difficulty of testing what is being done. I do not know what yardstick can be used, but it occurs to me that one would be to compare things with the United States and another, although conditions are vastly different, would be to compare things with the United Kingdom. We are spending $6 million, which is perhaps the least of it, but we are dealing with a matter which could become more important overnight than any of us would like to think. I repeat that I realize it is a quite difficult task for the minister to bring this home, but for the present I should like to have answers to these questions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend raises a difficult problem. I had an observation to make but I think I shall make it to him privately. It is full of good humour and decency, but I do not think I shall take the time of the committee at this time. My hon. friend is in Ottawa and I know he would find it difficult to be acquainted with the particular station in Toronto where we are building up an organization. If my hon. friend is free and has no political engagements on June 6 I should like to take him with me to Niagara Falls, where we are having international exercises which will summarize what we are hoping to do in that and other particulars.
With regard to the people who are being trained, of the 128,000 we have trained the leaders have been trained here in Ottawa, that is the nurses, the wardens and so on. They would go back to the provincial centres or to the municipalities and carry on there. Obviously we could not bring them all here to Ottawa.


Gordon Minto Churchill: At what stage of training are those 128,000 people? I understand that you can take six courses or two courses.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not for one moment suggest that the 128,000 are all at the top level of training of those who have been to the school to which the hon. member for Kootenay West referred a few moments ago. The leaders have had full training. Some of them have taken as many as four different courses covering different fields. Taking' Winnipeg for instance, I would say that roughly speaking about 20 per cent of the

workers there have had the same kind of course as the leaders received here in Ottawa. Some require certain courses because they have different functions to perform. The welfare workers require a different course from that taken by the wardens, and so on. Just as rapidly as it is possible and desirable the provinces and municipalities and ourselves are dealing with this problem.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The figure of 128,000 trained personnel is perhaps misleading unless you look at it more closely. After all, the average volunteer starts off with basic training course A or something like that. Then he continues with basic training course B. Then I understand he can go on to take some of these specialized activities which would fit him to be a warden, a welfare worker or something of that nature. The 128,000 perhaps would be a general figure and gives a blurred picture. Perhaps 100,000 have received just basic aid training, for all we know. Can the minister enlighten us?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The figures I have given were supplied by the provinces. I have not the percentage of actual training. Of the 128,000 civil defence workers a certain number have received training. A great number of them have taken the full curricula available and to the extent that it is possible to offer it. I have here a statement which was made by Sir John Hodsoll with reference to our organization a few months ago in which he says:
I was immensely struck with the keenness of everyone in the organization there. There is general agreement at the top as to the importance of civil defence and great interest is taken in it everywhere.
And again:
From all I saw I formed the impression that civil defence in Canada is making splendid progress. I do not know of any other jurisdiction where in so short a time such progress has been made.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think we ought to be realistic about this. Either it is serious or it is not serious. If it is serious I think it is foolish to let it go at this point with just a few generalizations and a vague figure of 128,000 who have been trained. The minister has told us in general terms that there is co-operation with the provinces, but actually we have not the slightest idea as to the number of communities in Canada where there are people competent to take charge of the situation. Surely that is the test. Again at the risk of being tiresome may I say that I sympathize with the minister's difficulties.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is not a city in Canada with a population of over 50,000 which has not a civil defence director, except two.
Supply-Health and Welfare There is not a city of over 75,000 population in Canada which in our judgment has not a competent civil defence organization, with the exception of four communities. I do not think it would be in the interests of the esprit de corps we are trying to build up that I should be asked what cities those are.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will not ask what they are. What the minister has said carries me one step further. The minister has indicated that he has to rely a good deal on provincial organizations, which is natural enough. I should like the minister to say whether he is satisfied, whether he has such co-operation from these provincial organizations that he can tell us that there is a staff in every city in Canada of any size, with the exception of the two he mentioned? Can he tell us what these organizations mean? Does it mean that there are a few people who in their hearts know what should be done? Does it mean that in city X you have a staff in every ward or in every section, and what does that staff do? Are they just cherishing the knowledge which they have? To what extent are they in touch with the ordinary citizen?
We are not going to have a day or a week or a month's notice during which they can make up for lost time. I am not trying to paint any blood-curdling picture of what is going to happen, but if this thing comes it will come in a hurry and probably without: any warning. I do not think the minister should leave us with the impression that we have a civil defence organization that is ready to step into action. If the minister tells me that I am wrong, I have respect for his opinion; but if I am not wrong then it: seems to me we should not be left with the impression that things are pretty good.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought I had been frank with the committee in my statement. I am certainly not going to 'say to my hon. friend or to the country that I am happy with the state of civil defence. There is no country in the world where that could be said. It is just one of those things that you cannot be happy about. What we have done has been done in the light of what we think we should provide for financially and otherwise. We can only judge in the light of those standards what we think is our immediate job.
As I said at the outset, we do not want to build up to the maximum point and needlessly raise enthusiasm that will suddenly drop, so when you really want it you are not able to get it. We are building along solid lines. For example, Vancouver has a budget of $200,000. They have people per-
5080	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare manently engaged. Edmonton has its underground system. They are now giving consideration to their communications centre in Winnipeg. Montreal has a civil defence budget of $257,000. I went to an exercise in my own city of Windsor three weeks ago in which over 3,000 people participated. We had an exercise the other day in the city of Woodstock. I do not know how many participated, but I understand that it was very successful. That is happening all the time.
I do not want to say that, if anything happened at this minute, the civil defence organization could take care of the kind of disaster that could conceivably happen. All I can tell my hon. friend is that every province has a minister who is in charge of civil defence, a deputy minister assisting him and a coordinator in charge. We have the same arrangement. We have certain responsibilities and they have certain responsibilities. We are building together along what we think are responsible lines, and we think we are capable of meeting the kind of disaster which none of us want to see happen and which we can avoid. I do not think I can say anything more along that line.


Solon Earl Low: Is proper attention being paid to co-ordination of training between cities and surrounding municipalities so that evacuations can take place in the case of some disaster occurring in the city itself?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We recognize the principle of mutual aid both on the provincial and the international level. For instance, there are certain areas that would be designated as target areas. There would be certain points that we would regard as not so vulnerable. They would provide mutual aid. They might act as welfare centres, reception centres or evacuation centres. All that sort of thing is designated. My hon. friend knows the city of Edmonton. He knows that 100 businessmen are meeting there regularly, and he will have an idea of the kind of organization that is going on there. Then we have, of course, carried on the business of mutual aid with the United States. We have made arrangements with every state on the border and with the national government of that country, the arrangements being with respect to customs, doctors and so on, that for every purpose of civil defence there would be no border at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How much is spent and in what way in arousing public opinion; let us say by way of advertising?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Our own budget is about $300,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I follow that up for a second. The minister is very


ingenious at advertisements of various kinds about which we all know.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope he will be later on, in a few months.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not
offering any criticism of them at all. I am simply referring to them in passing. This is a task which has not been done except perhaps in certain places. The minister has mentioned Calgary, Edmonton and one or two other places which are apparently much in advance. I think what has not been done -and it is very difficult-is really to arouse public opinion. If Calgary is away ahead of some other part of the country that is not right, and while I am not suggesting that the federal government can step in and act in a dictatorial manner, nevertheless if in fact in certain places a reasonable degree of progress has been achieved and if, as I suspect, others are away behind, then it does seem to me that the department is faced with that task, and perhaps unfairly would be held responsible if certain places are behind.
I am not going to labour the matter further. The minister has read one or two eulogistic statements of a general kind which I always think are dangerous because one does not know whether they have been written after a good dinner and a pleasant talk with the minister, which is always very agreeable to everybody. I should like to have some comparative figures, if there are any, with the United States. They are most like us.
But I come back to this point, and this is my last comment. I think the department has a duty, a very onerous one if you like, of arousing the ordinary citizen to his selfinterest in this matter. If Calgary is miles ahead of Toronto, for example, then it seems to me that somehow or other the department, in conjunction with the provinces, should be bringing that to the consciousness of the people who are behind. I want something to give us a comparison with the United States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did my hon. friend say it was
carried?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, that is my last question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is quite right. He states the problem, and there are two views. I may say that at one time my view definitely was that education-I use that word instead of "propaganda"-should be more extensive than it had been. He will be interested in knowing that we went into the matter very carefully, and it was the general view of most people with whom I discussed it that it would be an unwise thing to do. They may be wrong. I know that if anything happened the man who was in

charge of civil defence would be held responsible, and he might conceive then that his role of usefulness in public life had gone. I do not doubt that for a moment.
Nevertheless, having said that, I think we do have an active system of education. Every province but one has its own public information division and public information officer. They work directly with the schools, as they feel they should, and with other bodies. We have a liaison with them through our own central educational division in Ottawa, which is in charge of films and so on.
I will hurriedly give a few examples of the new training manuals we have prepared. There are manuals on civil defence in institutions, welfare training, ambulance service, auxiliary fire service, transportation in civil defence, fire fighting for householders, rescue service and so on. These are being circulated all over the country in thousands. Then there is the production of films on civil defence in Canada and civil defence welfare. We have produced copies of suitable civil defence films in this country for training and information purposes, and have procured films produced in the United Kingdom and the United States.
We have provided also for the expenses of transportation and showing across Canada of certain civil defence exhibits prepared in the United States, which have been lent to Canada by the government of that country and which will be on their way all over our country one of these days. That will be doing the sort of thing my hon. friend has in mind. Then there is the production of posters, labels and so on. If my hon. friend will compare what is being done in Canada with the efforts of our neighbouring country I think he will find that our effort, while not fully satisfactory, is nevertheless one that indicates the activity that is taking place.


William Joseph Browne: Is the minister aware that the director of civil defence in St. John's has resigned, and that this is the second time that the director of civil defence has resigned? Has a new one been appointed yet?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I believe that one is going to be appointed very shortly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have three final questions for the minister. He has been giving us some useful information, and perhaps he will go a little further now. There must be a general plan covering the whole aspect of civil defence, and surely some target date has been set for a state of readiness. I grant that the minister said earlier that civil defence is not expected to be complete at any time, and
Supply-Veterans Affairs that the state of international tension-I think he used those words-must be taken into account. Nevertheless in the planning there must be some target date for certain things to happen.
What is the target date for the supply of equipment in the way of protective clothing and medical supplies? What is the target date for the provision of fire fighting equipment and things of that nature? What is the situation with regard to shelter accommodation, whether public or private? Is that in a satisfactory state at the present time? What is the target date for some degree of confidence with regard to shelter? Lastly, in the opinion of the planners what percentage of the population should be trained for civil defence purposes in order that we may have some reasonable assurance that in case of a disaster we will be protected from catastrophe?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend will understand that I cannot publicly give target dates on everything. I can tell him that we have target dates for supplies and that sort of thing, and that is being looked after now. We have had to make two changes with regard to target dates for certain specific purposes. We have arrangements with other countries but that, as my hon. friend knows, is a matter I cannot discuss further at this time.
With regard to the percentage of civil defence workers in the population which is deemed desirable in a civil defence organization, the estimated requirement is 2 per cent. It may be under or over that figure, but that is the estimate given by those who should know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
511. Departmental administration, $2,130,643.
William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members will find the details for this item in the blue book of estimates at page 565.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is the minister making a statement now?


Mr. Lapointe:: No.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make some remarks on this general item. I do not intend to take a great deal of the time of the committee, though not because this is not a very important matter. We all know that the Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the most important departments of our governments. That is so because it has to do with the lives and hopes of some of the most patriotic citizens in this country.

Supply-Veterans Affairs The Department of Veterans Affairs dealt primarily with men of the first war; and the men of 1914 to 1918 are now old men. It has been a long time since the end of that war. The work of the department in regard to them is concerned mostly with pensions, war veterans allowances, hospitals, old soldiers' homes-provisions that need to be made for the older veterans.
The next problem of the Department of Veterans Affairs is, of course, care of veterans of the second world war. Those men who returned five or six years ago are now just getting nicely started in the life of this country. I think we can feel very proud indeed of the manner in which they are progressing in business and professional life, farming, fishing and, in fact, in all stages ctf life in this country. You might say that they are doing very well indeed in every walk of life. As a matter of fact it has been a matter of some amazement to see the manner in which the young men and young women of Canada can change from war to peace and from peace to war.
I think it will also be fair to say at this time, Mr. Chairman, that in the veterans charter and in subsequent legislation we have good legislation as far as our veterans are concerned. I think we can say that the affairs of veterans in this country are well administered. I say that keeping in mind the fact that we have at the head of the different branches of the department men who had proven themselves in wartime and who, in peacetime, have been doing a very good job as far as veterans are concerned.
By that I do not mean there are still no weaknesses in our veterans' legislation. I do not think anyone would agree with me if I made that statement. We have found throughout the years that there is nothing static about veterans' legislation. There has been change right through the piece. We have had a great many veterans affairs committees and, as all members of those committees know, we have had to provide for many changes in veterans' legislation. As our first war veterans grew older new legislation had to be brought in. When the second world war came legislation had to be prepared to look after the requirements and rehabilitation of those men. Now we have veterans of the Korean war, and again there has to be provision for the men in that conflict.
However, I think we will all agree that one of the greatest problems we have today in our veterans' legislation concerns the older men. As I said a few moments ago, the men of the second world war are settling down and 
seem to be carrying on very well indeed under the legislation we have provided. The chief criticism, I think-I know, in fact-has to do with the War Veterans Allowance Act. All members of the house are familiar with this act. It was passed back in 1930, in the days of the depression. It was passed then to assist in keeping our veterans, who were becoming aged, off the breadlines, as stated by the then minister of veterans affairs.
There have been many changes since 1930 and one of the greatest changes, of course, has been in connection with the age of the veterans. The men who in 1930 were in their forties and early fifties are now in their sixties and seventies; so, naturally, there have been many changes and there are many more men receiving benefits under the War Veterans Allowance Act today than in the early days. The changes have mostly been in the amount paid as allowance. At first it was $20 for a single veteran; later that was increased to $40 and, last year, it was increased to $50 a month for the single veteran and $90 a month for a married veteran.
There is the matter of the cost of living, the great cost of everything the veteran or anyone else has to buy. That has been the chief reason for the change of amount of monthly allowances. In 1952 the War Veterans Allowance Act was before the veterans affairs committee. At that time the committee was asked to increase the basic rate of the allowance. It was increased from $40 a month to $50 a month for single veterans and from $70 to $90 a month for married veterans. At that time the veterans' organizations appearing before the committee felt that the amount was not large enough and, as a matter of fact, the veterans' organizations presented very substantial arguments before our committee advocating that the amounts should be larger. However, those amounts were decided on.
Since that time there has been more abundant proof submitted to the government by veterans' organizations that there should be a further increase due to the high cost of living. As I have advocated many times before in the House of Commons, I think during this session of parliament there should have been a veterans affairs committee which could have considered this request of the veterans across this country for a further increase.
One of the main changes in the legislation of 1952 was the provision in section 4 for monthly employment of veterans. At that time I remember that the minister and others contended that this provision would be a

great help in giving employment to our veterans, and that it would be a great blessing for the veterans in receipt of war veterans allowance. Some months ago I had brought down in the house a return showing the number of veterans who had taken advantage of section 4 of the amended act. While I myself had not expected that there would be a great many, still I was greatly disappointed at the extremely small number who had taken advantage of this section. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, out of approximately 30,000 men under the War Veterans Allowance Act, only 258 took advantage of section 4.
I should like to read just what the minister had to say in this connection in order to show that the department and, I think, the minister expected from this particular section far greater results than those which followed. In June, 1952, speaking before the national council of the Legion and discussing the amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act, the minister said:
To my mind the most important feature of the proposed legislation is the introduction of a new provision which will permit income earned during a temporary period to be exempted.
Then he goes on to say:
Under the present legislation the earnings of a recipient are limited by a ceiling computed on an annual basis, which has the effect of penalizing the man who is, from time to time, able to earn more than the ceiling allows. The proposed change is to stimulate personal enterprise and encourage our older workers to stay in employment, even on a temporary basis, as long as possible. It is our belief, as I am sure it is yours, that the average man is happier with a job; it gives him the feeling that he is useful, contributing something to society. For the ordinary man it is the basis of self-respect.
That was the opinion the minister had in 1952. As I pointed out just a moment ago, out of 30,000 war veterans under the War Veterans Allowance Act only 258 have taken advantage of this section. To me that indicates-as I know it must to the minister also- that the provisions of the section were extremely disappointing indeed. The result is not to be wondered at because, as I said a few moments ago, these men are of the average age of 64 or 65. They are not physically fit. Both their age and their physical condition militate against permitting them to carry on work even on a monthly basis.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss further this matter of the ceiling set by the War Veterans Allowance Act. While we all feel that perhaps the basic rate should be increased, I think the chief objection which is taken by veterans and veterans' organizations all across the country, as well as by the press and by people in general, is that
Supply-Veterans Affairs the ceiling which was provided in the legislation in 1952 is too low. This matter has been discussed in the house on many occasions and it is not necessary to go into it to any great extent today. But I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that in 1952 the ceiling on earnings, instead of being increased as far as war veterans allowance was concerned, was reduced both for the single veteran and for the married veteran until today it is only $120 a year. That is, $10 a month over and above the war veterans allowance is all that a single or a married veteran is'allowed to earn. This situation is so manifestly wrong that I expected, as I am sure most of the members of the house did, that an amendment to this act would be brought in during this session. These men under the war veterans allowance, with this ceiling, are in a strait-jacket. They can earn practically nothing except this small pittance, as I say, of $10 a month.
Besides earnings, there is also the case of the small disability pensioners. This subject has also been discussed on many occasions. [DOT] As to the pensioner whose pension is less than $50 a month, he also is entitled to war veterans allowance if he is in needy circumstances. If he receives war veterans allowance and if the ceiling remains at $720 a year, he gets practically no benefit, because the pension is deducted from his war veterans allowance. In his case a higher ceiling would help materially.
Then again there is the person with a small superannuation allowance. He is in practically the same position as that of the small pensioner. There is no encouragement for these men to provide a superannuation allowance for themselves because, with the war veterans allowance ceiling as it is, there is again a deduction from their allowance.
Again, there is the pensioner over 70 years of age. The Legion has felt-as I am sure many hon. members have-that besides the war veterans allowance these men should be allowed to receive their old age pension. We see men in other walks of life, wealthy men, who receive their $40 a month besides their superannuation allowance and whatever other provision they have made for their old age. But a veteran over 70 years of age cannot receive his old age pension and his war veterans allowance if the two are above the ceiling which I mentioned.
I think this situation also is so manifestly wrong' that some increase in the ceiling should have been made; and again I repeat that it should have been made this session.
I cannot understand why a measure to amend the act was not brought in. With respect to

Supply-Veterans Affairs war veterans allowance and the old age pension, some people will say that the war veterans allowance was given to men at 60 because they were aged by the hardships undergone in the war to the extent of an extra ten years, and it is really an old age pension. We all know that we have gotten a long way from that idea. It is really not an old age pension at all. If it were, every man who served in the first war and who today is over 60 years of age would be considered to have aged 10 years and under the Old Age Security Act a pension which is given without means test at 70 should be given to a veteran over 60 without a means test; that is, if they carried out the argument that it is an old age pension. There is also the veteran who is capable of doing a day's work occasionally. He may be a watchman. He may be engaged as janitor of a school or a church. This man is not allowed to engage in that kind of work and at the same time receive the full war veterans allowance if the two are over and above the ceiling which I mentioned.
I should like to read, from page 26 of the ' proceedings and evidence of the special committee on veterans affairs of 1952, a statement of one of the witnesses who appeared before that committee. We were discussing Bill No. 181, which had to do with war veterans allowances. In this instance they were giving an account of a woman who had written in regarding some work that she was prepared to do. Her husband was suffering from diabetes and unable to work. This is the part I want to quote:
Whilst my husband was in hospital our minister offered us a three-room house with light and water and $50 per month. I told him we could not accept the salary, but would be glad to accept the house and light free in exchange for caretaking of church property-but that we had better consult the war veterans allowance board first. We have just received the letter tonight. Believe it or not, if we take this house and light and donate our work to the church the war veterans allowance will deduct the rent value from his allowance.
This women goes on to say:
In the name of God, what kind of a system is this?
She could not understand. I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate this matter further. The whole thing is that the ceiling on the war veterans allowance, as I said a few moments ago, has these people in a strait-jacket and something should be done and done at once to bring about an amendment to this act.
Another subject which has been giving great concern to veterans all across the country is the matter of housing. This subject has been discussed quite thoroughly in the house and it is not necessary for me to do more


than bring it to the attention of the committee at this time. In 1946, as we all know, it was considered by the Legion to be a very serious problem, and they set up a committee to investigate veterans' housing conditions all across Canada. The situation has changed very little since 1946 as far as housing is concerned. The information we received a few weeks ago in a debate on housing was that between 500,000 and 600,000 houses were needed in Canada. Last year the Legion dominion housing committee in their investigation reported that 60 per cent of those needing houses in Canada today are veterans. In their report at that time they said that this was partly due to lack of material, and also to lack of qualified workmen.
The evidence that came before us a few weeks ago in the debate showed that there was no great lack of material or of tradesmen. The trouble is that today the price of a house is far beyond the reach of the ordinary man. A man must have an income of at least $3,500 today to provide himself with a house. That is the evidence that was given before one of the committees. Very few workingmen have salaries of $3,500 or more. The other alternative is a rented house. The average rent today is somewhere around $80 a month.
A few days ago I was going through one of the cities in this country and I met a young man who had been in my training camp during the war. He went overseas afterward. He, his wife and his four children were sitting in a park. I asked him how he was making out. He said: "I am doing fairly well but I cannot get a house to live in. We have two rooms." He, his wife and his four children were living in two rooms, and he said it was an impossible way to live. What was true of this young man is true of thousands of others across this country.
I know this is not entirely the problem of the Department of Veterans Affairs; it is a problem, however, affecting veterans and I repeat, had we had a committee to study this matter of housing and other matters we might have been able to make some recommendations to the government on housing. It is a problem not only in this country but in the United States. I feel free to suggest that our veterans department could do something in this connection, because it is a matter that is receiving attention by the veterans administration in the United States. A few days ago I read in one of the United States papers an article which said:
All government-required down payments on G.I. home loans are slated to be removed within a few

days, the veterans administration has announced through its Boston office.
Under the new regulations, world war II veterans and Korean war veterans will no longer be required to make down payments on V.A.-guaranteed loans under government restrictions.
This will open a vast new field of prospective home building throughout the country, the administration believed.
There is more to the article which I will not read; I simply call it to the attention of the committee to indicate that this matter is receiving very serious attention by the veterans administration in the United States, and it is a matter serious enough to receive attention by our veterans administration in this country.
There is another matter to which I should like to call attention. I am speaking of matters that could have been discussed by a veterans committee if one had been set up. I have said time and again that we should have a permanent veterans committee. I now refer to the question of war prisoners. A few days ago the Secretary of State gave some reason why the government did not hear the representations of an organization known as the national council of prisoners of war. This national council of prisoners of war are war veterans. They are returned men who suffered over a period of years in the war camps of Germany, Italy and other places where prisoners had been taken. I am not saying that these men should receive what they ask for. I do not know. What I do contend is that they should have received more attention from the government. I also contend that if we had had a war veterans committee-


Hugues Lapointe: I do not like to interrupt my hon. friend, but I want to tell him that this association was received by the government.


Mr. Mulch:: Twice.


Hugues Lapointe: They were received not more than ten days ago, and they made their representations.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They were received by certain members of the government.


Hugues Lapointe: That is what they had asked for.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They came back and asked for another conference with the government. In any event, Mr. Chairman, their petition or brief did not receive the attention it should have received. That is the point I am making. The war veterans committee would have shown them more courtesy.


Hugues Lapointe: Oh, no.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The committee would have made a more careful study of the brief
Supply-Veterans Affairs presented. I am not advocating that they be given what they asked for, because I do not know whether or not they are entitled to it. But I do know that I have studied the report of the advisory committee on war claims, made by Mr. Justice Ilsley. I know he recommended that the Hong Kong prisoners should receive so much a day on account of maltreatment. I know he recommended that the prisoners under the control of the storm troopers in Germany should receive so much.
These men contend that the Geneva agreement was broken, so far as they are concerned. Anyone who reads their brief will see they contend that under the terms of the Geneva agreement they are not receiving the treatment they should receive. In Mr. Justice Ilsley's report the chief reason given for granting relief to the prisoners of war who came under the storm troopers in Germany is that they did not receive the treatment they should have received under the Geneva agreement.
I am sure the suffering of these men who make application was not as great as the suffering of the men at Hong Kong; I am sure they were not treated as badly as the men who came under the SS. troops; but it is all a question of degree. And it is quite possible that a committee studying this matter would have granted them at least a portion of what they were requesting.
They are not asking the government to give them something from the national income. They are not asking for a raid on the treasury. This is not government money; it has to do with reparations obtained from Germany and Japan to the extent of about $9 million, paid in settlement of claims. It is a question whether it is to be paid to prisoners of war, such as these, or to be paid for loss of property. That is the question.
As I say, these men are not asking for any raid on the treasury. I saw an article in the Legionary not long ago which made some comment about men surrendering easily. Well, I do not think anyone can claim that Canadian soldiers have ever surrendered easily. For instance, in the Korean war, in all the time our men have been fighting in Korea, only a small handful of Canadians have surrendered. Read the history of the first war; read the history of the second war. No, I do not think we need fear that making payments to these men, if they are entitled to it-and that is something which should have been determined by a committee of the house-would encourage in any way

Supply-Veterans Affairs the surrendering of any of our troops at any time in any war.
Then there are other matters which could have been discussed this year by a committee on veterans affairs. There is, for instance, Bill 336 which makes provision for higher education for the children of deceased members of the forces. That bill was discussed in the house, and some of us expressed the view that they should be treated the same as single veterans. I believe the recommendation from the veterans committee was that they be treated in that way. Well, they are not. To put the matter in a nutshell, single veterans received $60 a month as university students while the children of deceased veterans are to receive $25 a month, over and above other payments for tuition, etc. This is something which might very well have been discussed in the committee on veterans affairs.
Then there was one section in the superannuation act, a contentious section which had to do with the soldier settlement board and the old department of soldiers civil re-establishment. The feeling was held by most members in the committee that something should have been done for these men. What excuse has been given? Why has it been recommended for study at a future session? The statement is made that there was no time to study the question now. Again I say if a veterans affairs committee had been set up it could have been studied by that committee and satisfactory provisions could have been included in the superannuation act.
There are some other matters I should like to mention, but as it is almost six o'clock I shall not speak longer at this time. My main argument is that, despite our legislation for veterans-and it is good-there are weaknesses in it. The great weakness is in connection with war veterans allowances. I know veterans all across the country have been greatly disappointed, as I have, that no provision was made this year to raise the ceiling and, if necessary, increase the basic rate of allowance.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Mr. Chairman, before you call it six o'clock, there is one matter I should like to put straight, and that is with respect to representations made by the prisoners of war association. They are a national association and they did ask to be heard by the cabinet two months ago-that is, to meet a committee of the cabinet. On that occasion the organization was asked to meet with a minister of the cabinet, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs was selected. Naturally he


was sympathetic to their representations, and promised to present their case to the cabinet.
After they returned home and discussed the matter among themselves they made a second appeal to meet with a committee of the cabinet, feeling that they wanted to meet more of the cabinet than only one minister, and pointing out that they had some fresh arguments to present. That opportunity was given to them within the last two weeks; I do not remember the exact date. A representative committee of the cabinet did meet with them, discussed their problems at length and promised to refer them to the whole cabinet. It is incorrect to say that they had an unsatisfactory hearing and that they have appealed against it. They asked for a second hearing; they have had both hearings, and now await a decision.


Howard Charles Green: But they were turned down, as was announced by the Secretary of State two or three weeks ago. What hearing was that?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: If there was any rejection, I am not aware of it.


Howard Charles Green: It was announced in the house.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: If there was a rejection, it would be between those two hearings. But within the last ten days they have had a hearing before a committee of the cabinet. That is what they asked for, and their case is in process of consideration.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, the first thing I want to say is that my experience with the senior officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs has always been most pleasant. They have not always given me what I wanted, but I must say they have been most courteous. In so far as the act permitted them to do so they have given me every co-operation and assistance. Only yesterday I visited the Veterans Land Act office, which is under Mr. Rutherford, and I must say to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the officials there are doing an excellent job in the performance of their duties.
Possibly a lot of the discussion we have had would have been unnecessary if the minister had made a statement at the opening of his estimates. We would not have had the discussion on prisoners in Hong Kong. I think we should have had a full explanation at the start. However, that is the

prerogative of the minister. I do not think anything is going to be gained by a speaker rehashing what has taken place or what has not taken place. I do not think we are going to help the veteran that way. The concern of those of us who are veterans is to endeavour to help our fellow veterans.
We did not have a veterans affairs committee during this session, but I think the first thing the minister should do at the next session is to set up a standing committee on veterans affairs. I believe every hon. member would agree to that. I know the people of Canada would agree, and I know that organizations such as the Legion think we should have it. There are several excellent veteran organizations in Canada. I am biased in favour of the Legion because they have the largest membership and I happen to be a member myself. I think they bring down excellent and reasonable briefs.
The main thing I am going to speak about tonight is the war veterans allowance. I regret exceedingly that no action has been taken this session in connection with this matter. Possibly if the distribution of these veterans had been more even across Canada there would have been some action taken this session. Fortunately or unfortunately-I believe fortunately because we are proud to have them-some 27 per cent of those in receipt of war veterans allowance reside in British Columbia. I am being a little critical when I say that perhaps other hon. members do not take the interest they should in these veterans because they probably are not familiar with their problems. Because of our climate and for other reasons many of these veterans took their discharge in British Columbia at the end of the war, and others have moved to our district since.
I agree with much of what the hon. member for Royal said, but I disagree with other things he said. I believe the ordinary layman and even medical science are beginning to realize that a veteran who had served in the front line was pre-aged by at least ten years. I am not saying that this would apply to the man who served in an administrative capacity in England or at Le Havre, but certainly the man who had the misfortune to serve in the infantry was pre-aged by at least ten years. I feel that that fact should be taken into consideration in connection with these allowances.
I cannot conceive how anyone can defend the means test in connection with war veterans allowance. As has been pointed out already, the casual earnings such as a veteran might make might just as well not be permitted at all. That is just what it amounts
Supply-Veterans Affairs to. If the recipient of a war veterans allowance earns anything he is immediately penalized. Surely it is not the desire of the people of Canada that that should be so. This could be remedied at this session by the simple stroke of a pen to wipe it out.
I do not think the amount of the war veterans allowance is large enough. We have not taken into consideration the increases in the cost of food and everything else. I think we have the finest veterans' legislation in the world, and I am prepared to defend it anywhere; but that does not necessarily say that it is good enough. As one hon. member of the opposition said about another matter, where is the money coming from? The people in my riding object to paying taxes just the same as the people in other ridings. We would prefer to have to pay no taxes at all. If we have to pay them, we want them to be as low as possible.
But I feel that every taxpayer, not only in my riding but in other ridings of British Columbia, would be willing to pay whatever taxes were necessary to see that the veterans, particularly the elderly veterans, are properly cared for. I am not advocating to the government that taxes be kept as high next year or even increased. I certainly intend to be in this seat next year in order to advise the government. Obviously our national defence expenditures will not be as high next year. That is a matter of common sense. We have built all these buildings that are necessary and unless we have actual war we will not need the same amount of money for defence purposes. Let us give some of it to the deserving veterans.
Another matter I should like to bring up in connection with war veterans allowances and in which I think the department has fallen down is the insistence on the repayment of any overpayments that have been made. Before the act was amended many veterans made something through casual employment and their allowance was still paid. They have been called upon to pay that back to the department. I do not think the Department of Veterans Affairs should follow the example of the income tax branch.
If the Department of Veterans Affairs makes a mistake and overpays a veteran, instead of trying to collect it from the veteran they should write it off in their profit and loss account as is done in all government departments as well as in private business. If you are in the farming business you write it all off to loss. To me it is absolutely unfair that these people should be called upon to repay these amounts to the department.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
I repeat that I do not think anything is to be gained by rehashing mistakes that have been made in the past. We have good legislation, but it is not good enough. I do not know if I am permitted to refer to the budget debate. I have got through almost to the end of the session without breaking any rules, and I do not want to break one now.
I told the Minister of Finance at the time I made my budget speech-I think I am entitled to refer to my own speech even if I do, not refer to his-that he was one of the finest ministers of finance we ever had in Canada, but that he had the opportunity to go down in history as a great minister of finance if he would increase the war veterans allowance. I am glad to see that he is in good humour after his trip, and in excellent physical condition. Before he goes fishing it would be a very simple matter to pass an order in council to rectify his omissions of the past so far as the war veterans allowance is concerned. I can assure him that he will have the support of everybody in the province of British Columbia.
I want to reiterate that in my opinion the first committee that should be set up at the opening of next session is a standing committee on veterans affairs. We have standing committees on agriculture and almost every other conceivable subject. We have a standing committee on printing which I think has met once in 13 years. Yet we do ourselves proud by having the names of the members of that committee printed in an official booklet. I have been honoured by being made chairman of it, and I do not think it has met since. The point I am getting at is that there is nothing for these committees to do. The committee on agriculture only sat in the last four or five days. Agriculture is a big business. Then there is that nonsensical committee that brought in a report the other night on a divorce bill that is costing the taxpayers of Canada $1,200. That committee wastes its time considering such a matter.
Surely a standing committee on veterans affairs could be appointed. I am sure no member of the house can point to anything more important than the veterans of Canada. When we stop to realize that none of us would be sitting here today if our veterans had not been willing to fight in two great wars in the past, then surely we should be able to set up a standing committee to consider veterans affairs. In the past the veterans affairs committee has been made up of members of all parties, and I do not think the members of any committee of the house that has ever met have been more imbued with a spirit of trying to work with one


another irrespective of party politics. As we saw it, we were working together on behalf of the greatest resource Canada has, its veterans and their dependents, the veterans who fought on our behalf.
I am proud of the legislation we have, and I am prepared to defend it on the platform or elsewhere. I am prepared to say it is as good as any in the world; but I still think that, although it is almost the end of the session, something should be done about the war veterans allowance. It certainly is very close to the end of the session so far as I am concerned, although I realize that the house may be able to struggle along for a day or two without my valuable services. However, even now I ask the government to rectify what I think has been a mistake during this parliament, the mistake of not providing a proper reward for war veterans allowance recipients.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, our group has arrived at an understanding that I will occupy a few minutes on the minister's estimates so the remainder of the group will not have to take up too much time. I have no hesitation in taking up a few minutes of the minister's time because of a conversation I heard in the cafeteria this morning. The question was being discussed at a nearby table as to when we might get away from here. It was said that the ministers were getting a bit jittery with their estimates, and were becoming a bit impatient. One chap at the table said there was one minister coming on tonight whom we did not have to worry about, the Minister of Veterans Affairs. He said that the minister was so interested in his department and the people for whom he is legislating that he would gladly stay for a week to listen to members who may have complaints.


Hugues Lapointe: That is right.


Clarence Gillis: I was a bit hesitant as to whether I should say very much, but after hearing that assurance from a person who knows the minister quite well I felt the minister would be relaxed, and he looks relaxed right now. I know he is interested, and wants all the advice he can get.
Like the hon. member for Fraser Valley, who says he is going to send me Hansard next year, I too should like to take this opportunity-one never knows who will come back-to pay tribute to the many officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the pension commission from the chairman down, because those who administer the legislation can only go as far as the legislation permits them. I have always found that the different

sections of the department have been most expeditious and courteous in dealing with mail and supplying other information. I want the minister to know that he has an efficient department.
Turning to the legislation itself, much of it is good. However, veterans' legislation is a social program for men handicapped because of war service; and a social program, like life itself, cannot be measured in terms of days and years. There is no finality to it; it goes on and on. The minister, the department and the government may be quite proud of the veterans legislation compared with such legislation in other countries; nevertheless it is the duty of members, particularly opposition members, to try to make it better and to see that a program of social security is continued for handicapped veterans who cannot take their regular place in the scheme of things.
Every member receives many letters dealing with war veterans allowances, pensions administration and so on. Some of them are pretty critical. For example, I received one a few days ago on the question of the war veterans allowance. The writer had a bad story to tell, but I want to tell the minister how he started his letter. It will give him some idea of the thinking of people outside the house who believe that they are legitimately entitled to something under the legislation. He commenced his letter by saying: "On a hill far away sits an old rugged boss who ignores both suffering and pain." Then he went on to give the minister quite a licking, indicating that he was in a very critical frame of mind.
I think there are gaps in the legislation that should be filled. The major issue raised by Legion branches and the national organization during the last year concerned the necessity of amending the War Veterans Allowance Act. That was the major issue they posed. I think their demands are reasonable in the light of prices today, rents, food supplies, clothing and the general cost of living. The Legion asked for an increase in the war veterans allowance from $50 to $60 for a single person. I do not think that is an unreasonable demand. The minister must realize that when you go to look for a room in a city like Ottawa you find that it will cost you $40 a month just for a place to sleep. There would not be much left for food, clothing and what have you if you were getting $60 a month. It would be very skimpy; you would have to eat in Bowles' restaurant, and you would not have very many clothes. I think it is reasonable to request that the single persons' allowance should be increased to $60 a month.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
They ask that for married veterans the amount be increased from $90 to $120. A married person generally has a few dependents and cannot live in one room. With rents as they are in this city, to get an apartment with a couple of rooms and a place to cook costs $80 a month, which is about the cheapest I have seen. The married veteran has not much left after that for the other amenities of life.
The second point which the Legion stresses very strongly, and it has all kinds of implications, is that we should remove the means test in war veterans allowances; and if the means test is not removed, they say we should step up the permissible earnings. At the present the ceilings are $720 for a single person and $1,200 for a married person. The Legion asks that the amounts be increased to $1,200 for single persons and $2,000 for married persons.
The means test in war veterans allowances is a handicap. It is a handicap when the veteran reaches the age of 70 and receives his old age security pension of $40 a month, because then his war veterans' allowance is decreased in that amount. Stepping up the permissible earnings in my opinion is not going to cost the government anything. It would provide an incentive for the single veteran who is able to do so to go out and take some employment to bring his income of $720 up to $1,200, and the married veteran could supplement his $1,200 and bring it up to $2,000. I think it is a point the government should consider, because it is all to the good if these people can go out and earn extra money and contribute something to the pool of wealth. You hear a lot of people in this house arguing for free enterprise. They say it creates the urge to go out and get more for yourself. If it is a good principle in general business it should be a good principle to establish in respect of war veterans allowances, especially in view of the fact that it is not going to require any more money from the treasury. I would ask the minister to consider that particular point seriously.
The next point about which the Legion is concerned is the extension of the war veterans allowances to include men who served in England in world war I. England was not designated as a theatre of war during the first war. The men who served in England then cannot receive war veterans allowances. In the last war England was considered to be a theatre of war and men who served there during the second world war are entitled to war veterans allowances. As the minister knows, many older veterans are writing in about this. They are broken down now, they have never established a disability pension,

Supply-Veterans Affairs and they cannot be employed at the present time, particularly in heavy industry. Most of my correspondence comes from that section; and those veterans think it is a pretty rank piece of discrimination when young men who served in the last war and got to England are eligible for war veterans allowance. The older veteran perhaps had considerable service in England and was kept there because of the type of service he was performing. We had records offices in England in the first war, and hundreds of personnel were stationed there by virtue of the positions they held and the qualifications they possessed. They were kept there despite their wishes. As a result they are not eligible for war veterans allowance. I think the government should have considered that point a long time ago.
The next point stressed in the Legion representation to the government concerns the removal of the residence clause for widows of imperial veterans. If the husband did not reside in Canada for the full 20 years before passing away, the widows are not entitled to war veterans allowance. There are many cases, of course, where the man passed away after being in the country only five or ten years. One can understand that cut-off. However, when the ex-imperial was within a few days, a few weeks, or a few months of being in the country 20 years when he passed on it is rather tough for the widow, who may be living in the same section of a town as the widow of a veteran who just happened to get over the line of the residence clause. The one qualifies and the other does not.
I think this is something that should be corrected. All along my opinion on the matter has been that for these older imperials there should have been some discretionary latitude given to the commission in order to take care of these borderline cases. Practically all the cases I have seen are right on the borderline and the husbands have been within a few months or a few weeks of completing the required time of residence in this country.
There is another point which I would like the minister to think about. There is discrimination as between province and province in the matter of a widow who is the recipient of war veterans allowance. In the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and, perhaps, Ontario, a recipient of war veterans allowance may also receive the provincial mothers' allowance. That is by agreement with the provinces.


Hugues Lapointe: No.


Clarence Gillis: That is the story that was given to us in the veterans affairs committee.


Hugues Lapointe: It is by virtue of a provincial act.


Clarence Gillis: Well, by a provincial act. My information is that-


Hugues Lapointe: Your information is wrong. It is usually good, but this time it is wrong.


Clarence Gillis: I got it from your deputy minister, who is sitting right in front of you.


Hugues Lapointe: You did not.


Clarence Gillis: If I am wrong, I am wrong on good authority.


Hugues Lapointe: I do not think you got it there.


Clarence Gillis: I got it privately. I did not ask the question publicly because I did not want to embarrass anyone in the veterans affairs committee. I asked the deputy minister privately and my understanding at that time, a year ago, was that this was a matter of agreement. I am sure it was, too, because the provincial governments would never pass that legislation unless they were consulted and agreed to put it into operation.
The point I am making is that in the provinces I mentioned, and I am not sure about Ontario, a widow in receipt of war veterans allowance can receive the full allowance and also the mothers' allowance. That is not the fault of the federal government. I hope the minister will put on record the provinces that have passed that enabling legislation. The provinces that have not passed it have not done so for the reason that their provincial income does not permit the additional expenditure of money.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare knows very well, from his experience in his grants in aid that are contingent upon the province matching them dollar for dollar, that some of the provinces-four at least-have not as yet been able to take their share of what was granted because they were not able to match dollar for dollar with the federal government. The same thing applies in veterans' legislation with regard to the widow being able to receive both mothers' allowance and full war veterans' allowance.
Legislation of that kind in my opinion is designed to help people in provinces which have greater income because of their geographic position. That is true whether it is legislation on national health and welfare or veterans affairs.
I do not think that is equality in Canada as most of the members of the House of Commons want to see it. It is not Prince Edward Island's fault that it is down in the section of the country where it is. It is not Newfoundland's fault that it has not the resources

that Alberta and British Columbia have. It is not the fault of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick that they are located geographically in a section of Canada that prevents them from fully developing and marketing their resources in the central Canadian provinces. I consider that kind of legislation to be discriminatory.
If the federal government is going to have legislation designed to better the condition of widows under the war veterans allowance, I think when that legislation is established it should be made uniform and that every widow across Canada should be treated in exactly the same way. The service given by the person in the province with a low provincial income was exactly the same as the service rendered by any other soldier in the Dominion of Canada. I want the minister to think about that matter. Let us not get into the habit in this country of developing a program of social security, either for veterans or for the average citizen, designed to help the provinces that have the greatest incomes. Let us at least try to make our social security measures uniform and applicable to all citizens across the country.
There is another point I should like to make, and it is one which the minister and I have argued about and have written about to a considerable extent. I refer now to the gratuity credits.


Hugues Lapointe: Re-establishment credits.


Clarence Gillis: Yes; re-establishment credits. I am now thinking about a case which the minister and I have been writing about. It is that of a nurse who served during the war, came back to Canada and ultimately landed over in the United States. She still has her rehabilitation credits. I got in touch with the minister to find out whether those credits could be paid outside of Canada. The answer was no. In the second place, he advised me that those credits could be converted only by using them as payment on an annuity or on insurance through the government. That was a few months ago; the matter has not been settled yet.
Under present regulations that is the only alternative the minister can offer; but I say that is wrong. That money belongs to that particular woman. It was granted by the Canadian government for the purpose of rehabilitation. She located in British Columbia. Both she and her husband found that, in order properly to set themselves up in life, there were greater opportunities in their professions in the United States; and like hundreds of other Canadians they shifted to where they could do the best for themselves.
Supply-Veterans Affairs They are young people. That was where they could do the best job of rehabilitating themselves, so they went to the United States. The government, by law, said that was their money. If the legislation prohibits payment of that money outside of the country, I think the law should be amended. If these people could better set themselves up in life and do a better job of rehabilitating themselves elsewhere, then I think that money should have been given to them. However, that lady is prepared to convert that money into a government annuity if and when she gets the necessary information as to how to go about it. We are hoping that the information will come soon.
The second case that has been brought to my attention is that of a former captain in the army. He lived in my part of the country, then went to Saskatchewan and lived there for some time. He still nursed his gratuity credits. He visited home about a year ago. His father at this time is in receipt of the old age security pension. But there is the old homestead there, and when the boy visited his home he said, "This place looks as though it needs to be fixed up." He was born there. He said to his father, "Go ahead and fix it up. This is going to be my home in the future. Fix it up, renovate it, and the amount which I have in gratuity credits I will pass on to you; I will draw it and use it for the purpose of building up the home I am going to live in in the future". Then he went back to Saskatchewan and, unfortunately, a few days after going back, he lost his life in a fire. But in the meantime the father had undertaken the obligation of carrying out the boy's wishes and had started the renovation of the home.
I carried on a considerable amount of correspondence with the department as to whether in a case of that kind, the credits could not be considered as part of the boy's estate and be passed on to his next of kin as such. Apparently there is some latitude in the administration of these regulations if the parents were considered to be wholly dependent. I drew up a fairly strong case of dependency. It was admitted by the department that at the time of his death that particular boy was contributing approximately $40 a month toward the maintenance of his parents, and that all during his period of service he did contribute to the maintenance of his parents. But in this particular case the last decision I obtained was that, despite all the factors that had been presented to the department, the parents could not be considered as being* wholly dependent on the boy at the time of
5092	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs his death; and so his rehabilitation credits accrue to the crown.	.
I do not think any law should be as firm as that. Certainly in this case, and in several others like it, there are extenuating circumstances. I realize that the lawyers who draft the legislation do so from the legal point of view, and that they make it as airtight as possible. But I think even in this case there is flexibility, and that the question of "wholly dependent" is a matter of interpretation. The fact that that boy was renovating the home in which he figured he would live in the later years of his life, and the fact that at his request the parents undertook the obligation of renovating that home at some considerable expense should, I believe, be taken into consideration.
In this particular case I think the department made a mistake. In my opinion those who interpreted that "wholly dependent" could have granted the rehabilitation credits as part of that boy's estate. I hope the minister will take a look at that case some time.
I am not blaming anybody. As I said when I started, the departmental officials can go only as far as the legislation will permit them to go. But in this particular case I think someone should take a look at it and see whether something could not be done to carry out the last wishes of that boy as expressed the last time he was home.
All this adds up to the fact that I agree with the hon. member for Fraser Valley, the hon. member for Royal and many others who over the past couple of years have said that a standing committee of the House of Commons should be set up to deal with veterans affairs.
Since 1945 the House of Commons committee on veterans affairs has not been a committee of this house on veterans affairs. It has been a committee appointed for the purpose of examining legislation, not to study and recommend but to examine legislation drafted and referred to it, which is a completely different thing. In 1940 when the committee was first set up for the purpose of opening up the old legislation and relating the new forces to it, we did not just go in and study the bills; we went in there and examined the whole question. Out of the deliberations and studies of that committee came a whole lot of the legislation that is contained in the veterans charter. But in the past few years the committee has been examining proposals that were already drafted, upon which it had not been con. suited.
The minister and the government are making a mistake. If we had a standing


committee whose job it would be to watch and follow the trend of veterans' legislation or the necessity for changes, the biggest asset that the minister and the department could have would be 25 or 30 veteran members of this house. They could sit down out of the realm of politics and make a study of what they thought was fair and reasonable, and the minister could check it from time to time. In that way he could be getting a large group of members of this house to share responsibility with him for veterans' legislation, and many times he would find the members of that committee on his side in controversial matters which arise in the house because the average member has not an opportunity to study the material. I refer to such matters as we have been discussing tonight, namely softening up the legislation that prevents departmental officials from making a reasonable decision where there are extenuating circumstances with respect to such questions as rehabilitation credits as part of the estates of persons such as those I have been talking about. There are complaints that cannot be anticipated by the average person who sits down and writes legislation.
Then with respect to the veterans allowance and all these changes that we have been talking about, instead of it just coming up at a moment's notice and all hon. members expressing individual opinions, the committee would have a chance to debate these things through and have a general understanding of them. They could consult with the Legion from time to time, and out of these discussions and deliberations would come recommendations on problems that arise in the country.
As I said when I opened my remarks, this is social legislation for the person who has become handicapped through his war service. There is no finality to it. It is going on, and we might as well realize that the best way of handling it and keeping it within reason is by having study going on all the time by men who are veterans themselves, who are members of the Legion and of the House of Commons, and who would rather work with the minister on finding a solution to these problems than have to fight with him from time to time.


Mr. Quelch:: I have a few matters that I should like to bring up. After listening to the assurance of the hon. member for Cape Breton South that the minister will welcome all the advice we can give him at this time, I am no longer hesitant in taking a little of the time of the committee.

We in this group would like to join with those other hon. members who have urged upon the government the setting up of a permanent standing committee on veterans affairs. At the present time we allow grievances of veterans and grievances of various organizations to pile up. Then after two or three years we set up a committee to deal with those grievances; but in the meantime a certain amount of discontent has grown and even when the committee is set up that resentment continues. We feel that if a standing committee was set up it could make a full review of the grievances of the veterans, and then there would be a better feeling among the veterans' organizations.
I would agree that the veterans' charter provided for a very fine program of veterans' legislation. I would also say that the officials of that department have done all they could to administer it fairly. I know, in so far as I am concerned, I have always felt that the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs did give every consideration to the cases that I referred to them. By that I do not mean for one minute to say that they always did those things that I wanted them to do. But when they turned me down I did at least feel that they had gone as far as they could within the confines of the act, and that is as far as they can go.
Although the veterans' charter did provide a fine re-establishment set-up for veterans, nevertheless time has gone on, and the time has now come to review that legislation and revise some of it. Unfortunately, when the special committee on veterans affairs has been set up in recent years it has not been allowed to make a general review of veterans' legislation. Invariably it has been tied down by the terms of the reference to deal with specific items; therefore when the veterans' organizations appeared before us requesting that we do this or that, we have had to tell them that our terms of reference permitted us to deal only with specific items. I am sure the minister will agree that this has caused a certain amount of resentment on the part of veterans' organizations.
After the first war we had the department of soldiers civil re-establishment. That was considered to be a temporary department, apparently. It was thought that after a few years most of the veterans' problems would disappear, and as time went on perhaps the department would disappear also; but no one would suggest for one moment that today the Department of Veterans Affairs is a temporary department. For that reason I say we should have a permanent standing committee on veterans affairs, and not just a temporary
Supply-Veterans Affairs one set up as the government may see fit from time to time.
One of the most important pieces of veterans' legislation was the War Veterans Allowance Act. I would call the War Veterans Allowance Act the veterans' last resort. I am now referring to the disabled veteran. If a veteran is unable to obtain a pension owing to some slight technicality within the Pension Act, or if because of the fact that his disability is not attributable to war service or because his disability is of preenlistment origin the request for a pension is turned down, then he has to depend on the war veterans allowance in order to get an income. The important thing to keep in mind in regard to the War Veterans Allowance Act is that only those veterans who saw service in a theatre of actual war are entitled to get that allowance, unless of course they are in receipt of a small pension. We should keep that in mind at all times, because some people think it is something to give to any veteran who gets hard up or is unable to get a job or gets a little bit disabled. After all, any veteran who remained behind in what the soldiers called a "cushy" job is not eligible for the war veterans allowance. He must have seen service. That should always be kept in mind.
There is no doubt that some improvement was made in the act last year. We increased the amount of the allowance by $10 a month for single veterans and by $20 a month for married veterans, but we made no increase in the amount of permissive income over and above the allowance. As a matter of fact we reduced it for married veterans from $250 down to $120. That was due, of course, to the increase in the amount of the allowance. The present ceiling is altogether too low, $720 for a single veteran and $1,200 for a married veteran. It makes it almost impossible for the veteran today to have what you might call a reasonable standard of living, unless he is in a position to qualify under section 4 of the act.
While section 4 may provide quite considerable benefits for a veteran who is able to get a job for a month or two, it is of absolutely no use to the disabled veteran who is not able to work. He cannot come under section 4. Only that veteran who is fortunate enough to be able to get a good job for a short time benefits. He can go on a monthly instead of a yearly basis and, as a result of the money he earns during the month, he will not have his allowance reduced in future months. Section 4 is a good section, and I was sorry to hear that so few veterans have taken advantage of it.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
But, as I said at the time we had that legislation before us, the veteran I am most worried about is the one who is unable to work, and is receiving war veterans allowance. We did very little for him last year. True, we increased the allowance by $10 a month, but we did not raise the ceiling on incomes. Therefore if a veteran happened to be fortunate enough to have a small legacy left to him, or was able to get some form of pension in addition, he was denied the full benefits because of that ceiling.
The Legion filed a brief with the federal committee last year, and I think their brief was generally quite reasonable. They asked that the ceiling be raised from $720 to $1,200 for a single man and from $1,200 to $2,000 for a married man. That is approximately the level of income we have established as the minimum a family or person should have to live on in this country. The exemption in respect of income tax is set at $2,000 for a married man and $1,000 for a single man. I presume when the Minister of Finance placed the exemption at that level he had in mind the fact that a person needed that income in order to be able to live. Therefore no taxation was placed upon individuals with income below those amounts. If that is true of the average Canadian, it must also be true of the veteran. Therefore I think the ceiling on incomes should be raised to at least the level of the exemptions for income tax purposes, in order to bring the veterans up to parity.
Then the Legion also urged an increase in the allowance from $50 to $60 for a single person and from $90 to $120 for a married person. I think that was reasonable, in the light of the heavy increase in the cost of living we have been encountering during the past few years. I am satisfied the government would not be subjected to any embarrassment from the standpoint of public opinion if they were to make these increases. They would have the full force of public opinion behind them if they were to introduce legislation of that kind.
I was interested last year in listening to a certain person in the Department of Veterans Affairs-I have now forgotten his name- make some observations on a subject in which he was interested. I believe it was described as a science and, although I am not quite sure as to the proper word, I believe the science was described as geriatrics. No doubt it has considerable merit in it. However, I have felt some concern in the matter, and in discussing it with other veterans I have heard them express concern, too. They are fearful that that science will be used for the purpose of trying to dig out the old veterans, the ones who are burnt out, in an effort to get them into some kind of employment.

I agree that in some cases that may do some veterans a lot of good. But I am afraid there are other veterans who would like to retire and take it a little easier, but who will feel that they have to go back into some form of employment so they will not be accused of taking the war veterans allowance improperly. I hope departmental officials will be careful not to put undue pressure upon veterans, in the light of this science of geriatrics. As a matter of fact, that is an unfortunate term; it sounds too much like gerrymander.
Then I would raise one other point in connection with war veterans allowances, and that is in connection with the widows of imperials. I think we made a big mistake when we refused to give war veterans allowances to the widows of imperials who have resided in this country for 20 years, but whose husbands died before they had completed 20 years' residence. I find it hard to understand the reason for this procedure.
I can understand not paying war veterans allowance to a widow until she has completed 20 years of residence; but just because her husband had the misfortune to die before he had completed his full 20 years residence in this country seems to me a very peculiar reason for denying that widow the war veterans allowance. That matter should be dealt with next year; I suppose it is too late to do it this year.
Then for a few moments I should like to discuss questions related to the Veterans Land Act, in so far as small holdings are concerned. At present the requirement is that a veteran must buy three acres of land. For a time we lifted that requirement in one section of Ontario and allowed veterans to take small holdings of half an acre. I understand the present requirement, however, is that they must have three acres of land when they build a house.
I have discussed this matter with a number of Veterans Land Act officials in western Canada, and they tell me the picture is greatly complicated. They say they would like to see the three-acre regulation reduced to half an acre, because the requirement that a veteran must buy three acres of land is greatly increasing the cost to him of acquiring a home. Three acres of land can only be had at considerable cost whereas, if the amount were reduced to half an acre, the veteran would have to buy only that much land.
I fully appreciate the original purpose. The idea was that the veteran would have three acres of land and would be able to supplement his income by growing vegetables, and

by using the land in other ways. But we know that what is actually happening is that many of these veterans who have three acres of land are not using it at all. Their land has become a liability on them. They find it difficult to keep it cultivated and stop the weeds from growing, so they will not run foul of the town inspectors, who do not like to see unsightly pieces of land in their vicinity.
I know that out west many of the officials feel it would be a good thing if the provision for three acres were reduced to half an acre. The minister may reply that if that were done it would be made into a housing project. Well, what would be wrong with that? If veterans need homes, and if we can help them to get homes by reducing the requirement to half an acre instead of three acres, I think consideration should be given to this.
There is one other matter I should like to mention in connection with the Pension Act. I would like to see the committee on veterans affairs set up with broad terms of reference so they could review some of the amendments made a few years ago. At one time we made an amendment to section 11 (c) of the act by striking out certain words, because we felt that by so doing we would make the pension available to veterans who had been refused pensions on the ground that their disabilities were of pre-enlistment origin. I should like to know what effect that amendment has had, how many veterans' applications have been reviewed, and how many of those applications have now been granted as a result of that amendment.
Then I would like to see a review of the results of the amendment we made to section 63. That section deals with the benefit of the doubt. We amended the section in order to assure that the veteran did in reality get the full benefit of the doubt. That is another matter I should like to see investigated in order that we may find out whether it is doing the thing we intended it should do. If those two amendments have not accomplished what the committee wanted them to accomplish then I think it is up to the government to provide additional amendments to the legislation in order to assure that every veteran who is really entitled to pension gets the full benefit of the doubt.
In conclusion I again urge the government to give careful consideration to making the veterans' committee a standing committee in order that the various grievances of the veterans may be considered from time to time.
Supply-Veterans Affairs


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, I want to express my disappointment that nothing has been done this session to improve the position of recipients of war veterans allowance. I think that disappointment is shared by all the veterans in Canada. It was hoped that this year there would be some increase in the rate of war veterans allowance. I do not intend to repeat the arguments which have been made by several hon. members who have said that an increase not only is justified but is absolutely essential at this time. I think the increased cost of living is sufficient in itself to show why an increase is required in the rate.
In addition to increasing the rate I should like to see some action taken to raise the ceiling on allowable earnings by recipients of war veterans allowance. I have never been able to understand why a war veterans allowance recipient was limited to the small amount of allowable earnings which has been the case up to date. It would seem to me only reasonable that he should be permitted to have an income up to the minimum at which income tax is imposed. The fact that he is limited to the extent he is causes great difficulty to these recipients of war veterans allowances.
I would say that the majority of the cases with which I have come in personal contact during the past two or three years have been due to the fact that over a certain period of time these recipients of war veterans allowance have made a certain amount of money. Generally the amount was not very much, but the man might not report it or forget to report it or something like that. Eventually it would be discovered that he had made this money and his war veterans allowance would be cut off, or a certain amount would be deducted from his monthly cheque. The result was that in many cases the war veteran would be left in a desperate situation, where it was practically impossible for him to live.
All that suffering, all those difficulties could be overcome by lifting the ceiling. There would be no cost to the public treasury in doing that. It is not as if this would necessitate paying out more money. The lifting of the ceiling would not cost the taxpayer any more money, but it certainly would make things much more pleasant for the recipients of war veterans allowance. They should be allowed sufficient to permit a bare living standard, which is not possible at the present time for many of them.
Several speakers have urged that a standing committee on veterans affairs be set up, and that is another move which I see no
5096	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs reason to oppose. Arguments in favour of it have been given at least twice tonight, and possibly more often. There is certainly more reason for having a standing committee on veterans affairs than to have many other standing committees.
If we had a standing committee on veterans affairs it would be possible to study these veterans problems and as a result the general position of the veteran might be improved. It would be easier to have changes made to improve the legislation and regulations. Once more I add my request to that of other hon. members that a standing committee on veterans affairs be set up.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Cape Breton South presented the case for this group with his usual eloquence, logic and conviction. I may say that he was chosen by this group for one particular reason, and after considerable thought. We consider him to be a typical old soldier. I make no apology for having a few words to say on the first item of these estimates, as a member of this house and as a veteran, on behalf of my comrades, their dependents and those associated with them.
First of all I want to thank the minister and his parliamentary assistant for the prompt consideration they have given to any matter I have brought to their attention during their term of office. Before proceeding to make the brief remarks I want to make, I must pay my annual tribute to the officials of the department in Ottawa, at district headquarters and in the field. When I say that I express not only my own opinion but that of the Legion branches in my district, who have asked me to express their appreciation of the service rendered by the administrator in British Columbia and his officials and the field officers who visit our district.
I want also to express my appreciation of the courtesy and consideration I have received from the chairman of the pension commission and his associates. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South said, we do not always get what we want or what we think the veteran is entitled to, but I am quite confident that in administering the law the officials do the best they can for the veteran concerned.
Several speakers have indicated the necessity for a standing committee on veterans affairs, and I want to support that proposal which has been made repeatedly in the house by a number of hon. members on this side and by the hon. member for Fraser Valley and several others on the other side. I think the hon. member for Cape Breton South gave good reasons why- that should be done


at the next session of parliament. We shall look forward to it. In my opinion the need for a standing committee on veterans affairs grows greater every year.
I support the proposals made to the government on November 12 by the Canadian Legion. I have spoken in this connection previously this session, and I shall not repeat my remarks at any length. But I do want to emphasize, as other speakers have, the proposals in connection with war veterans allowance, that a single person be granted $60 a month and a married person $120 a month. I see the need for that in my contact with many veterans and their dependents in my constituency, and through the correspondence I have received. I have such a high opinion of the responsible nature of the Canadian Legion that I am quite confident these figures would not have been suggested had they not been arrived at after a thorough consideration of the cost of living and the ability of the country to stand this expense.
I want also to support the request of the Canadian Legion for an increase in the permissive income to $1,200 a year for single recipients and $2,000 a year for married recipients. If the government will not consider immediately raising the rate of the allowance, an increase in the permissive income would help greatly. It would give many veterans the opportunity to earn a little extra income and to take advantage of a greater proportion of the old age pension. All those who have spoken this evening have rather emphasized that angle, and that is the angle that I find stressed at the field level in the constituencies. I have had all kinds of people say to me that if the permissive income were only somewhat higher they could get along very well indeed. I think that would be a very good first move on the part of the government to make it possible for these people to live on a decent standard.
I should also like to mention particularly the Legion's proposal that there should be no recovery of overpayments unless fraud is established. I know the officials of the war veterans allowance board are most humane, and particularly in this type of case give every consideration to veteran recipients. I know that because I had occasion to bring several unfortunate cases to the attention of the board where, owing to force of circumstances, the veteran's wife or the veteran felt impelled to go out and earn a few hundred dollars to educate children and do things of that sort. When that is either admitted or discovered the veteran is required to repay the amount. I must say that the war veterans

allowance board has been most fair and has only asked for a small repayment each month in order to lighten the load as far as possible, but I think the Legion is on very sound ground when it asks that recovery of overpayments only be required when fraud is established.
When veterans earn more than they should it is because they are forced to do so by reason of unusual circumstances which arise, but I am not going to take the time to deal with that tonight. When the question of repayment comes up it produces quite unnecessary hardship. The Legion's proposals have been supported by members of the house, members of the veterans affairs committee and I think by the people generally. I believe that general public support for the proposals of the Canadian Legion has a far wider basis than the veterans, their dependents, immediate relatives and so on. I find that there is also general support in the press. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am correct in saying that the Vancouver Sun is a strong advocate of increasing the war veterans allowance.


Howard Charles Green: That is right.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have also seen articles in other papers to the same effect. I want to read a brief editorial that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of April 2 which I think expresses in very good terms the attitude of the public toward this question at the present time. The editorial is headed "Inadequate War Veterans Allowances" and reads as follows:
When income is restricted by a means test, an allowance of $50 a month can barely ensure subsistence in these days. Yet $50 is the maximum granted under the War Veterans Allowance Act to qualified veterans widows who have attained the age of 55. The dominion council of the organization maintained by these widows has asked the federal government to raise the maximum to $60 a month. The request deserves sympathetic consideration. It seems only right, moreover, that the health services available to veterans on the allowance should be available to their widows.
The changes in the allowance legislation requested by the widows, and proposed by the Canadian Legion last spring, are not drastic. Nor would their cost be great. The Legion wants the maximum allowance raised to $60 for a single recipient and $120 for married recipients. Total income permissible under the means test, it proposes, should be $1,200 in the one case and $2,000 in the other. On reaching the age of 70 the veteran could have the benefit of most or all his federal pensions. These changes would give effective relief to many who are now in need.
The war veterans allowance was designed originally to assist veterans who at the age of 60 found themselves unable to carry on their former occupations. In effect, it was an accelerated old age pension for veterans who became prematurely aged. Since the federal pension is now paid as of right to all citizens at 70 the argument is sometimes
Supply-Veterans Affairs
advanced that, instead of the allowance, this pension should be paid without a means test to veterans whose income earning ability is deemed to have become impaired at an earlier age than 70.
I think the next paragraph is particularly good.
But veterans on the allowance may receive a maximum greater than the pension, and they have hospitalization privileges as well. At least until Canada provides a more generous federal pension and establishes federal-provincial health insurance, liberalization of the War Veterans Allowance Act would seem preferable to any fundamental change.
I think that is a very good suggestion. It is along the lines of the suggestions advanced by other speakers this evening. If the government would only see fit to raise the permissible income it would make it much easier for a great number of veterans and their dependents. I want to read a resolution adopted unanimously by the veterans affairs committee on June 5, 1952. It was as follows:
The committee commends to the government their sympathetic study of the needs and requirements of recipients of war veterans allowance, keeping in mind the recommendations of the veterans organizations in that respect and particularly with regard to permissive income.
I hope the government will give further consideration to the proposals of the Legion, particularly the question of permissive income. That is all I have to say at this time. I have a few remarks to make on the Veterans' Land Act items, and I now conclude because I think I have said enough.


Mr. Riley:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to various speakers this evening placing before the committee problems which are peculiar to the veterans and which are deserving of serious consideration by the committee. I have run across a problem that has arisen in the past few months with respect to veterans that has burned itself into my mind. I should like to place it before the committee tonight. I am not a veteran, but during the war years I worked very closely with veterans. For two years I was solicitor for the Veterans' Land Act for the maritime provinces. During that time I learned to admire the veterans very much. I worked desk to desk and shoulder to shoulder with men who had suffered pain ever since the first world war, who would come into the office in the morning and carry out their duties throughout the day without complaint; yet those of us who were working with them knew that all during the day these men were suffering pain.
The conclusion developed in my mind that many veterans who were casualties of the first war and many of those who were casualties of the second war had probably done more themselves to rehabilitate themselves successfully into civilian life. After having undergone sacrifices and suffering that their fellow

Supply-Veterans Affairs citizens will never realize, these men had re-entered civilian life successfully and had put themselves in the position where they did not have to lean too heavily on the government or their fellow citizens.
Recently I was advised that a review of the different positions held by the various employees of the department was being made with a view to cutting down the number of personnel. I realize, and I think every veteran and probably every other citizen of the country will agree with me, that the Department of Veterans Affairs has done a remarkable job since the second world war to assist veterans to rehabilitate themselves into society. I also realize that the Department of Veterans Affairs is one whose responsibilities are lessening as the years pass by.
In 1945 the Department of Veterans Affairs had grave responsibilities. A large number of veterans needed assistance; but as succeeding years have gone by the number of such veterans has lessened. Well, this year apparently it was determined that there should be a review of the responsibilities of the staff. As a result of that review, which was carried on by the department and the civil service commission, it was determined that there were certain positions in the department where the responsibilities had lessened to the point that numbers of the staff were downgraded or, if not down-graded, their remuneration was lessened to some degree.


Hugues Lapointe: Some were up-graded.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: The minister says that some of them were up-graded. Well, I accept that, too, but I am talking about one particular type of veteran. He is the man who came out of the second world war suffering from wounds, a pension case, and in many instances he was an amputee case. Those of us who have had close contact with amputees of the second world war, for instance those in my own age group, have found a great deal to admire in those men. They lay in hospital beds for months. They had to come back into society minus one limb, minus two limbs; they had to fit themselves back among their fellow citizens as normal human beings. Those men had been away from their associations for many years. They bore not only physical scars but mental scars; and the mental habits they had formed during the years of the war had to be completely changed when they came back into the associations of civilian life.
Well, those men came out of the hospitals and, with the assistance of the Department of Veterans Affairs, were able to fit themselves back into civilian jobs. Many jobs were open to them, some of them being government jobs.


It is true that they received pensions, but the pensions came to them as a matter of right. They settled down and bought homes or built homes, and they carried on in their particular positions. Some of them, as I say, were in government jobs, and some of them were in the Department of Veterans Affairs. They carried on for a number of years after the war in their new homes, established families and conducted themselves as normal members of the community. All of a sudden they were met with this decision by the department for which they worked; they were told that the department was going to lower their standard of living, in some instances by as much as $500 a year.
Well, I suggest to the minister and to the ministers of other departments where this may happen, that the people of Canada will not begrudge to any veteran-and particularly to a veteran who is an amputee-the salary which he has come to earn by successfully rehabilitating himself into society. They will not begrudge him that salary which he has come to earn by assiduously applying himself to the particular tasks which are assigned to him by the department.
If it is necessary to carry out some measure of economy in any government department I suggest they leave the amputees alone, because there is a lot to be admired in those men. If there is to be any question of economy let it be by perhaps abolishing some position that a veteran has filled successfully for years, and let them put that man in a position in another department where he will be able to exercise his talents in a manner that will enable him to carry on as he did in his former department. Let him carry on as a member of society who is deserving not only of the ordinary credit which is due him but of a great deal more credit because of the tremendous sacrifices he has made and the tremendous amount of courage which he has demonstrated on behalf of the people of the country.
Recently I saw one of these amputees at a dinner. He was a normal sort of fellow who had a great deal of ability. He had successfully rehabilitated himself in a civilian position and he has risen to a position of responsibility whch would be the envy of any young man his age. After the dinner I saw the young man apply himself to a game of table tennis. During the course of that game he fell down about five times but, after falling down, he bounced back to his feet very quickly. Having seen that demonstration, in my mind there will always be associated with that man a particular name. I shall think of him as Mr. Guts. There are a lot

of amputees in the government service who could be described as Mr. Guts.
I think when it comes time for the government to practise economy in respect of particular positions which these men have successfully carried out for a period of ten years, exceptions should be made. Great care should be exercised by heads of departments in order to ensure that the standard of living which these men have achieved through their courage, their perseverance, and their talents should not be disturbed in any way. I do not think any citizens of the country, any good citizens, will criticize any department of government for making sure that these men have the opportunity of not only successfully rehabilitating themselves as they have done but of continuing that rehabilitation throughout their lives.
I ask the minister particularly, since his estimates are before the house, and particularly since there are a number of amputees in his department who have been affected by this review of personnel, to give some assurance to the citizens of the country as well as to the amputee veterans that their rehabilitation is not going to be disturbed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to add a word on one point only, the amount of permitted earnings. Before commenting on that matter I just wish to associate myself with what others have said about the efficiency and sympathetic understanding of the officials of the department as I have run across them. They do seem to me-and this is particularly so of those who are advocating the cases of veterans and veterans' wives with claims-to put their very best into it.
The point I want to speak about is purely the question of the ceiling on permitted earnings. As the hon. member for Calgary East pointed out earlier, that ceiling could be changed without costing the government of Canada one dollar. I have not heard any reasons given against this being done. If we were in a time of low employment I can well imagine that the argument might be made, although it may not be very convincing, that we must not let people work beyond a certain point because they would be crowding other people out of the labour market.
I do not think anyone will suggest that argument lies now. If it does not lie now, what conceivable argument is there for not changing the ceiling? I have not been able to think of it. No one I have talked to has been able to think of it. Unless the minister has some secret reason that has not yet been disclosed, I suggest not merely that this is an injustice but that it is an injustice that can be remedied right now before this session 68108-322
Supply-Veterans Affairs ends, because it will not cost one dollar to do it.
The hardships involved in the cases that come to our attention are heart-rending. What is perhaps a more practical reason why something should be done is that I think it must be bad for the morale of people who would like to go and earn money, but who find that by doing so they themselves get no advantage. It is all very well to say that they should go and do work anyway, regardless of whether or not they are going to benefit from it. We know that is not likely to happen; and if it does not happen, it seems to me there are many reasons I can think of against this ceiling on earned income, and no reason that I have yet heard given for it.
I wish to reiterate this. If the minister accepts that view, or if he is not able to controvert that view, I suggest there is no possible reason why that ceiling should not be raised before this session is prorogued.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, this is not the ideal time to make a speech, at 9.30 on Saturday evening. I am not going to make a speech at this time. We are now late with the estimates. I think they should have been brought down earlier. However, we may get them down earlier another year.
My deskmate has been referred to as a typical old soldier. He has fairly well covered what I was going to say. Perhaps he has said it much better than.it could have been said by me. While I did not know him when he was a young man in France, I think he would have been one of those fellows who were extremely good in the line and that he would have been a real comrade behind the lines. I take a great deal of pleasure in associating with him here in the House of Commons.
As I said, other hon. members have fairly well covered most of the grievances shared by veterans today, and I do not want to repeat what they have said. There is, however, one thing to which I want to draw the minister's attention again; I refer to the means test. As to these men who are my own age, we went to war in 1914; and when we went away everybody said that nothing would be too good for us when we came back. I am one of the lucky ones. I know a great many who are not in good shape. If that means test were taken away it would be of great benefit to them. I ask the minister to see what he can do about it. When the Minister of Finance brought down that budget, making provision for some of the money that he gave away, I suggested that if he had worked in co-operation with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, a little bit of

Supply-Veterans Affairs that money might have been spared in order to do away with this means test.
I support the rest of my colleagues on this side of the house in their contention that we should have a permanent veterans affairs committee before which any man who has served in the forces would have a right to get his member of parliament to lay his grievances. I think it would be a good thing to make that a permanent committee.
I do not want to make a speech. The correspondence I have from the branches of the Legion all over Canada, not only just in Manitoba, makes me believe that there are grievances everywhere. I am going to read just this one letter which is typical, Mr. Chairman. This is from Sanford, Manitoba and it reads as follows:
We, the Sanford branch No. 171, of the Canadian Legion, B.E.S.L., at a meeting held on April 28, 1953, passed the following resolution:
"Whereas the present veterans allowances are inadequate,
Be it hereby resolved that we recommend to the Minister of Veterans Affairs that the war veterans allowance be increased from $40 per month for single and $70 per month for married persons to $60 per month for single and $120 per month for married persons, and also that the total permissible income ceiling for those in receipt of war veterans allowances be raised to $1,200 per year in the case of a single man, and $2,000 per year in the case of a married man."
We respectfully submit the above for your consideration and hope that you will use all the powers at your command to ensure its adoption.
It is signed by H. R. McDowell, president, and E. W. Manness, secretary. I have many of these communications. I am reading only one because they are all much the same.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member who preceded me, I do not wish to make a speech; but I should like to make a few remarks with regard to these veterans. I want to support the brief presented by the Canadian Legion. The Legion proposals certainly deserve our wholehearted support. They should receive further consideration from the minister and his parliamentary assistant, and I hope that consideration will take place at an early date.
I am one of those who came into the house in 1940. For the first five years 1 attended this house, at least 75 per cent of the work I had to do was for veterans. I take second place to no member of the House of Commons in regard to what I have tried to do for the veterans. They deserve all the assistance they have ever received, and they are not getting too much assistance now. I think the legislation has been good. I think it should have been considered again this year at this session of parliament, and that the benefits should have been stepped up as was done


last year. Had that been done, I think it would have helped everyone considerably.
I think the veterans are our first citizens, regardless of everyone else. As the hon. member for Fraser Valley said, we owe our very existence to the veterans of the last war. Had it not been for them it would not be our privilege to sit here tonight and talk about veterans' affairs.
I should like to join with the hon. member for Royal and the other hon. members who have already spoken. I am not going to reiterate what they have said, but I should just like to say this. The veteran over 70 years of age should, in my opinion, be allowed to receive his old age pension as well as his war veterans allowance. I think that procedure is only fair. A great many of these men who saw active service now find themselves, at the age of 60, to be at least 70. I think their experiences added ten years to the lives of all those men. As a matter of fact, if the old age pension could be made available for veterans at 60 they should get it. If any people in this country should get it, it is the veterans. A lot of them are broken down and not able to work. Therefore they should get the old age pension as well as their allowance.
The veterans' committee should have been set up again this year. Actually it should have been continued through the years. For several years we had a veterans' committee composed of member veterans of the first war, which was only right. I do not happen to be a veteran, but I have followed the committee's activities very closely because I am so much in association with veterans. If I am here in the next parliament I shall look forward to seeing the committee set up again so the veterans will have a chance to turn to the committee and make their proposals. The committee can then fight it out and report to the minister and his assistant, and in that way the veterans will perhaps get better treatment at their hands.
I do not think I need to say anything more, although I may have something to say on the different items as they are called. I have had a lot to do with the Veterans' Land Act. Because of the fact that I earned all the money I ever made from the soil I consider that I have some knowledge of land value. I have been often called in when a veteran has wanted a certain piece of property and the valuator has turned it down. I have a case pending right now that I took up with the assistant just last week. Here is a case where the valuator has not assessed the property as it should have been assessed. I do not suppose the minister or his assistant know exactly what the property contains. I am

going to tell him right now what is on the property. There are 16 cherry trees, four pear trees, five apple trees, a raspberry patch, a gooseberry patch, currant bushes, a good garden, two acres of land, a very good barn 30 x 40 feet which needs a little repair, and three other buildings, one of which is a garage with a workshop in it. I cannot tell what the other two are, I think a chicken house and some other little building beside the house. It is a very good house. I was not inside it because the day I was there the lady who owns the house was away and the door was locked.
They tell me that the inside of the house is almost perfect. It is all redecorated. There is a brand new roof on the house, which is guaranteed for 10 years. This property is right inside the town of Goderich. It is within at least half a mile, if not closer, of a brand new high school. It is within a quarter of a mile of the new arena, the best arena in that part of our country. This veteran is a married man with two in his family. The location is perfect. I do not know any reason why that property should not be given to that particular veteran. He is a man who has worked for four years with the same boss. He is an electric welder by trade, a steady man. He does odd jobs around after work on which he makes some money, and he feels that he could take care of the property very well. At the present time he has an option on the property. All he needs is some assistance from the minister and his assistant. I hope due consideration will be given to this man.


William Joseph Browne: First of all I should like to express my appreciation of the general courtesy I have experienced in dealing with officials of this department. I do not think I can use words strong enough to say how gracious they have always been in any matters I have brought to their attention, and how pleased I have been also when appearing before the board. There is no doubt about it that the legislation with which we are concerned tonight is excellent, and every facility seems to be provided to give a soldier a fair hearing and, if he is not satisfied, then a fair appeal.
Like other hon. members I have had requests from the Canadian Legion, Newfoundland command in this case, asking for an increase in the allowance and also an increase in the ceiling, and I have been asked to draw to the attention of the minister the effect of the legislation which was passed last year. Section 4 was supposed to give a recipient a chance to accept temporary employment; but it has been brought to my 68108-322i
Supply-Veterans Affairs attention that up to November only one person had shown any interest in that section, and nobody had qualified under it. I do not know whether the situation has changed since.
Then it was pointed out to me that a number of veterans find it very difficult to exist on the allowance and would like to accept part-time work but they cannot do it, since under the regulations a recipient may not accept seasonal employment or work on which he was engaged prior to qualifying for war veterans allowance. I have been told that means that a disabled fisherman may not fish or a carpenter work at his trade. It also appears that some veterans are afraid that if they go and do temporary work under section 4, remembering the difficulties they had to get the war veterans allowance in the first place, they might not get back on it again, so they are discouraged from trying.
Then the Legion supplied me with a number of cases which I shall refer to as briefly as possible, where the allowance was insufficient and the people had to apply to the Legion for assistance. There was one case of a man 67 years of age, with a wife and five children, who received $90 a month and had to pay $15 a month for rent. He had to exist on $75 a month. Since he was a fisherman he would have been able to increase his income from fishing, but the ceiling was so low that he would not be able to do very much of that.
The next case was that of a widow who1 had to pay $25 a month rent for her home and had only $25 left for the house and to pay expenses. These two people live in my constituency. The third case is that of a widow with five children who received $90 a month. There are two other cases from other constituencies. One is a married man with a wife and five children. He is receiving $90 a month. He has the Military Medal and bar. Another case is that of a labourer with a wife and ten children. He was in receipt of a war pension of $24.50 a month and the veterans allowance was cut down to $74.50.
I am quite sure we must all recognize that these are hard cases, and that the Canadian Legion has had to come to their assistance. They suggest that there may be more who have not applied for assistance but who are qualified to do so. I hope the minister will therefore bear in mind these representations that have come from all quarters of the house, and that this important matter will be given every consideration.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not propose repeating anything that has been said heretofore except
5102	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs to support the statements made by others concerning the war veterans allowance. I am in agreement with what they have said, and I support the statements made concerning the necessity for a standing committee on veterans affairs.
The issue I wish to raise would be more properly considered by a committee on veterans affairs, because it involves a considerable amount of detail. But in the absence of the committee, I am compelled to bring this matter to the attention of the committee of supply. I do it with some reluctance in view of the lateness of the session and of the hour, but I have been waiting for months to raise this particular issue, because an investigation should be conducted concerning other matters that are related in nature to the particular issue that I have in mind.
What I wish to refer to is the operations of the Canadian pension commission, and I do not do so in any spirit of carping criticism. I have nothing but respect for the chairman of that commission. No person has given me more courteous attention than he has. I have nothing but respect for the commissioners themselves, although I may differ with them in my opinions on some occasions. However, they have a right to their views just as I have a right to mine.
I believe a review of the work of the commission is essential, and could be done properly through the committee on veterans affairs. For example, referring to the report of the department for 1952, 1 find at page 69 mention of appeal boards, and I note in a rather short paragraph it is indicated that there were 2,004 cases heard by the appeal boards of the commission during the year for which this is the report. Then I notice that appeal board hearings, on leave to reopen, were also heard in 282 cases. But there is no further information as to the nature of the cases before the appeal boards and their disposition.
I rather feel that the appeal boards require guidance from parliament in connection with the interpretation of the act, or its revision, so they may have greater freedom in making their findings. We cannot here suggest that the findings of appeal boards should be altered. Appeal board decisions are final and conclusive, and based upon their interpretation of the act. But if those findings are creating certain injustices, as in my opinion they are, then it is the duty of the House of Commons to take another look at the act and submit the appropriate amendments thereto.


In particular I find that in the cases that have come to my notice applicants lose out because of that phrase in section 11 which contains the expression "arose out of or was directly connected with such military service". On that phrase appeal boards feel that they cannot, in many instances, find in favour of applicants.
I have been disturbed also, in cases with which I have been connected, when I have found that the benefit of the doubt clause has not been extended to the extent I thought parliament intended. I am informed that benefit of the doubt enters into almost every case which comes before the appeal boards. The case which I propose to give as an example shows no indication that the benefit of the doubt clause was used at all.
I have to curtail my remarks in this connection, but I must point up what I am saying by drawing attention to one particular case which, I believe, is typical of many others. In my opinion, if there has not been a miscarriage of justice in the case I shall now mention, at least full justice has not been done to the widow applicant. It seems to me that in this particular case the intent and will of the parliament of Canada has not been fully carried out. Here we have an innocent widow and children suffering as a result of the death of the father while he was still in the army. It never occurred to me that it was the intention of parliament to visit upon widows and children penalties for errors or mistakes on the part of military authorities. I think in this instance there was an error on the part of military authorities.
I have full permission of the widow to state all the facts in the case. Therefore I have no hesitation in drawing to the attention of the minister the case of Corporal Harvey K. MacAulay, deceased, No. SH/26330. This was a case where the man was killed in a highway traffic accident in the city of Winnipeg in the year 1950. He had served throughout the second world war as a member of the Fort Garry Horse, with credit to himself and to his regiment. He answered the call of duty at the end of the war and, as a veteran, remained in the army. Many were asked to do this but found they could not. This man did.
At the time of the accident he was in charge of a military vehicle, and while in charge of it became involved in a highway traffic accident as a result of which he lost his life. An appeal board has considered the case and has found that the accident did not arise out of service, there being no compulsion on the part of the deceased to use the jeep. While

authority was granted to him to use the vehicle, this was not a military order. The appeal board, before which I appeared asking for leave to reopen the case, found upon reviewing all the available evidence that they were unable to establish that any degree of compulsion attended the act, and that the corporal was using the service jeep for his personal use.
Well, there is an inference there that army personnel are permitted to borrow military vehicles for their personal use. I do not know whether the Department of Veterans Affairs has brought this to the attention of the Department of National Defence; but, if not, I draw it to their attention right now. There is an inference that military personnel may borrow vehicles. May an army private or a corporal borrow a jeep or lorry? Is it permissible for an airman to borrow an aeroplane, or for a naval rating to borrow a ship for personal use? If so, it is something that was unfamiliar to me during the course of many years of experience with the services.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about horses?


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I call it ten o'clock?
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: On Monday we shall take up Senate amendments to Bill 334, and then Bill 367, an amendment to the Criminal Code. Then we shall take up estimates of the departments of veterans affairs, finance, transport, mines and technical surveys and post office, with the hope that we might be able to arrange late on Monday for some form of abridgement of the dinner hour so we can begin the final work in order to close the session at the earliest possible moment, consonant with doing public business correctly.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Architectural branch-
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Supply
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amounts required-
693.	Newfoundland, $100,000.
694.	Nova Scotia, $200,000.
695.	Prince Edward Island, $25,000.
696.	New Brunswick, $1.
697.	Quebec, $1.
698.	Ottawa, $400,000.
699.	Ontario (other than Ottawa), $1.
700.	Manitoba, $35,000.
701.	Saskatchewan, $50,000.
702.	Alberta, $1.
703.	British Columbia, $200,000.
Engineering branch-
Engineering services-
704.	Salaries, surveys, inspections, etc.-further amount required, $56,000.
705.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $10,000.
Graving docks-
706.	Prince Rupert dry dock and shipyard and appurtenant works-to provide for operating losses and essential repairs for the fiscal year 1952-53, $140,000.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of harbour and river works-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works listed in the details of the estimates provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects-further amounts required-
707.	Newfoundland, $585,000.
708.	Nova Scotia, $450,000.
709.	Prince Edward Island, $130,000.
710.	New Brunswick, $380,000.
711.	Quebec, $700,000.
712.	Ontario, $400,000.
713.	Manitoba, $79,000.
714.	Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories, $103,500.
715.	British Columbia and Yukon, $1,285,000. Generally-
716.	Grand River-contribution towards improvements-to complete, $10,500.
717.	Protection works generally-further amount required, $250,000.
. DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Old age assistance and blind persons allowances-
282.	Administration of the Old Age Assistance and Blind Persons Allowances Acts, $108,893.
National Physical Fitness Act-
283.	To provide for the administration of the act, the sum hereby provided, notwithstanding sections 8 and 9 of the said act, to be credited to a separate account in the consolidated revenue fund, to be
[Stage Direction]
Supply
subject to section 35 of the Financial Administration Act and to be paid out by the Minister of Finance upon the requisition of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, $68,824.
284.	Assistance to provinces, $150,000.
285.	Grant to Canadian welfare council, $25,000.
286.	Grant to Canadian conference on social work, $1,000.
B-Civil defence-
287.	To provide for the civil defence program, $6,506,287.
Welfare branch-
National Physical Fitness Act-
683. To provide for the administration of the act, the sum hereby provided, notwithstanding sections 8 and 9 of the said act, to be credited to a separate account in the consolidated revenue fund, to be subject to section 35 of the Financial Administration Act and to be paid out by the Minister of Finance upon the requisition of the Minister of National Health and Welfare-further amount required, $12,400.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 11, 1953