1953-05-11

Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: On a
question of personal privilege, when I spoke last week on the question of government prospecting for uranium I omitted to mention the fact that Beaverlodge mine was discovered by the late Billy Hacker, who was the government field engineer in charge of exploration for uranium.
The mine in question will probably be a major source of uranium for years to come, and I speak today so that the name of its discoverer will not be forgotten and his outstanding work for Canada may be appreciated.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	How many studies, investigations or surveys, of the administration of the Department of National Defence, or of any portion thereof, have been made since the present minister assumed office by persons, agencies, or organizations outside the government and excluding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, at the request of the Minister of National Defence or at the request of any person or agency authorized by the minister?
2.	In how many such cases were the said studies, etc., followed by written reports or memoranda or other written submissions?
3.	What is (a) the name of the person, organization or agency who conducted the studies, etc.; (b) the date of the reports, etc.; (c) the specific subject matter of the study, etc., in each case?


Mr. Campney:: 1,	2 and 3. There are no reports or memoranda coming within the terms of this question except reports and memoranda concerning the internal administration of the department and intended for the confidential information and guidance of the minister and officials of the department; and such documents are privileged.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	On what date did the Minister of National Defence first discuss with Mr. C. M. Drury, the
deputy minister, the question of the propriety of the latter writing the letter to Mr. John A. Stevenson, as reported in the April 11 issue of Toronto Saturday Night?
2.	On what date was the minister's consent or approval given to Mr. Drury allowing him to write the said letter?
3.	On what date was the said letter signed by Mr. Drury?
4.	Was a draft letter submitted to the minister by Mr. Drury? If so, did the minister suggest any changes, modifications or alterations before the final draft was agreed on?


Ralph Osborne Campney: 1,	2, 3 and 4. Communications between a minister and his deputy minister must be of a confidential character and are privileged.



SPRINGHILL, N.S., POST OFFICE

Mr. Stanfield:: 1.	What was the amount of the contract entered into by the government with W. R. MacDonald, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, for repairs to the Springhill post office in the year 1950?
2.	Did the said W. R. MacDonald fail before completing this contract for repairs to the Springhill post office?
3.	How much does the government still owe the said W. R. MacDonald in respect of the said contract?
4.	Was Weldon Cameron, of Truro, Nova Scotia, a subcontractor, not paid for his work on this job? If so, for what reason?
5.	Who were the other subcontractors on this job, what was the amount of each subcontract, and were they paid for their work?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	(a) Formal contract for major repairs, $20,500; (b) maintenance contract for minor repairs, $3,450.
2.	No, not to knowledge of department.
3.	(a) Major repairs, $2,050; (b) minor repairs, $3,450; (c) security deposit, $2,179.20.
4.	No, payments to subcontractors or suppliers are responsibility of the general contractor.
5.	The following subcontractors have filed claims with the department for non-payment of accounts by the general contractor; Ralph Connor, Halifax, $3,537; R. J. Frost Co., Halifax, $760.85; Cameron Electric, Springhill, $83; Hyatt's Hardware, Springhill, $568.77; M. C. MacCuish, Pictou, $85; James Nicholson, Pictou, $33.75; Dunlop Bros. Co., Amherst, $357.34; Casman & Co., Moncton, $700; Mrs. Eva Fletcher, Springhill, $16; D. H. Ryan, Springhill, $95; L. Bowden, Springhill, $112.88; G. F. Moore, Springhill, $172.02; C. E. Harrison, Parrsboro, $55.92; L. D. Bennett, Wallace,
5106	HOUSE OF
Public Service Superannuation Act $18; D. W. Priese & Sons, Shulven, $453.50; A. B. Smith (Estate), Rodney, $173.17; R. Weldon Cameron, Truro, $1,487.33; J. Robertson, W. River, $72.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Winkler:: 1.	In Canadian dollars and prior to 1953, how much is the estimated value of real estate and buildings in commonwealth and foreign countries bought by Canada for the use of Canadian trade and diplomatic missions?
2.	How much in Canadian dollars was paid in 1952, for rent in foreign countries for the same purpose?
Return tabled.
NATIONAL DEFENCE-MEAT PACKING FIRMS, B.C. Mr. Cruickshanlt:
1.	What are the names of the meat packing firms supplying any branch of the Department of National Defence in British Columbia for the fiscal year 1952-53?
2.	Were tenders called for this material?
3.	If so, (a) how many tenders were received and on what dates; (b) what are the names and addresses of those tendering and the amount of each tender?
4.	What are the names of those awarded a contract for meat, fish or any other product supplied during the fiscal year 1952-53?


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. White (Middlesex East):: For a copy of all correspondence, papers, telegrams and other documents from January I, 1949 to date, in possession of the Department of Public Works, including the expropriation proceedings and rulings regarding the purchase of the building in London, Ontario, known as the International Harvester building on York street, for the purposes of using it as a postal terminal.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 334, to provide for the superannuation of persons employed in the public service of Canada.


Mr. Green:: Will the minister explain?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. The amendment made by the Senate consists of adding to section 30(1) (ad):
[Mr. Fournier (Hull).!

but saving all rights and privileges of either house of parliament in respect of the control, removal or continuance in office of its officers, clerks and employees.
The government has no particular objection to the amendment.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Neither have I any particular objection to the amendment moved to the bill by Their Honours in the other place, but it does seem to me to be somewhat unnecessary, especially in view of the clearly established control of the House of Commons and the Senate over their employees. Further I should like to point out that the concern which would seem to have prompted this amendment relates to only one point. The subsection of the section in the Public Service Superannuation Act which the Senate wishes to amend is the subsection giving the governor in council power to pass regulations to determine an age beyond which contributors to the public service superannuation fund shall not be continued in employment.
Of course that section applies only to contributors. It does not apply to other employees, of whom we have many in both the House of Commons and the Senate. Even with respect to those to whom the section can apply, it means that the only concern expressed in the Senate amendment is the concern over our right in the House of Commons and the right of the Senate to keep people in our employment after they have passed a certain age.
It seems to me that there are other matters affecting our employees which should give us much greater concern than that. In fact, the only reason I can see for our wanting the right to continue certain employees after a certain age is because we have no pension for them. In other words the aim of this amendment is to keep ourselves in the position of being able to say to some of the employees who have served us faithfully for many years, "We are sorry, we have no pension for you, but we will give you the privilege of continuing to work for us as long as you can walk in the door." That is not good enough.
As I said, I have no particular objection to the amendment; but I think the other place and this House of Commons should be concerned about something more than the one point with which it deals. We should be concerned about finding some way of establishing a proper pension plan for those who have served both the Senate and the House of Commons across the years, including those who serve us for many years on a sessional basis.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Garson for the second reading of Bill No. 367, to amend the Criminal Code.
Mr. Robichaud:: Would the minister
explain?


Douglas Charles Abbott: He did.


Mr. Garson:: My hon. friend will find the explanation in Hansard.


Howard Charles Green: This is a very short bill.
Perhaps the minister would not mind explaining again.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Why not have it three or four times?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: It is all in Hansard.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson in the chair.
On section 1-Penitentiary.
Mr. Giliis:: Mr. Chairman, in the discussion on section 1 of this bill I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that this bill is merely extending the practice of confining in local jails prisoners who are serving sentences of less than two years. I do not know what the situation is in the rest of Canada, but I do know that the situation in regard to that particular matter in the area from which I come is very bad indeed.
For example, within the last few weeks I have seen newspaper clippings

no doubt the minister has seen them also-indicating that in the county jail in that area where most of the prisoners are confined there is a long waiting list. The prison there was built some 50 years ago when the population was perhaps only 50 per cent of what it is today. It was built to accommodate some 45 prisoners. From the latest press stories I have seen, 75 persons are now confined in that institution.
There is no sleeping accommodation; they are doubling up in the cells, and sleeping on tables. I saw an item a few days ago in the press indicating that 50 people who were to be confined in that institution could not be accepted because there was not room for them.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not wish to interrupt
my hon. friend, but I must point out to him
Criminal Code
that the condition of which he speaks has nothing to do with the bill now before us. The general practice in all the provinces of Canada, with the exception of Newfoundland, is for those who have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment of less than two years to be sent to provincial jails of the type he has described in his own province.
We have no control over any jails. They are under the control of the provincial authorities, and if there is inadequate accommodation in his district I suggest it is a matter for the provincial authorities.
The purpose of this bill is to introduce what is a quite exceptional arrangement, and one which does not prevail in any of the other provinces in Canada. Its purpose is to authorize an institution in Newfoundland which is used as a provincial jail to be also used as a federal penitentiary. The reason for this arrangement is that in Newfoundland the percentage of the population which have become lawbreakers is so very much smaller than the average figure in Canada. Only 29 persons are serving sentences of two years and over, as penitentiary inmates, in this institution in Newfoundland. Obviously the setting up of all the paraphernalia and machinery of a penitentiary for that number of inmates would be unwarranted.
We suggested earlier that we might remove these Newfoundland convicts from Newfoundland to Dorchester penitentiary in New Brunswick; but both the Newfoundland authorities and the Newfoundland prisoners themselves did not wish to have this done. The prisoners preferred to stay in the Newfoundland institution. We think the arrangements made for their accommodation in Newfoundland, on the whole, are quite good. The arrangement is working out very well; it is very economical, and it is satisfactory for all concerned. These are the reasons we ask for the approval of this bill.
The subject matter of the bill has nothing to do with the condition in his province about which my hon. friend from Cape Breton South speaks. If there is inadequate accommodation there, it is a matter which should be taken up by him with the provincial authorities.


Clarence Gillis: I agree with the minister that this bill has reference to Newfoundland. However, it does provide the same arrangement in Newfoundland as exists in other parts of Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. This bill has one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to

Criminal Code
permit in Newfoundland only, notwithstanding the terms of the Criminal Code, persons who are sentenced for periods longer than two years on the one hand and those who are sentenced for less than two years on the other, to be imprisoned in the same institution. This condition does not prevail in any of the other provinces.


Clarence Gillis: I agree with the minister that this bill is to provide that the institution in question in Newfoundland shall house those who are serving sentences up to and more than two years. What I am suggesting is that what I am describing is absolutely in accordance with the provisions of this bill. You have an arrangement now in practically every section of Canada where a man sentenced to two years can be confined in the local jail, but a large percentage of those men have been convicted under liquor acts and are federal prisoners.


An hon. Member:: No.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, yes. I have occasion
sometimes to write to the Department of Justice seeking remissions from this particular jail.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Perhaps I should allow my
hon. friend to finish and get all he wants to say on the record and then reply, but I think it is important for us to understand that the law provides now for the separation of offenders as regards the institution in which they shall be taken care of, not upon the basis of the law which they have broken but upon the term of their imprisonment. If it is for two years or more they go into the penitentiary; if it is under two years, they go into the local jail. That is the test. I sympathize entirely with my hon. friend's viewpoint and his objective in relation to the facts which he has mentioned; but they have nothing to do with this bill.


Clarence Gillis: This bill provided an
opportunity for me to bring to the attention of the minister a most unsatisfactory condition that prevails in the jail where federal prisoners are housed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not want a misunderstanding as to where and how federal prisoners are housed. Federal prisoners within the matters we are discussing here are prisoners who have been sentenced for two years or more. I want to say that these federal prisoners are all well taken care of under our federal penitentiary system. What happens to prisoners housed in the provincial jails is the responsibility of the provincial authorities.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of supply.


OLD AGE AND BLIND PERSONS-REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN PENSION PAYMENTS
Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has expressed the case extremely well. I believe every word he has uttered is completely justified. I should like to say that I will stand entirely behind what he has said with respect to old age pensions and the other benefits due the Canadian people.
The question will be raised as to where the money is going to come from. I will make this statement, and I will challenge anyone to disprove it: This additional money can be given to the people of Canada without any increase whatsoever in the burden of the taxpayers.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that on the last Monday of the present parliament-

COMMONS	!


Mr. McCann:: Of your supporters.


Mr.   Cofe@St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville: We hope.


Howard Charles Green: -and in the absence of so many-


James Joseph McCann: Of your supporters.


Howard Charles Green: -good friends on all sides-


James Joseph McCann: Including your leader.


Howard Charles Green: -this is no time to discuss the merits or demerits of the old age pension laws of Canada. I have had no opportunity to confer with my colleagues about this motion. Therefore anything I say today must be taken as being said entirely on my own responsibility and as giving my own views. I think all hon. members will agree that it would be unfair for me to attempt to commit any of my colleagues when there has been no opportunity for previous consideration.
I would point out that the amendment merely asks that consideration be given. It reads as follows:
"this house is of the opinion that consideration should be given to increasing the payments made to our old age and blind pensioners, under the Old Age Assistance Act, the Old Age Security Act and the Blind Persons Act, to an amount commensurate with today's cost of living."
It does not call for an increase to any specific amount. In fact, it gives no details whatever, but merely asks that consideration should be given to this question of an increase for these Canadians who are living under such great handicaps. I intend to support the amendment because I believe that a message should go forward from this parliament to the new parliament of Canada indicating that we believe this whole question should be thoroughly reviewed by that new parliament. Such action cannot be taken this Monday morning or this week. The question would have to be carefully investigated, probably by a committee such as that which some years ago dealt with the old age security problem and the problem of our blinded Canadians.
I am convinced that these problems are of sufficient importance to warrant such a careful investigation by the new parliament. In the hope that what we are doing today will emphasize to the members of the new parliament the need for another look at this problem and also that it will emphasize the unfortunate condition under which these Canadians are carrying on at the present time, I intend to support the amendment.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I am only going to hold this up a minute. I think the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stated

the problem very clearly. He put on the record facts that are indisputable. As far as we are concerned we want action on this matter now and I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) take the position that he did. There is no reason in the world why this matter cannot be dealt with at this time. We want action and that is why I am speaking now.
I hope that the member for Vancouver-Quadra was speaking on behalf on his party.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member is an old
friend of mine but I wish he would stick to the facts. I carefully pointed out that I was speaking for myself.


Clarence Gillis: I am glad to hear him say
that he was speaking for himself because I would hate to think his party's policy is that we should let this stand over for consideration at another session.
The figures put on the record by the member for Winnipeg North Centre very clearly indicate that this question of where you get the money, increasing taxation and so forth in order to pay the bill, is a fallacy. Members of the house who have sat on committees during the last eight years, particularly on the old age security committee, will remember that top ranking economists, speaking of the ability to pay, talked about our gross national product being $11 billion at that time. From that figure of $11 billion they figured what the country could afford to pay in old age security then. Our argument has always been that the economy of the country is not static. It is a big country and the greater the redistribution of wealth the greater the ability of people in the country to buy. Many people speaking in the house have said that we have got to find markets and that we should have greater internal consuming markets. This would be one way to get them.
The figures put on the record by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicate that there has been a terrific increase in the gross national product-an increase of approximately $8 billion-since there has been any increase in old age pensions and blind pensions. A lot of other people in the country have benefited and their standards of living have gone up. There are many people who have more than they need. The amendment by the member for Winnipeg North Centre would mean that you would be placing more purchasing power in the hands of people in this country who are getting very little on the income they have at the present time. If an increase were given all of that money would go for the purchase of
Old Age and Blind Pensions food, clothing and shelter-although it would not provide nearly enough of that. The purchasing power of a large number of citizens would be increased. They would buy the products of industry and in so doing would stimulate production in the country and everyone would benefit as a result. Payment of old age security pensions provides for redistribution of wealth and I think that the government would be well advised to consider this amendment at the present time.
The amendment only says that the government should give consideration to this matter. It does not ask the government to adopt the suggestion and then run out and put it into operation immediately. I would suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) that he should say that the government is considering this and is prepared to accept the amendment because that is what the government is doing all the time anyway. The amendment takes in blind pensioners and old age security pensioners and poses a straight question to the government. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, we are dealing here with one problem, not a double-barrelled problem; and I think it is a reasonable request.


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that, like the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), I am going to speak on my own behalf for just a few moments. I want to say that when this amendment comes to a vote I shall vote for it.


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, may I also say that I am in favour of the words spoken by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). This is only a reminder to the government that the problem is very serious and that they should take it into consideration. The government should let the country know that they have the problem on their minds constantly. I am willing to go so far as to say that I do believe that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) does have this problem constantly on his mind. He must know, as we all know, that the present old age security rate is not adequate considering present-day costs of living. I am sure that this matter will have the consideration of the new parliament, that it will not be dilly-dallied with, and that some figure will be arrived at in keeping with the necessities of today's cost of living. I believe that the new parliament will not waste any time

Old Age and Blind Pensions and will immediately enter into discussion of this particular subject.
I certainly intend to vote for the amendment because it merely suggests to the government of today and to the new government that the people of Canada should have this consideration.


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Speaker, before the vote is taken there are one or two things I would like to draw to the attention of the house. First of all, some time prior to the election of 1949 I suggested to the house that not only old age pensions but other pensions should be hooked to the cost of living index. Whatever government was in power would not have to consider this recurring problem if that were done. As the cost of living went up or went down pensions would be adjusted accordingly.
This motion does not take into consideration a number of people in the country who are not eligible for old age pensions or old age assistance but who are permanently disabled. They are faced with a very difficult problem and I am prepared to support the motion.


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think the house would want me to make one or two brief comments in connection with this motion.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has stated, this proposal would impose another burden of some $200 million on the people of Canada. I should observe at this time that since last Friday when my estimates were under discussion we have had proposals from the other side that would impose obligations on the people of this country by an additional amount of $1 billion. That has been just since last Friday-and those proposals come from a quarter that complains about the tax level which this government has imposed on the Canadian people.
I remember well the words of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) when he pointed out a few years ago that the only source from which social benefits could be provided was the hard work of the masses of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That sensible observation has not been made this morning by those who have given support to the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said the same thing.


Mr. Marlin:: My hon. friend never says that; he never emphasizes that point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where does the increased production come from but from the work of the Canadian people?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let me just make my speech. I listened to you, as I always do, sometimes with interest and sometimes with pain, but just let me make my observations. Hon. members cannot criticize the administration for the present level of taxation, and in the next breath suggest increasing the load by many millions. In the next few months we shall no doubt be hearing quite a bit about the taxation that this government has imposed on the people of Canada by its present taxation policy, but at the same time we on this side should not hesitate to remind the people of Canada that during this session we have had suggestions from opposition quarters to the effect that there should be further expenditures by the government. I have calculated that to date in this session proposals amounting to almost $4 billion in addition to what we are now expending, on behalf of the people of Canada, have been made by those opposite.
Now, those are the figures, and those are the facts about which the people of Canada will want to be reminded in the next ensuing period. What does this proposal before us suggest? It suggests that we should give consideration to increasing the payments made to old age pensioners and blind pensioners under the Old Age Assistance Act, the Old Age Security Act and the Blind Persons Act-listen to this-to an amount commensurate with today's cost of living. There is no responsible social worker in Canada who would agree with that proposition. To make social security benefits dependent upon some particular contingency that would provide for a sliding scale of benefits-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not what it asks for, and the minister knows it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -would be a most unfortunate proposal. Supposing the national product of Canada went down to $5 billion, the result would be if we were to apply logic to the proposal, that the old age pensioners would receive benefits less than they are now receiving. For that reason, as the minister responsible for this measure, I cannot undertake to give consideration to that particular proposal. I do not think it would be in the interests of the blind pensioners or the old age pensioners. I can say, as the minister in Britain said, that I certainly will give consideration, as I always do, to old age pensioners and to blind pensioners. For the reason I have given, and also because the resolution is so framed as to give the impression that there is going to be an increase in the amount of

old age pensions or in the amount of the blind pension immediately, I will not agree that we should accept this resolution.
What I would have hoped my hon. friend might have indicated, and something that he did not mention at all, was that he took a very active part in proposing to parliament that hereafter we should try to introduce a contributory system of old age pensions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have it now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend never has the patience to wait. I never interrupted him. My hon. friend is one of those who never want any interruption while he is speaking, but when the slightest indentation is made in his argument he pursues a policy of interrupting all the time. 1 should like him to listen to my argument, even if he does not agree with it. My hon. friend was one of those who proposed that we should have a scheme of contributory old age pensions. I would have hoped that, in the dying days of this session, he would have reminded us and the country that, under the sponsorship of this government, Canada now has the most generous old age security system in the world. I would have hoped that he would have reminded us that a parliamentary committee, representing all parties, had recommended that there be a pension of $40 without a means test, based in part on the contributory principle.
Old age security is now provided in this country, not by way of complete payments out of the consolidated fund, but as a result of contributions made by the federal government and also as a result of contributions which every old age pensioner himself now makes by way of an old age security tax. What the hon. member has failed to indicate in the motion, and in what he said this morning, is that if we did what he suggests now we would have, if we are going to be logical, an additional tax burden on the old age pensioners of Canada. We are now committed, and I think rightly so, to a system of contributory payments, in part, towards our old age security fund; that is something my hon. friend has not indicated. What he has failed to point out is that, in this very parliament, within the last two years I had the pleasure of bringing in, as a result of government policy and as a result of this parliamentary committee-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a point of privilege? The minister is saying that I made no reference to that fact this morning, but I certainly did.


Peter Francis Martin: That is not a point of privilege; that is argument.
Old Age and Blind Pensions


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the minister is making a misstatement. The only difference is that I said it was to the credit of this 21st parliament, and the minister is trying to take the credit for the government.


Peter Francis Martin: If the hon. member said that, I am glad he has interposed now to reaffirm what I thought he had not said. He is now affirming what I am going to say, that within two years this government, through this parliament and the parliamentary committee, brought in an old age security system based on the contributory principle, that can stand comparison with any, in fact, it is more generous than the old age security system of any other country in the world.
This parliament, and this government, was paying old age pensions along with the provinces to about 300,000 people two years ago. What are the facts now? The facts are that, as a result of the old age security legislation recently introduced to provide pensions without a means test, not 300,000 people but 686,127 people of 70 years and over are receiving pensions at the monthly cost of about $27 million, representing a total federal expenditure of $334,916,000 a year. A year and a half ago we were paying old age pensions, on federal account, of some $100 million. The federal government, without any assistance whatever now from the provinces, together with the contributions made by old age security pensioners themselves, is now paying three and one half times what we paid formerly to our aged citizens.
The hon. member speaks as though there was callousness on our part towards these people. He forgot to point out also that 87,000 people are now receiving old age assistance at a monthly cost of over $1-6 million, or a total annual cost of $22 million, out of the national exchequer, apart altogether from the provincial contributions. He also forgot to point out the improvement in the allowance for the blind, and the increases over the years. In fact, there are over 6,000 blind persons now receiving, as a result of the Old Age Security Act, that assistance free of the means test. The hon. member failed to mention that, since this legislation was introduced, we have relieved the provinces of an $18 million obligation to the old age pensioner^. The provinces have saved $18 million a year as a result of the assumption by the federal government of responsibility for those 70 and over. As a result of that saving two provinces, Alberta and British Columbia, are providing supplementary payments to their old age pensioners. As a result of that saving two provinces, Ontario
5114	HOUSE OF
Old Age and Blind Pensions and Alberta, are providing disability pensions.
My hon. friend never for one minute suggests that because of these savings, if there is the need that he indicates-I am not denying it in many instances-there may be an obligation on the part of the provincial governments. My hon. friend seeks to give the impression-perhaps he has to do that particularly now-that he alone is interested in trying to help those who need assistance.
I will not deny that my hon. friend is a hardworking member; I will not deny that he is an intelligent member; but I will say to him that by his constant emphasis, without regard for what the government of the country generally is doing, in my judgment he does more harm to this cause than good.
I know that my hon. friend in his zeal- often misguided-fails to take that into account when he makes proposals which in their very nature he knows oftentimes are impossible, and if carried out would do more harm to the development of an all-round social security program than he realizes. If I could give him any advice-and I know he will not take it

I would suggest to him that he display the same sense of responsibility in respect of these matters that he does in connection with political eventualities of the next few months.
My final word is this. These matters are always being studied. Certainly they will be studied, as they always are, by a government that was responsible for old age pensions. It was this party that brought in old age pensions in 1926.


Mr. Noseworthy:: When they were forced to.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was this party that brought in the increases in the old age pensions; it was this party that increased the amount from $20 to $40.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under pressure from us.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says that it was as the result of pressure. I am not going to deny that hon. gentlemen opposite have periodically made suggestions. Good suggestions come even from the opposition, but it was this government that brought them into being, and oftentimes was criticized for doing it. It was this government also that brought in family allowances without any encouragement whatsoever from hon. gentlemen opposite.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was this government, without any suggestion from the other side, that brought in family allowances. So I suggest that at a time-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Keep a straight face if you can.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -when we are-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You people put horses on the payroll without any suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I suggest that at a time when we are coming to the end of our sessional labours, at a time when this country has burdened its people to such an extent, because of the obligations of preserving decency and freedom in the world, at a time when we have increased our social security benefits to a level never before exceeded- we are now spending over $1J billion on health and social welfare in this country- at a time when we have had to increase our defences, no one can now responsibly rise in his place in this house and say that this parliament has not done its duty by all classes of the people of Canada.
Mr. J. W. Nose worthy (York South): I had
not intended to speak at all on this amendment-


Mr. Sinnoit:: Sit down.


Joseph William Noseworthy: -until I listened to the verbal quibbling of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In my opinion his whole speech is simply a series of verbal quibblings. I can understand his righteous indignation at the government being put on the spot in the dying days of the session. I am surprised to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare put himself on record at this stage of the life of parliament as being opposed to increasing pensions to our older citizens and to our blind pensioners.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Argue:: No interruptions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -at no time in my speech did I or anyone on this side of the house say that we opposed the increasing of pensions to the blind or to the old age pensioners. What I said was that we had various things to consider. When my hon. friend makes that suggestion he is not living up to the kind of fairness which I know him to possess. On reflection I know he will want to correct what he said.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am really surprised at the minister's indignation because in introducing this amendment we really thought we were strengthening the minister's hands.
I have always been under the impression that the Minister of National Health and Welfare was the one minister in the cabinet

who was always trying to get more tor the old people, the blind and so forth. I thought he would welcome a little support and suggestion from this side of the house to enable him to overcome the opposition of some of his colleagues. There must be a great deal of opposition in that cabinet to some of the minister's ideas, for I am confident we would have moved much farther in the field of national health insurance and old age security than we have.
The point is simply this. The minister tries to say he objects to this amendment because it is going to tie old age security to the cost of living. We are not suggesting anything of the kind. We are simply saying -because it is a fact that the cost of living has risen and risen a great deal since old age security was introduced in 1949, or since there has been any increase in the amount paid-it is time that we checked up on the payment to the old people and to our blind people. During the time that the cost of living has been rising, Canada has been reasonably prosperous. We are trying to say that by reason of these facts the old people are entitled to more. That is all we are asking for.
The minister may say what he likes about what the government has done, and what it has done without any pressure. What is true is that this government has moved forward when it has been kicked forward by the Canadian people. It has gone only as far as it has been kicked, and that is as far as it will go.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And riow it is time for the people to kick them out.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The Canadian people are far out in advance of this government as far as social security measures go. The people will not be unmindful of the fact that this government has been able to find hundreds of thousands of dollars, here, there and everywhere, for contractors and to put up public buildings. I am thinking of that palace that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has down on the Montreal road. These men must have a palatial building in which to operate. Consider their conditions and those under which our old people are living.


John Horne Blackmore: Garrets and basements.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I wonder if the minister knows how some of those people who get $40 a month actually live. Well, I will give him one example that came to my attention a few weeks ago in the city of Toronto. This was the case of an elderly lady with no income, except her old age pension, and with no relatives in that city. Do you know where she is living?
Old Age and Blind Pensions Well, when I found her she was living in an unpartitioned furnace room in the basement of a house. The only thing she had by way of toilet accommodation was the open drain through the cement floor of that furnace room. The only facility she had for washing and bathing was the laundry tub in the basement.
Those are the conditions under which some of our old people receiving $40 a month are living. Yet this government can build palatial offices for government staff. This government can squander money-because you cannot tell me that some of those hundreds of thousands of dollars that have been spent on contracts have not been squandered-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is introducing another question, and I cannot allow him to proceed with that point.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Then I shall stick to the amendment, Mr. Speaker. I suggest it would be a good, smart political move for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) to accept this amendment and to undertake to give now some further consideration to the improvement of the old age pension.


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. McCubbin). Had I voted I would have supported the amendment.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment. And I think if my pair had been here he would have voted with me.
(Translation):


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired
with the hon- member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
(Text):
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
511. Departmental administration, $2,130,642.
Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, when the house rose at ten o'clock on Saturday I was making some introductory remarks with regard to two matters. I was supporting the suggestion that a standing committee on veterans affairs be set up and I suggested also that that standing committee might properly review the work of the Canadian pension commission to see whether or not the interpretation of the Pension Act by that commission was in accordance with the will and purpose of parliament when the act was drafted and to discover whether or not assistance would be given to the commission if suitable amendments to the act were passed.
As an illustration of these matters I was drawing attention to the case of Corporal MacAulay who was killed while in charge of a military vehicle in Winnipeg in 1950.
I shall endeavour to make my remarks as brief as possible, but I want to set out this case clearly because if it serves as a model for future decisions, if the commissioners are adopting the principle of stare decisis, then I think it is necessary to take a second look at the act. Further, if this case is allowed to stand as it is I think some further information should be obtained by the Department


of Veterans Affairs from the Department of National Defence as to certain aspects of military service.
I want to make it clear at the start that this particular case has received that type of complete and detailed examination that we have learned to expect from the Canadian pension commission. The case came before the commissioners in the first instance on September 1, 1950. It came before the commissioners again on April 26, 1951. An appeal board held a hearing on this case on March 6, 1952. On March 2, 1953, an appeal board heard argument concerning leave to reopen. I am informed that if the matter is pressed sympathetic consideration will be given to an application for another hearing on the question of leave to reopen. I am hesitating at the moment whether that course should be followed. I appeared at the appeal board hearing on March 2, 1953, and I am not sure whether their finding against leave to reopen was due to my representations or in spite of them. However, the point is that the Canadian pension commission does give most careful consideration to these cases and I commend them for that practice.
I wish to draw attention to the findings of the appeal board of March 6, 1952. I shall read them so that they are clearly on the record, and I quote:
As a result of its careful and sympathetic examination of the circumstances the board is unable to find that the condition causing death is pensionable under the provisions of section 11-2. It 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. Neither can the board find that the cause of death was "directly connected with military service" as it has not been shown that the use of a military vehicle by the deceased was a "requirement" of service in any way.
The application therefore cannot be granted.
And on March 2, 1953, the appeal board which was considering whether or not leave to reopen should be granted, made the following finding:
The board carefully reviewed all available evidence and was unable to establish that:
(1)	Any degree of compulsion attended the act of Corporal MacAulay borrowing the service jeep for his personal use;
(2)	The interests of the service were in any way involved by this act.
The board concludes that no useful purpose would be served by allowing leave to reopen this case as the issues involved do not appear to come within the provisions of section 11 (2) of the Pension Act.
Mr. Chairman, there are three portions of the Pension Act to which I wish to draw attention. The commission is empowered to interpret the act. That provision is found in section 5, subsection 3, which reads as follows:

The commission shall determine any question of interpretation of this act and the decision of the commission on any such question shall be final.
The other section-and this is the one that, as I said on Saturday, causes all the trouble -is section 11, subsection 2, of which I will read just the concluding three and a half lines:
. . . when the injury or disease or aggravation thereof resulting in disability or death in respect of which the application for pension is made arose out of or was directly connected with such military service.
The third section with which I should like to deal later on is section 63, the "benefit of doubt" section. Section 11, subsection 2, dealing with what constitutes military service or with the expression "arising out of military service" is, as I said, the one section of the act which seems to cause the greatest difficulty. In this particular case that I am using as an example-and there are others, of course, that I could give-they found, as I have read, that Corporal MacAulay was considered not to be engaged in military service.
My concluding remarks on Saturday had to do with the use, in the findings of the appeal board, of that expression "borrowing" a military vehicle. I expressed surprise that that word should have been used. I thought that the word "borrow" was not part of the army vocabulary.
Just briefly the facts of this particular case are as follows. The sergeant who was in charge of military vehicles at Fort Osborne barracks in the year 1950-whom I shall call Sergeant X-walked from the sergeants' mess to the vehicle park, got the jeep, brought it over to the sergeants' mess and handed it over to Corporal MacAulay. The evidence brought out in the military courts of inquiry, of which there were two, indicated that Sergeant X had handed over the vehicle to Corporal MacAulay. In other words, he had placed Corporal MacAulay in charge of the military vehicle.
It seems to me to be a little bit irrelevant to discuss what was the nature of the mission on which Corporal MacAulay subsequently went, although I may deal with that matter later. But it is on that point where my military experience differs so widely from the finding of the appeal board and I wonder then about this question of interpretation of the act. I was always under the impression that if a person was placed in charge of a military vehicle, the responsibility for that placing rested on higher authority and that the person who was driving the vehicle was on military duty. He obviously must be in charge of military equipment while he is using that
Supply-Veterans Affairs vehicle. If he is using the vehicle for some purpose that is not normal, I would not consider that the responsibility would be upon the user of the vehicle but rather on higher authority. The commission seems to consider that something in the nature of borrowing vehicles for private and personal use was in operation at Fort Osborne barracks at that particular time and, that being the case, that the user of the borrowed vehicle assumed the entire responsibility.
It occurred to me that that situation indicated that there was, if not a breakdown in military discipline at Fort Osborne barracks, perhaps a lapse on that particular occasion and that the responsibility rested on Sergeant X, the unknown officer in charge of vehicles, and on the commander of the units or the area.
How are we to determine what constitutes service unless there is something in the Interpretation Act which gives guidance to the commission? The commissioners take a view which, to my mind, is diametrically opposed to the experience of people who have served in the forces. I will just summarize the clarification that is needed in this connection. For the guidance of the commissioners and in the general interests of all those who are serving in the forces, I think the Department of Veterans Affairs should ask the Department of National Defence to assist by giving answers to questions such as the following:
1.	May army vehicles be borrowed? If so, are the users of borrowed vehicles informed that in the event of injury they have no claim for pension and that in the event of death their dependents have no claim?
2.	May army vehicles be dispatched on trips without a vehicle work ticket signed by proper authority? If so, are the drivers of vehicles thus dispatched aware of the fact that in the event of injury or death no claim for pension will be granted?
3.	If an officer or non-commissioned officer places a person junior to him in rank in charge of an army vehicle, is the person thus placed acting with authority or without authority? If he is acting with authority, on whom does the responsibility lie in case of injury or fatal accident?
In other words, is it possible for a member of the army to be in charge of an army vehicle without being on duty? The case of Corporal MacAulay seems to me to raise this particular issue which requires clarification. ' If the interpretation followed by the commissioners in this matter of military service permits the shifting of responsibilities from the high command in the army down

Supply-Veterans Affairs to a private soldier or a junior N.C.O., I think there is perhaps a misconception of military discipline there.
Another point arises in this connection. In one instance the commission said that this was not a military order, and, in the other finding, they say there was no compulsion on the corporal to use the vehicle. In the hearing of arguments I recall the suggestion of one of the commissioners to me that an N.C.O. should resist what he considers to be or what might be considered to be an improper order. Well, if that is the case I think our people serving in the forces will have to be informed, because I have never known the army to be a debating society. I do not think you can have people suggesting to senior officers that what they are instructed to do should not be done. My experience is that you carry out orders and, if you feel like it, you protest about them afterwards. You cannot carry on debate in the army. Our democracy cannot afford more than one debating chamber. Somebody has to carry on the work of the country while others talk about it as I am doing at the moment.
How can the pension commissioners, with a background of military service, suggest that there is no compulsion when a vehicle is handed over by a senior N.C.O. to a junior N.C.O.? How could the corporal say to the sergeant, "No, sergeant, I do not want the vehicle. You should not be giving it to me under these circumstances." I fail to understand how they can say that.
I just want to deal for a moment with the benefit of doubt clause and sum up what I think has been the result of the commission's findings. The benefit of doubt clause, which is No. 63, reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension the applicant shall be entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which shall mean that it shall not be necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences and presumptions in favour of the applicant.
I have always been of the opinion that the clause was introduced into the act in order to assist the commissioners in cases where decisions are extremely difficult. I thought it was introduced into the act so that there would be no difficulty about relieving hardship; and that a certain freedom of action would be permitted to allow the commissioners to go a little beyond the specified sections elsewhere in the act in order to look after those who were suffering in one way or another from disability-or to look after those dependents who were placed in difficult circumstances. It occurred

to me that after all evidence had been heard in a case where the finding of the commission might reasonably, on legal grounds, be considered to be against the applicant, then attention would be paid to section 63, the matter weighed again, and a decision given on the side of generosity. I thought that was the purpose of the particular section in the act and that it was the general idea held by members of the House of Commons about the section when it was drafted. I may be quite wrong in all of this and I am prepared to have my errors pointed out, but again let me use my case of Corporal MacAulay to indicate a situation where in my opinion benefit of doubt did occur.
The evidence of the two courts seemed to indicate that Corporal MacAulay obtained the vehicle from Sergeant X in order to perform or go on some mission of his-to visit his home and pick up some of his supplies. I do not wish to implicate the sergeant, whom I do not know, and I do not wish to cast aspersions on any sergeant in the Canadian army; for sergeants are the backbone of the army. However, I suggest that an element of doubt arises when you consider the facts that were brought out in the courts of inquiry. For one thing, the sergeant in charge of the vehicles went and got the vehicle himself. No sergeant ever did that for me when I was a corporal. The sergeant did not make out a work ticket to authorize the trip and thereby infringed upon army regulations. The sergeant asked the corporal into the sergeants' mess, infringing upon the regulations in so doing, and primed him with drinks. Finally, the sergeant waited up until a late hour of the night for the corporal to return. Well, I suggest there is some slight element of doubt that the trip which Corporal MacAulay made was solely for his own purposes. I may be quite wrong but I thought there was a loophole for some doubt in the matter.
I now wish to sum up what I have been saying and I think that the MacAulay case emphasizes the following points:
1.	That in the opinion of 50 per cent of the panel of commissioners-because certainly six of the twelve commissioners have reviewed the evidence in this-there has been a practice if not widespread in the army certainly operative on at least one occasion at Fort Osborne barracks, Winnipeg, of what the commissioners call "borrowing" of vehicles and that under these circumstances the "borrower" assumes full responsibility.
2.	That the commissioners do not recognize in the use of army vehicles without vehicle work tickets a lapse or breakdown in army discipline and a consequent responsibility on

the higher command rather than on the user of the vehicle.
3.	That the commissioners are of the opinion that a junior N.C.O. may and should resist carrying out the orders or instructions of a senior N.C.O. if that order or instruction appears not to be strictly in the interests of the service or, to use the words of the commissioners, if there is no "compulsion" involved.
4.	That the commissioners do not consider that the benefit of doubt clause should be invoked in favour of the applicant when the entire evidence against the applicant is given by only one person.
In explanation of the last point I would say that the applicant was the widow. The only available evidence was that of the sergeant. Corporal MacAulay was not living and could give no explanation about why he had the vehicle or where he had gone. Again I thought that an element of doubt might have been invoked there.
I raise this problem, Mr. Chairman, because I think there is an increasing number of injuries and fatal accidents occurring within the armed services at the present time. The number of such incidents has vastly increased. With highway traffic accidents mounting there is a constant problem facing the commission with regard to men who are injured or killed while they are on leave or absent from their stations. Cases of that kind are brought to my attention and it is difficult for the average person to understand why a man who is in the service of his country and who suffers an injury while on leave or away from his station should not be able to receive a pension on that account. It is even more difficult, in the case of a fatal accident, for the dependents to understand why they cannot be given greater consideration than they receive now in the way of pension. We are asking men to enter the services. Within the services now I think we have about 40 per cent in the married category. The dependents of these men are being placed in a difficult position in the case of fatal accidents. Surely some clarification is necessary in so far as these people are concerned. I think the commission would welcome attention to this matter by the House of Commons, and perhaps some clarification of the interpretation section of the act or some modification or some of these sections that would make the work of the commission somewhat easier.
I do not doubt for one minute that, in the words of the commission, they give very sympathetic consideration to every case that comes before them. I have confidence in the
Supply-Veterans Affairs pension commission. I think the commission is hampered and their work is curtailed by the wording of the act itself or the fact that the act needs some extension. Consequently, my suggestion in regard to this matter is that, either through a standing committee on veterans affairs, as has been suggested, or in some other way, the work of the pension commission should be reviewed to ascertain the type of cases being presented; the number of dismissals and the reasons therefor; the interpretation placed by the commissioners on section 11, subsection 2; the use and effectiveness of section 63, the benefit of doubt section; and finally what clarification or amendment of the act may be required to fulfil the purposes of'parliament.


Mr. Fair:: I do not feel that I should allow this item to pass during the dying days of this parliament without having at least a few words to say in connection with the veterans. I want to express to the minister my appreciation of the steps he has taken during his term of office towards following up the good work started by his predecessors the Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie and the present Minister of Labour, Hon. Mr. Gregg. I should not allow this occasion to pass without expressing my sincere appreciation of the good work done by the parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for Winnipeg South. He has done a wonderful job in the committee, and when any of us have referred questions to him he has not allowed any grass to grow under his feet until he has done everything within the confines of the legislation to get the matter straightened out. While he has told us that this is his last session of parliament, I hope that in whatever work he undertakes-I hope that will be in connection with veterans-he will be successful and will have many happy days of useful work ahead.
Having said that, I am going to say something now which I hope the minister and his assistant will take to heart. I hope they will complete the work they have carried on thus far. I am referring in particular to the war veterans' allowance that has been under discussion for a number of years. Last year the allowance was increased from $40 for single men and $70 for married veterans to $50 for single and $90 for married veterans.
The veterans organizations across the country have requested that these allowances be increased to $60 per month for the single veteran and $120 for the married veteran. I do not feel that this is asking too much at the present time. Even though we are burdened with a Liberal government, we are living in the best country in the world.

Supply-Veterans Affairs It would not have been possible for our national production to reach $23 billion in 1952 were it not for the services rendered by the veterans for whom we are now asking this increase in veterans' allowances. The resources of the country today will allow for this increase to be given. We should like very much to have this increase that has been requested by veterans organizations all across the country granted.
During the past few weeks I have received letters from the Legion branches at Edger-ton, Irma, Viking and Camrose and other points that I cannot recall at the moment. I should like to have the minister, his assistant and their cabinet colleagues look into this matter' and take care of it before this session finishes. The ceilings on earnings now are $720 for single men and $1,200 for married men. These ceilings do not seem to be in line with present conditions. Again I would urge that these ceilings be increased from the present level to $1,200 for single men and $2,000 for married men. In case the government cannot see its way clear to doing that, I think there should be an increase to at least the income tax ceilings of $1,000 for single men and $2,000 for married men. I feel that the means test should be removed altogether when these veterans reach the age of 60. For many years it has been recognized these veterans are pre-aged by 10 years. If the means test were eliminated at 60, this would put them on the same footing as the civilians who reach the age of 70 and receive a pension of $40 per month without any means test. I hope that before this session finishes something will be done to implement these requests.
The question of a permanent committee on veterans affairs has been mentioned. I hope that that will be taken care of also before this session ends. We have had a piling up of troublesome cases, as well as the need of a possible revision of the legislation dealing with the veterans charter. If we had had a permanent veterans affairs committee, these irritations would not have been allowed to continue to cause dissatisfaction throughout the country. I am not going into detail on these matters because the hon. member for Acadia, who has rendered a very useful service over the years since he came into this house, touched upon many matters.
There is one last group I want to mention. Just as soon as possible I should like to see the remaining few soldier settlers, about 500, given clear title to their land. Many of them have been working on these farms trying to pay for them since 1919 when the legislation was passed. I should like to see the minister complete a fairly good job by having these


matters to which I have referred taken care of before this session is concluded.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Mr. McLure:: I am not going to take up very much of the time of the committee. My province and my constituency take a great deal of interest in this department of government affairs. During world wars I and II my province had the record and the honour of having more enlistments per capita than any other province of Canada.
I am not a war veteran myself, and therefore I know the committee will pardon me for saying a few words at this time. However, I am the son of a war veteran who had a distinguished career in the civil war between the states in 1864. Because of the treatment my father received at the hands of the United States government some 25 or 30 years after that war ended I became a great believer in pensions. At that time soldiers received very small pay when compared with what they receive today. I want to put this on the record. When my father finally caught up with his pension he was paid $8 a month, which was the full wage of a private at that time, from the date of his discharge, plus 3 per cent compound interest, to the time he got his pension some 20 years afterwards. They continued that, and finally at the time of his death in 1899 he was receiving the princely sum of $50 a month, which was a big pension when you compare the value of the dollar in those days with the value today. Furthermore, my mother drew the same pension for some 36 years after my father's death. The United States was the first country in the world to pay a soldier a pension and let him live under any flag he liked and spend his money as he wished.
As I said a moment ago, I am not a war veteran. I have been connected with political matters for a long time, and because of that I have been closely connected with pensions, veterans' allowances and so on for the last 25 years.
I wish to say that in taking up pension matters with the department here in Ottawa on behalf of the veterans of my constituency, beginning with the men at the bottom rung of the ladder who have to do with pensioners and soldiers' difficulties, right up to the highest officers in the pension commission, I have had the best of service and every courtesy shown to me in my appeals on behalf of those veterans. I think I can safely say that 99 per cent of the men who have to do with taking care of pensions and dealing with

soldiers have been and are doing an excellent job.
I had always hoped that a veterans committee would be set up during the present session similar to the one that was set up a few years ago. When that is done one who is not a veteran can always take his troubles to the veterans committee, and when he does not understand the matters with which he is dealing, he can get the best advice from the war veterans committee. I do hope that soon we shall have a veterans committee in this House of Commons that will give the same service as-or probably better service than-the last veterans committee gave.	.
I have had considerable difficulty with respect to getting widows' pensions. One of the objections arises in connection with certificates of death. I have had several of that kind. I mention it in the committee today because it is hard to understand that there should be this difference of opinion among medical authorities. I have had a great deal of trouble with regard to certain definitions such as employable and unemployable, amnesia, army alcoholic, and a few others. It is sometimes difficult to find out what the department means by an unemployable veteran and an employable one. There does not seem to be any definition laid down that is workable in these cases. That is also true of amnesia.
The minister will remember that I had a case of amnesia up before him, and we had a good deal of trouble over it. Today, thanks to the department and the officials, we have that matter properly taken care of-at least I think so, and the department must also be of the same opinion.
Another point of interest to the department is the definition of an alcoholic or, as it is described in letters I have received, an army alcoholic. I have before me several cases in which this term is involved. At first they have always been turned down. I sought from different people information as to why a man would be classified as an alcoholic, and I believe the most convincing definition I received was from one of the applicants on whose behalf I was working. This is the way he, a private, defined an army alcoholic: A private who can consume more liquor than his commanding officer.
I must say that this definition must have been given favourable consideration by the pension board, because this man is now receiving a pension, and is now in the position of drawing down a good salary in the work he is now doing, for which he is well qualified. Notwithstanding that, he was first classified as an alcoholic, and could not be dealt with.
Supply-Veterans Affairs
During the last three or four weeks I have recommended to different government departments certain veterans for positions. These veterans were all from my own constituency, of course, and were well qualified for the positions they were seeking. Not one of them however was given priority in the filling of positions; not one was given advantage of the veterans preference. I am sure if the committee on veterans affairs were sitting it would look into these matters very carefully.
About a month ago I had brought to my attention the case of a man drawing a war veteran's allowance of about $80. He did not have and could not get a job. This amount was not quite sufficient for the needs of his family, with the result that his wife began to work part time. She was employed as waitress in a hotel and as she was performing her duties with efficiency, her services soon were in demand, with the result that she was making a reasonably good wage. As the result of investigations, however, the veteran had to take a reduction in the amount of his veteran's allowance, and he has been instructed to pay back the excess he has received while she has been working.
I believe it was the hon. member for Royal who said the other day that this is a ridiculous state of affairs and that it should not apply to any veteran who has seen service outside of Canada, or even to one who had not gone overseas but had served in the army. Surely a man in this position should be permitted to earn what he can in addition to his veteran's allowance, and the same should apply to any member of his family, without any deduction being made in the allowance he has received formerly.
I had some further comments to make, but I shall not take the time to do so now. I would point out that in my constituency, in common with many others, many veterans are to be found. As the years go by the demand for their services becomes less. In view of the fact that there are not many of these men in Canada now I suggest they should be given every consideration. When the law and regulations are so strict I suggest the officials at the top should be permitted to exercise discretion and, even if in all cases the strict letter of the law is not complied with, these men should have sympathetic consideration. They are real veterans who have done their part in a time of war.
I recall the first claim I ever made on behalf of a pensioner in my constituency. It was about 23 or 24 years ago that I brought this first case to Ottawa and placed it before the chief advocates and, following that, placed it before the pension board. The application was made on behalf of the widow, and

Supply-Veterans Affairs I found that the file contained reams of documents, including hundreds of letters written by politicians, clergymen, relatives and friends, all favouring the giving of the pension to the widow.
The difficulty was that on August 5, 1914, the young man in question had put on a soldier's uniform and had started off to Canso to perform his military duties. He died on August 6, having worn the uniform only one day. I am glad to say after considerable difficulty the pension was given to the widow.
Let me repeat, Mr. Chairman, that the officers in the different departments with which I have had to do business, from the very lowest to the highest, have always given me every consideration, and I take this opportunity to express my thanks to them, one and all. May I thank the committee for allowing me an opportunity to speak at this time, although I am not a veteran.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I shall not take more than a moment in this discussion. I, too, would like to pay a compliment to the staff and personnel administering the Pension Act. I think that so far as British Columbia is concerned they have received co-operation, and particularly from the Legion.
While we are referring to the department, and its paternal interest in veterans affairs in general, may I say that I feel sometimes there is too great a stress laid upon the paternal angle in that they are apt to treat returned men as youngsters, children, or people to be cared for, and they are not left with that degree of freedom to which they are entitled.
I refer to those in receipt of war veterans' allowances who are not permitted to earn more than a certain sum of money. The amount they are allowed to earn is so small that, in view of the high cost of living today -and this is particularly true in my province -these people are not living at a very high standard. I have a letter from one veteran who helped to supplement his pension by raising chickens. The other day he wrote to me saying that the chicken operations had been so prolific that his income had risen to the point where it was above the limit, with the result that he had to sell his chickens, and that today he is doing nothing. I would ask the minister to reconsider his decision and remove the means test from this particular pension.
There is one other matter I should like to bring to the minister's attention. I have had one or two local cases which have been marginal in character where there has been some doubt as to whether the man had died as a result of service overseas. In one case the decision was quite doubtful; as a matter


of fact I still feel that it was wrong. The result is that the widow and two children are receiving no pension. I am satisfied and the doctors who knew this man are satisfied that he died as a result of service. There is in the act a section which is supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to a pensioner or to a pensioner's widow, but I am afraid that that section is not clear enough. I have come across many cases where the benefit of the doubt has not been given to the widow.
I urge the minister to issue instructions to all boards that in future greater consideration must be given to the power that they have to give the benefit of the doubt to a widow or to the orphaned children of a returned man. I ask the minister to listen to the plea of the returned men in general, particularly the Canadian Legion, in connection with the war veterans allowance and their request that it be increased to $60 per month for single and $120 for married men. In doing that I do believe he would be carrying out the wishes, not only of the returned men themselves but of the people of Canada who are anxious to pay their debt, who are willing to pay their debt and who are able to pay their debt to the men who defended them in time of need.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this will be our last opportunity in this parliament to say a word on behalf of our old comrades. I should like to place before the committee my thoughts on four subjects having to do with veterans' affairs but before doing so I wish to express a word of admiration for the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the hon. member for Winnipeg South, who is retiring from public life at the end of this session.
The hon. member came into the house with me in 1935, and since that time we have served together on every veterans affairs committee. We have always been on opposite sides when there has been disagreement in that committee, but we have become close friends from that association. I am only too glad to be able to say today that I think he has rendered a wonderful service on behalf of the veterans of Canada. Throughout these years he has been terribly in earnest about their problems. He has been very hard-working and conscientious, and in fact within the last year has given so much to this particular work that he has endangered his own health.
I understand that he may be appointed to the Canadian pension commission. Perhaps I should not say that, because I do not know, but I hope it will be the case. In the capacity of a commissioner he will be able to carry on with his work for his comrades

with whom he served in both the first and second world wars. I am sure I speak tor all hon. members who have served on veterans' committees when I wish him good luck and say that we shall be watching his work with great interest. We feel confident he will do it with great satisfaction to himself and benefit to the nation as a whole.
It is rather significant that of the 62 members who served on the veterans affairs committees in 1945 and 1946, when the so-called veterans' charter was considered, only half are now in the house. The rest of them have gone to different spheres of action. One never knows; perhaps half of the remaining half will be gone by this time next year, and that may include myself. Because this is the end of this parliament and because veterans' affairs have been my main interest throughout the past 18 years, I should like to place before the committee with all the emphasis at my command my views on four different subjects.
The first is the Pension Act. This act is the arch upon which all veterans' legislation has been built. It is the key to the veterans' charter. The keystone of that arch is the action known as the benefit of the doubt clause. This is section 63, which reads:
63. Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension, the applicant shall be entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which shall mean that it shall not be necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences and presumptions in favour of the applicant.
That benefit of the doubt clause was placed in the Pension Act many years ago and expresses clearly the intent of all parliaments of Canada since the first world war. I believe that by and large the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs have endeavoured throughout the years to keep that clause in mind. But it is something which must be drawn repeatedly to their attention, to the attention of members of the house, and to the attention of the people of Canada. I suggest to the minister that it would be well worth while for him to have that section printed under the heading "benefit of the doubt" and placed on the desk of every official of the Department of Veterans Affairs from coast to coast, as well as on his own. If that were done it would be a great help to his officials in remembering that the people of Canada through their parliament have expressed the determination that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the veteran. That applies not only to the Pension Act but to all the other acts contained in the veterans' charter. The intent
Supply-Veterans Affairs behind all those acts has been that where any reasonable doubt exists, that doubt should be given to the veteran.
My second point has to do with the war veterans' allowance. In the special committee which sat last year we considered the war veterans' allowance. A revised act was recommended to the house and placed on the statute books of Canada. However, there was serious disagreement in the committee about two features of that revised War Veterans Allowance Act. One was the amount of the allowance which by the act was placed at $50 for a single veteran and $90 for a married man. The Canadian Legion and the national council-those two great organizations of the veterans of Canada-asked that the figures be $60 for the single veteran and $120 for the married one. Some of us in the committee did our best to bring about an increase to those figures.
Under our present provisions there is what is known as a war veterans assistance fund from which a single veteran can get help up to $10 a month or a married veteran can get up to a maximum of $15 a month, after passing a second means test. There is this provision for a handout in certain cases; but we believe that help could very well be included in the allowance itself and that these veterans, who after all are front-line veterans -they cannot qualify at all if they have not served in a theatre of war, except in the case of a few who are small pensioners-should be given that $60 a month if single and $120 a month if married.
In recent years there has been too much tendency to get the veteran into the same position as that of the civilian in so far as welfare is concerned. The Legion dealt with that matter in the Legionary in December of last year when they used this sentence in reporting on the brief which had been submitted in that month to the cabinet:
There is no serious argument that the present basic rates are adequate to meet the needs of the veteran entirely dependent on W.V.A., but we have been told that the insuperable objection to granting our request is that W.V.A. legislation must be tied to the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act. We are not prepared to accept that proposition.
The other departments of government must not be allowed to interfere in this veterans legislation. The veteran served Canada; he is the responsibility of Canada; he should be treated on his own merits and should not be tied in with whatever welfare legislation there may be.
Then there was a second ground of dispute in the committee last year with respect to war veterans allowance, and that was over the amount of permissive income which a veteran could receive without interfering with

Supply-Veterans Affairs his war veteran's allowance. At present he is allowed only $10 a month over his allowance, whether single or married, so that the total permissive income for a single veteran, including allowance, is $60 per month or a total of $720 per year and $100 a month or $1,200 a year if he is married. The veterans organizations asked that those figures he made $1,200 and $2,000 respectively. Before the revision of the act last year the single veteran had permissive income over his allowance of $125 a year, which is $5 more than he has now, and the married veteran had a permissive income of $250, which is $130 more than he now has. It is significant that under the Old Age Assistance Act the civilian recipients between the ages of 65 and 69 have a permissive income over the allowance of $20 a month or a total of $240 a year, whether they are single or married.
In the committee we tried hard to have that ceiling raised. Although the government members of the committee would not agree to a motion increasing the amount of the allowance itself, they did agree to a recommendation about this permissive income; and with regard to this permissive income, the committee brought into the house a year ago a unanimous finding, reading as follows:
Your committee further recommends to the government continued and sympathetic study of the needs and requirements of recipients of war veterans allowance, keeping in mind the recommendations of veterans organizations in that respect, and particularly with regard to permissive income.
As a result of that unanimous recommendation a year ago, I think we had reason to expect that during the present session the permissive income would be raised, but unfortunately that action has not been taken and it remains just as it was enacted in the bill a year ago.
Mr. Chairman, this ceiling on permissive income has extremely dire effects in many cases. For example, I have here a letter from a widow whose husband served with the first contingent. He went overseas with the first battalion from my home province of British Columbia. He had a distinguished career overseas. These people lost their only child in the air force in the second war. The husband finally reached a financial position where he was obliged to take the war veterans' allowance. Now he also has passed on. The widow finds herself caught by this ceiling. She cannot get the war veteran's allowance which goes to a widow plus the old age pension because the ceiling enters into the picture. She is allowed the $40 old age security pension but then she is allowed only $20 war veterans' allowance instead of the $50 which she would otherwise have received.


That is the situation because there is the ceiling of $60 a month in her case. Here is what she says:
I think we are the only ones that don't benefit at all from the Old Age Pensions Act which seems unfair. If I had both, i.e. $100 a month, I could continue to live in my small house in the country, but if I am to start having O.A.P. and only $20 from the veterans allowance, I shall have to sell it, as one cannot live on $60 a month, with taxes and everything up and paying my hospital insurance too, amongst other things.
That letter is tragically accurate in its facts. If the permissive income were raised to the extent that the recipient of old age security pension could also get the war veterans' allowance, it would make a tremendous difference in the lives of these Canadians.
Another example is that of the small pensioner. He did not get the full benefit from any increase in the war veterans' allowance or the increase in the pension because he is caught by the ceiling on permissive income. His pension went up but the war veterans' allowance came down. In my judgment these veterans have been unfairly treated because of the fact that the ceiling is kept so low.
A third example is the man or his wife who takes a small job. Their joint incomes are taken into consideration. If one or the other of them goes and takes a small job, the amount of the war veterans' allowance is reduced. This difficulty also would be overcome if the ceiling on permissive income were to be raised. If the new parliament does nothing else, I hope it will raise that ceiling in the first session.
One other point in connection with the war veterans' allowance is this fact which has been raised by several members already. The widow of an imperial veteran cannot qualify unless her husband lived in Canada for 20 years. Some of those men died after they had been here 18 or 19 years, but the widows cannot qualify even if they have been here for 30 years. The Legion dealt with that question last year in their recommendations to the cabinet. They asked:
That widows of allied ex-servicemen be granted the war veterans' allowance in cases where the husband died before completing 20 years' residence in Canada, provided that the widow herself has 20 years' residence and her husband was otherwise eligible.
Such a provision would be eminently fair. I think it is the only way in which we can interpret the wishes of the house.
The .third point about which I should like to make a suggestion has to do with the benevolent funds of the three forces and, particularly, the eligibility of those young Canadians who have been serving in our army

in Korea. Questions have been raised in the house. I questioned the Associate Minister of National Defence; and other members, the member for Brandon, for instance, have asked questions. There has been considerable confusion about this situation but I believe the position today is that while the veteran of the navy with Korean service, and the veteran of the air force with Korean service, have full access to the benevolent funds of those two great fighting forces, the veteran of the army with Korean service is not in that position. Why he should be put in an inferior position I cannot understand. It has been the army that has been suffering the casualties. I believe we have had far more army men in Korea than we have had men in the other forces. Those men should be put on exactly the same basis as the men who served in the navy and the air force.
The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, in answering a question last week, explained that there had been a welfare fund set up by the army but it did not give the same over-all coverage as that of the other two services. I may say that I do not blame him for saying this, and it does not detract from what I said about him a moment ago. He is simply speaking for the government, although I have a good idea of how he feels about the matter himself. Here is what he had to say at page 4839 of Hansard:
In the cases of veterans who require assistance but are not entitled to the Canadian army welfare fund assistance, the welfare officer does his best to obtain help through community resources, such as service clubs, Canadian Legion branches, army and navy branches, and such organizations as make it a practice to assist people in distress. A few of our district offices have at their disposal small trust funds, from which limited assistance can be provided.
That means, Mr. Chairman, that the veteran of army service in Korea has to go to a service club or to a Legion branch or to some other organization that helps people in distress in order to get the benefits that he should be getting from the army welfare fund. We do not require legislation to remedy this defect; it can be done by the government without the necessity of passing further laws-and I would hope that it would be done without any further delay.
Until a few weeks ago we had another rather anomalous situation with regard to army lads who had served in Korea in that they were not eligible for payment of clothing allowance or rehabilitation grant unless they had a total of 183 days' paid service outside North America. I believe that was changed about the middle of April, but before then a man who had served in Korea and had not
Supply-Veterans Affairs been there 183 days-even though he had been wounded in action, and. I had one such lad come to me about it-could not qualify for clothing allowance or rehabilitation grant. That situation should not have arisen at all.
The men who are serving in the army in Korea should certainly receive exactly the same consideration as men in the other forces. In my opinion nothing is too good for them.
Finally, may I say a word about the prisoner of war situation. As I understand the position, money from which any payments would come is German money. It is not money that has to be voted by the parliament of Canada -and even if it were I would not change my views on the point. If a Canadian was a prisoner of the Japanese or if he was a prisoner of any one of the group of organizations in Germany, such as the gestapo or the SS., he has been granted a payment of $1 per day for the time he was a captive.


The Deputy Chairman:: If the hon. member is discussing benefits to prisoners of war I think he might more properly do that on the estimates of the Secretary of State.


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Chairman, I have the right department here. The Department of Veterans Affairs is actually presenting cases for these men-


Mr. Lapointe:: No.


Howard Charles Green: -before the war claims commission. It is being done by the veterans' bureau, and it is very much a problem of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The matter has been raised by other members and I submit that I am perfectly in order in discussing it today.


William Alfred Robinson: I recall that the hon. member for Royal referred to this question briefly but at that time it had not been drawn to my attention that, strictly speaking, the war claims commission actually comes under the Department of the Secretary of State. I really think discussion of this question would more properly take place when the estimates of the Secretary of State are before the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, may I point out to you that the Minister of Veterans Affairs was the minister before whom the representations of the national council of Canadian prisoners of war were made this spring. It was the Minister of Veterans Affairs who heard those representations. They were rejected. It is true that the Secretary of State tabled a copy of a letter in which their requests were rejected, but within the last two or three weeks the Minister of Veterans Affairs has again heard representations from
5126	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs this association. He is the minister whom the cabinet has. delegated to deal with this problem.
Further than that, as I pointed out, one branch of his department, the veterans' welfare bureau, is actually preparing claims for those prisoners of war and appears for them before the commission. I submit that I cannot be ruled out of order in discussing this matter. Actually, I only intend to take a very few minutes but for those reasons I do not believe that it would be right to rule me out of order.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, personally, I have no objection if the hon. member wants to discuss this question on my estimates. I think your observations were quite proper, in that this matter does come under the Secretary of State. I should like to correct the hon. member when he says that I am responsible for this particular matter. I am not. It is true, as he pointed out, that I did receive the executive of the prisoner of war council, but I did so as a member of the cabinet and not particularly as Minister of Veterans Affairs. This fact was pointed out to them, and they understood it.
When the delegation returned a couple of weeks ago I was one of four or five ministers who saw them, but I did so as a cabinet minister and not as Minister of Veterans Affairs. However, it is quite true that we have made available to these people the services of the veterans bureau, just as we make the services of the department available in other cases. For instance, we do help certain veterans with their claims for unemployment insurance. I do not think that would give an hon. member the right to discuss unemployment insurance under the estimates of veterans affairs, simply because we render that service to some veterans. However, it is immaterial to me whether or not the matter is discussed.


Howard Charles Green: I think I should be in the same position as representatives of this association, and should be allowed to place my statement before the Minister of Veterans Affairs. After all, he is the man who has to advise the cabinet on this question because the veterans of Canada are his responsibility.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. My only thought was to avoid a discussion of this subject on this item when, perhaps, it might be discussed more conveniently under the estimates of the Secretary of State. But in view of the fact the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra has pointed out, and the minister has confirmed, the fact that the veterans


bureau has taken part in this matter, perhaps the member for Vancouver-Quadra may be allowed to continue.


Howard Charles Green: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful to the minister for his help.
The other group of ex-prisoners of war which, of course, is by far the great majority, cannot get any assistance from the German reparations unless they establish a claim before the war claims commission. In order to establish that claim, they must prove, first of all, that they have been maltreated while prisoners of war. By the way, this is not easy for a young lad who was in a prisoner of war camp for three or four years. The men he knew there are now scattered all over the country. Many of them were not Canadians. From what I have been told by individual veterans, I know that it is a difficult thing to appear before that commission or send any representations to the commission, proving the actual maltreatment.
Not only must he prove maltreatment, but he must also prove that the maltreatment he suffered resulted in an incapacity to work, and that incapacity existed following his liberation. In other words, if he were beaten time after time while in a German prison camp, but when he was discharged could not prove that he had an incapacity to work at that time, he is not entitled to any claim on the reparations fund.
Now, there has been a nasty slur cast on the group in question, not from anyone in the government or from anyone on this side, but there have been suggestions that these soldiers surrendered and therefore do not deserve any consideration. It is suggested that if they get any consideration, then the whole Canadian army will surrender if it has to fight in another war. There have been nasty slurs of that kind going around the country. I need only point out to you, Mr. Chairman, to this house and to the Canadian people, two groups of these men who were prisoners.
In the first place, the Canadians who were captured at Dieppe form perhaps the largest group of army prisoners. These young men were thrown into the attack on Dieppe when there was not the slightest chance of their coming through. They were killed by hundreds. They were left on the beaches when the ships went away. What could they do but surrender? I do not believe there have ever been a more courageous group of young Canadians than those young men of Dieppe. Two of them won the V.C., but I do not doubt that there were dozens of others who deserved it.

1 have known of this sort of attack. My own battalion and three other battalions were put into a gas raid on Vimy Ridge on March 1, 1917, five or six weeks before the big attack. They were to go over and pick up the dead Germans who were supposed to have been killed by the gas sent over from our trenches. These men went over knowing they were facing certain death. The whole battalion knew it. Our colonel knew it. He was not supposed to go over. He was an Indian army veteran with a C.B. and a D.S.O., which he had won with our own 54th Kootenay battalion. He said, "If my men are going to be murdered, I am going over with them." He led the attack and was riddled with machine gun bullets. The colonel of the 75th from Toronto was killed also. The whole four battalions were just slaughtered. What chance have men got in a case like that?
Dieppe was in much the same category. Those young men who survived were shackled for a month, but still that does not amount to maltreatment unless they can prove that they had an incapacity to work when they got out of the prison camp three or four years later. It shows how ridiculous this whole situation is. I am sure there is not a member in this house who will not agree with me that there should be a change made in the treatment being meted out to these former prisoners of war.
The next largest group would be those young Canadian airmen who were shot out of the skies over Europe. No one would charge them with being cowardly. The very flower of our young manhood were shot out of the air by the hundred with no possible chance of anything but either being killed or taken prisoner. In some cases their comrades were picked up, marched out of prison camps and shot like dogs. Then toward the end of the war, when the Russians were getting into East Germany, these men, both army and airmen, were taken out of German prison camps and marched across the country in winter weather without any proper treatment at all. Some of the men on the staff in this building went through those experiences. Today they are trying to establish a claim under this procedure. Somebody has to prepare it for them. They have to prove maltreatment. They have to prove that when they were released they were incapacitated for work. There is delay. It is going to take months for them to get an award, and many of them will not get an award. Those who do probably will not get the amount to which they are entitled.
I plead with the minister and members of the house to change this situation and make
Supply-Veterans Affairs provision for a payment to those young Canadians who were prisoners of war without making them cut all the red tape involved under the present method of handling this problem.
Those are the four suggestions I place before the house today, Mr. Chairman. I trust that they will be of some help to my old comrades, either as a result of action now, or before the new parliament assembles, or at the first session of that parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
516. Hospital construction, improvements, new equipment and acquisition of land, $5,583,968.	,
Harry Oliver White: In my riding of Middlesex East is situated Westminster hospital. Some of the hospital buildings were erected in 1919, at the close of the first world war. In addition to that, they were erected as temporary structures. But how permanent they have become. We think we have in Westminster hospital one of the finest veterans' military hospitals in Canada, if not the finest. While some new buildings have been erected there, this old part is due for an overhaul. In fact I think the older part of the hospital should be demolished and a new hospital erected. It is a firetrap. In conversations I have had with Lieutenant Colonel Eric Harris he has pointed out to me some of the dangers and difficulties they are having in controlling fires there. I am hoping the department can assure me that out of over $5 million set aside in this vote, some part of it will be devoted to at least plans for a new building at Westminster hospital that will be in keeping with other buildings that the department has there.


Hugues Lapointe: I am very pleased indeed to hear the hon. member make such laudatory comments on Westminster. It is indeed a very fine hospital. As he has stated, there are some old buildings there. Over the past few years we have been replacing the old buildings as fast as we can. In this vote at the present time is included an amount to add one story to one of the newer buildings. We are also working on plans for a future building that will eventually replace those that the hon. member described.


Harry Oliver White: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
519. War veterans' allowance board-administration, $141,335.
Stanley Howard Knowles: This item has to do with the war veterans allowance. I refrained from taking the time of the committee when we were on the first item of this department for obvious reasons. But I should like to
5128	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs * add my voice to the very effective representations that have already been made during this debate by at least fifteen hon. members with respect to the war veterans allowance. The minister must know very well-he must know them by heart; he must think of them in his sleep-the representations that have been made by the Canadian Legion in connection with this legislation; and I wish to urge once again as strongly as I can that their representations be met. They ask that the allowance be raised to $60 a month for single veterans and $120 a month for married veterans. These requests are reasonable and [responsible. They ask, too, that if the means test cannot completely be removed, at least the annual total permissible income be raised to $1,200 for a single person and $2,000 for a married person.
We have requested these changes time and again on the floor of this house. I am sure that all of us in this house feel that our burnt-out veterans have these improvements in this legislation coming to them.
I should like to support also the other representations made, particularly with reference to the widows of imperial veterans.
I will not take further time now except to say that in my view the fifteen or more members who thus far have spoken on this question in the debate on these estimates have expressed the views of hon. members as a whole, and have expressed the desires of the people of Canada that we do our very best for our burnt-out veterans.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I merely want to add my voice to those who have already spoken in favour of the veterans who come under the veterans allowance clause. The country at large is quite ready to support the department and the government in an increase in that allowance. I have the privilege of getting about the country a little. I cannot speak for the country at large, but I am quite sure I can speak for the voters of my constituency. In that constituency I would say that, regardless of the political affiliation of the voters and citizens, they would support the minister and the government in an increase in the allowance to the amounts which have been requested by the Canadian Legion.
I do not know why the minister has hesitated. I am sure it is not because the minister himself does not believe that this case merits a greater reward than it is getting. I am sure that the minister himself would, if his hands were free, increase that veterans' allowance to $60 and $120 a month, and increase the permissible income ceiling.


I just cannot understand why the department insists on sticking to that ceiling; why they insist that a single veteran must still be kept at that permissible income ceiling. That could be raised without placing any great expense upon the government or the taxpayers. I am confident that the taxpayers throughout this country would support him. I urge the minister to give that his attention.
Now, Mr. Chairman, with your permission I might refer for a few moments to something that may not be strictly in order. I shall only have to get on my feet again to say it if I do not say it now. I want to thank the department for the good work which one branch has done recently. When I spoke in this house in January on veterans affairs I called the attention of the house to the plight of a veteran in my constituency who, when his case was brought to my attention, was completely unable to work and had not been able to work for two years, and concerning whom the doctors had said his case was incurable. The man was supposed to be permanently disabled.
I find that somebody in the minister's department even reads Hansard or listens to what members of parliament say in the house, because a couple of days later I received a call from the department asking for particulars about this veteran. That was then pretty nearly in the middle of January. Before the end of January the minister's officers in Toronto had an interview with that veteran, they had him in Sunnybrook hospital and kept him there until the end of March. They had him examined by all kinds of specialists. A dozen specialists must have examined him. They placed him in a clinic, and at the end of March were able to discharge him and declared that he was capable of doing light work. But better than that, the officers found him a job, and assured me that with continued treatment and with continual review of his case the man is going to be completely rehabilitated. Here is a man who was completely helpless for two years. When I saw him he could barely shuffle around. The department took that man in charge, and I want to assure him that the man and his family are now quite happy.
I had some other comments to make, but I do not wish to transgress the rules by making any further comment at this time. May I compliment the minister's department upon the very excellent job of rehabilitation they have done. I think credit must go to the welfare officers in Toronto.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on behalf of the veterans. I am sure every veteran in the house agrees that those of us who were fortunate do not feel any ill effects from the last two wars. But we do know when we look at veterans who did suffer from their war service that there is something about serving in Her Majesty's forces, and the conditions under which the men must serve, that definitely has an effect on the health of those who do serve.
They were young men when they enlisted; but the fact is that no human beings are expected to live under exactly the same trying conditions as those under which men who are now veterans have had to live. That service has its toll. The manner in which they must live, the discipline they must follow, and the fact that young Canadians are not used to the conditions found in army life have a real effect on the man who joins the army, from the date of his enlistment until the day he is discharged. Perhaps the effect is not so apparent at the time of service when all seem to be enjoying themselves and are showing their delight in serving the country. But I do know that many of my old comrades of the first world war who, when discharged, appeared to be in good physical condition, are deserving of special consideration today; and I have no doubt their condition now is entirely due to the conditions under which they served.
I would ask the minister and his officials to keep these facts in mind and, if at all possible, to give special consideration to burnt-out pensioners. They are not lead-swingers; they deserve special consideration, and I believe the people of Canada generally would gladly meet the expense of paying extra pensions to those men. That extra amount of money would keep them in the condition to which we all feel they are entitled; and in this way we could be proud that we are doing something for those who served us so well.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I wish to add my voice to those of other hon. members who have pointed out the great need for increases in war veterans allowances. In common with many other hon. members, I have been approached from time to time by Legion branches; and it seems to me that the need for an increase in the war veterans allowance paid to persons who served in an active theatre of war in the first great war is the question most frequently raised by members of the Legion. The amount required to
Supply-Veterans Affairs increase the allowance would be very small indeed, when one considers the great sacrifice these men have made.
The government and the people of Canada could and should do much better for our older veterans. The request of the Canadian Legion that the war veterans allowance be increased from $50 to $60 a month for single persons and from $90 to $120 a month for married and an increase in allowable income to $1,200 and $2,000 is fully justified.
The veterans resent deeply the fact that when they reach the age of seventy years and receive the old age security pension they do not receive the same benefits from that pension as do other citizens throughout the country. The fact is that they do not receive an increase of $40 a month in their incomes, because their war veterans' allowance is subsequently reduced.
I do not think that is a fair procedure. Any argument that no means test is required to receive the old age security pension does not recommend itself to those who were receiving war veterans allowance. All they gain is another $10 a month. I would like to see the $40 received under the old age pension added to the present $50 paid by way of war veterans' allowance, when these persons reach the age of seventy years. And even though this session is almost ended, even though the life of this parliament is short, I contend that even at this late hour the government should grant at this session an increase in the war veterans' allowance. I have no doubt such an increase would be applauded by members in all parts of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
521. War veterans' allowances, $26,373,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Is not the minister going to make some comment in reply to the now twenty members who have asked that the representations made by the Canadian Legion in respect of the war veterans allowance be met by the government?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I had expected at the conclusion of the discussion on the first item of my estimates that I might be called upon to make a few comments, particularly on this subject. However, the item was carried in such a hurry that I did not have a chance to get to my feet.
However, I do wish to say to the committee that I appreciate very much the representations made and the spirit in which the discussion has been conducted. These

Supply-Veterans Affairs discussions which take place when the first item in a department is called are most useful. They permit hon. members not only to examine and discuss departmental policies, but also to bring forward cases which have come to their attention in their own localities. The department is then given an opportunity to take action.
I do not wish to speak at great length, but I think all hon. members will agree that the question of war veterans allowances is much more complicated than would first appear when suggestions are made in the House of Commons. I think all the comments by hon. members in this debate might well be summed up under three headings: First, that the rates of war veterans allowances should be increased; second, that the permissible income ceiling should be raised; and third, that the means test should be taken away. Not all hon. members have supported the last suggestion, but it was brought forward by several hon. members, and has been suggested at various times before.
As regards rates, I think to be fair in discussing this question we must go back to the origin of the War Veterans Allowance Act. I do not believe there are any members here this afternoon who were members of the house at the time the act was passed in 1930. If one studies the debates which took place at that time and the reports of the committees which were looking into veterans' problems, one cannot get away from the fact that the war veterans allowance was a social measure brought forward to permit a war veteran to draw the equivalent of the old age pension at an earlier date than was provided for in the Old Age Pensions Act. This right was given because of pre-ageing brought about by service in a theatre of operations.
One hon. member has said that we have got away from this association of the war veterans allowance with the old age pension. It may be that in their own minds some have got away from that association, but the fact remains that the principle upon which the legislation was based at that time was that pre-ageing due to war service permitted the drawing of the equivalent of the old age pension. That principle has been carried through since 1930. Every time the old age pension was increased the war veterans allowance was also increased.
As I said, one must go back to the records of that day to find out exactly what took place. I find in the report of the pensions and returned soldiers' problems committee which sat in 1930 the evidence of the then deputy minister of the department, Colonel Amyot, who testified as a witness before the

committee. Having explained the pre-ageing theory, he went on to say:
Two or three years ago the minister conceived the idea of putting these men under, not the Pension Act, but under the special allowance act of the nature of old age pensions. A good deal of study has been given to it from that time, by the department, and very intensive study during the last six months, and out of that has developed this Bill 19.
That was the bill which was first introduced.
In the preamble of the bill, these ideas are included:
"Whereas there are a great number of veterans in Canada who are not in receipt of pensions under the provisions of the Pension Act-"
He then went on to explain that this social legislation was for the purpose of making available to veterans the old age pension before they had reached the age provided by the Old Age Pensions Act. The same thing was said right in this house. If one goes back to the debates of the time when the measure was introduced he will find that the then minister put forward exactly the same theory. That was accepted by everyone in the house and by the veterans' organizations who had worked very closely with the department in drafting this legislation. I should like to give one short quotation from the minister's remarks on this subject in March, 1930. The then minister, who was Dr. King, said:
The provision Is made that a soldier who has reached the age of sixty-five,-
When originally presented, the bill made provision for the allowance payable at sixty-five, but it was amended at that same session.
-if he can qualify under the provisions of the present Old Age Pensions Act, he will come under that legislation. Then, there is the provision whereby a veteran who has become disabled, and through illness or disability is not employable, is treated as though he had reached the age of sixty-five.


Mr. Clark:: He would obtain a pension in the nature of an old age pension?


Mr. King (Kootenay):: He would get a pension similar to the other pension.


Stuart Murray Clark: In the nature of an old age pension?


James Horace King: Yes.


Stuart Murray Clark: Or in the nature of a pension under the Pension Act?


James Horace King: No, an old age pension.
That principle has been accepted right from the beginning. When one wants to amend legislation of this sort it is difficult to get away from its relationship with the old age pension.
Another point made was that the ceiling of permissible income should be raised. Here again there is the same relationship between the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Old Age Assistance Act-in both cases the ceiling is the same.

However, the act was amended last year by adding a new section 4 which, as hon. members know, permits the recipient of a war veterans allowance to take temporary employment, and then when that employment ceases go back on war veterans allowance without his earnings being considered as income.
Some criticism was offered on Saturday that this section 4 had not fulfilled the purpose for which it was enacted. One hon. member quoted a return brought down to the house which indicated that only 231 recipients of war veterans allowance had taken advantage of the section. I think hon. members will agree that there is a reason for that. That section came into effect only on August 1, 1952. The type of employment contemplated by the section would be mainly summer seasonal employment. Undoubtedly during the first few months of the operation of the section only a few veterans took advantage of it. However, the number is increasing slowly and the officers of the department are quite sure that during the course of this summer a much greater number of veterans will benefit by this section. In actual practice the section will permit a veteran to earn outside income for a period of a few months without it being considered income for the purposes of war veterans allowance.
I think it was the hon. member for Royal who read a letter or article to the house which demonstrated the impossibility of a recipient of war veterans allowance doing certain types of work. The case which he put before the committee was, I think, that of a veteran who had been offered employment by the minister of the local church.


Howard Charles Green: It was mentioned in the Legion brief.


Hugues Lapointe: I believe it was mentioned in the Legion brief. I would naturally be interested, as a matter of fact, in seeing those cases again brought before the war veterans allowance board because since section 4 came into operation a new interpretation has been given concerning the income permissible under the act. I have in mind one particular case which is quite similar to the one to which the hon. member referred. This was the case of a veteran living here in Ontario and who had been offered employment by the minister of the church in his village; he was to act as caretaker of the church and parish hall, and as furnace man during the winter, at a salary of $85 a month. He was to be responsible for cleaning out the church and that sort of thing. The war veterans allowance board, after discussion with the 68108-324
Supply-Veterans Affairs unemployment insurance commission, has established that this type of employment is to be considered as subsidiary employment or work that could be performed outside of regular working hours if the veteran was otherwise employed. I understand that is the interpretation which is given for the payment of unemployment insurance. A worker who is out of work can draw unemployment insurance and also obtain subsidiary employment if it is of a nature that he could perform in outside hours while doing his regular work, and if it provides him with an income of not more than $2 a day.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister this question? Does that mean that such income would be considered as casual earnings?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, I suppose so.


Howard Charles Green: That is the only provision there is in the act.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes. For instance, in the case to which I am referring, this man gets $85 per month. Of this amount, $50 is considered as subsidiary earnings which are permissible. Of the $85 which he earns, only $35 is considered as income for the purpose of war veterans' allowance. Hence he draws $85 plus $65 war veterans allowance, or $150 a month. I am just giving this case as an illustration of what can be done under section
4.	I am quite convinced that, when the operation of the section is well understood by the veterans concerned, many more will take advantage of it.
On Saturday the statement was made that there is no reason why the ceiling should not be raised as it would not cost the government of this country one dollar more. I was rather surprised to hear an hon. member make that statement, and I was more greatly surprised when the statement was repeated by none other than the hon. member for Greenwood, the financial critic of the official opposition. Anyone who has even a slight understanding of the operations of the War Veterans Allowance Act can readily see that raising the ceiling by any amount immediately brings in under the act people who are being excluded because of the ceiling, or some who are already drawing part of the war veterans allowance to draw a bigger amount. It has been estimated that if at the present time the ceiling were raised to $1,200 and $2,000-I think that was the suggestion which was made-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the Legion suggestion.


Hugues Lapointe: -at least 8,000 pensioners who are not now under war veterans allowance would qualify, and that at least a similar number of non-pensioners would be
5132	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs able to draw either the whole or part of the war veterans allowance. It can therefore easily be seen-and I am not saying this as an argument against it-that the raising of the ceiling would increase considerably the expense in connection with the war veterans allowance. I was greatly surprised to hear the statement made by the hon. member for Greenwood the other day.
It is also suggested that the means test should be taken off in connection with the war veterans allowance. I wonder if those who made this suggestion have really contemplated all that would result from, or the actual effect of, taking away the means test with respect to the war veterans' allowance. It would mean that every man in this country who at one time or another served in a theatre of operations would automatically, at the age of 60, get the war veterans allowance.
I have not at hand the exact figures with regard to the number of veterans in Canada who have served in a theatre of operations. I believe the last census in 1951 indicated that the veteran population of Canada was slightly over one and a quarter million. We know that in the second world war nearly 800,000-I think the figure is 785,000-served outside of Canada. In the first war over
350,000	served outside of Canada though, of course, a great many of them have disappeared since then. However, one can easily see the implication of putting every man automatically on war veterans' allowance upon his reaching the age of 60. I asked one of my officials to estimate what the expense involved would be. He did not have at hand all the figures necessary to give an accurate estimate, but at present it would be roughly $65 to $70 million which would be paid automatically to veterans now at age 60.
I just want to put that situation before the committee. I think it is something that should be considered. When they study the full implication of taking the means test off in connection with the war veterans' allowance, I doubt whether hon. members would think it appropriate to do it at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a question? He has discussed quite fully the remarks that have been made by members in all parts of the house on this matter of war veterans allowances. Apart from such matters as the regulations with respect to widows of imperial veterans he has quite fairly summed up what members have been asking for. I would just make this one comment. I think hon. members have all asked for his first point, namely an increase in the rates, and then they have asked for either the second or third, not both. After all, if 

we got the third point we would not have to worry about the second.
In the main, therefore, I make this clarification of what the minister said by way of summing up what we have asked for. We have asked first for an increase in the rates and second either for the removal of the means test or for an increase in the permissible income ceilings, in the case of single veterans from $720 to $1,200 and in the case of married veterans from $1,200 to $2,000. Having said that, this is my question: Are we to take it from what the minister has said in his remarks just now that the government is opposed to making any of these changes at this time?


Hugues Lapointe: The matter is still being considered. We have studied the matter considerably, and we have tried to bring forward some changes which have resulted from this study. As my hon. friend knows, there is no provision before parliament for any immediate changes in the act.
Mi. Quelch: I listened with interest to what the minister had to say with regard to casual earnings. To me his remarks were just about as confusing as the remarks which are contained in the little booklet which is sent out to veterans. I know an old veteran in this city who is over 80 years of age. Along with all recipients of war veterans allowances, I suppose, he receives a form which has to be filled in. It is a sort of net worth statement. Every time he receives this form he gets quite upset and worried because he thinks the government is charging him with receiving money to which he is not entitled.
I went over the form with him, and in one line there is a space for income. In another line there is "all other income" which I take to mean casual earnings. In the little booklet regarding earnings and earned income it gives an example of earned income, where a man may go out in the afternoon for an hour or so and do some carpentry. That would be earned income. However, if the man went out after hours and did some gardening, money received for it would be covered by "casual earnings". My question is this. What does "after hours" mean for a man who is not working at all? It is the most nonsensical thing I have ever heard of. If a man is not working there is no such thing for him as "after hours".
Why should you insist that a man who is 70 or 80 years must go out at night? Why should he not have that casual appointment in the afternoon or in the morning? The phrase used by the minister is the same as that used in the booklet.

The man I speak of had been doing a little bit of cabinet work. That was not his work when he was previously employed; he had another occupation. He was interested, however, in cabinet work and he gets a chance to make a few dollars now and then. If he makes it in the afternoon, according to the booklet, it is earned income. If he goes out in the evening and does a little gardening or some other job, the money can be called casual earnings. I would suggest that the booklet be dropped. When the minister says "after hours" I would tell him that for a man who has no employment there is no such thing as "after hours". Why should a man not be entitled to casual earnings for work done in the morning, the afternoon or the evening, without the requirement that money be earned "after hours"?


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry if I did not
express myself clearly.


Mr. Quelch:: You used the same expression as the book.


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry if I have confused my hon. friend. Actually what is intended by the explanation in the pamphlet to which he referred is that the type of employment must be employment which, if the veteran was working regularly, he could do outside his regular working hours. Actually he can do it in the middle of the night if he feels like it, or in the morning-we are not concerned about that-but it must be the type of employment which my hon. friend has described and which, clearly, a workingman could do after his working hours if he so chose.


John Horne Blackmore: Before the item carries I wish to protest against the application of the means test to veterans. If veterans had been as niggardly toward Canada through the two terrible wars that we fought as Canada has been toward them I do not know what would have happened to Canada. I cannot see any justification whatever for connecting veterans' income with the old age pension. If the veteran had never gone to war he would have received the old age pension.
Are we not endeavouring to reward these men in some measure for the devoted service which they rendered to this nation? Surely every good Canadian feels a debt of gratitude toward these men. When are we going to pay that debt of gratitude? I realize the minister's position; I realize that he and his department are bound by law, but I just cannot escape the thought that the time is long overdue when something should be done about the law. I am quite sure that nothing 68108-3241
Supply-Veterans Affairs will be done about the law until the minister says it is to be done.
I realize that men think of money as only that which is taken from the pockets of the citizens of Canada. I realize that they attach to money a sort of sanctity, and certainly the people of Canada should not be taxed beyond their ability to endure. Surely, however, there must be some way of establishing a relation between the productive capacity of this nation and its ability to reward those who have served and who are worthy of consideration.
In dealing with the veterans' problem and applying the means test to it, I would like to suggest that it would be well for us to bear in mind that once a man falls into the unhappy position of being on war veterans allowance he has no chance to buy the presents he would like to buy for his dear ones. He cannot even afford Christmas cards; he cannot afford to go to picture shows; and he cannot afford to indulge himself to a little treat in the ice cream parlour. That is his reward for offering his life for Canada, for fighting through hell. Well, surely it is time we began to adopt a proper perspective in these matters. I am not going to suggest at the moment how that can be done but I will say, before leaving the matter, that to believe there can be no money in the hands of the government other than money taken from the people in taxation is a manifestation of the crassest kind of ignorance concerning money. I find myself utterly at a loss when trying to comprehend the attitude of men who cannot realize that money is the creation of the state. It always has been since Canada was Canada. It was so before Canada was formed. What species of delusion is coming over the-minds of men today when they refuse to believe that money can be created by the state in accordance with the goods and services which the state can produce?
I merely raise that question, and before taking my seat I protest with all the vehemence of which my being is capable against the niggardly way in which we are dealing with our war veterans when they fall into the class requiring war veterans allowance.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I just want to ask a question in relation to the annual report of the department, pages 90 and 91. On those pages a number of tables are given indicating the number of cases approved in each year, and showing in the next column the expenditure for each year. On page 91 there is a recapitulation which breaks it down and shows the number of recipients as of March 31, 1952, with the annual liability opposite.
My questions are as follows. If these tables are to be of any practical use, could not they
5134	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs indicate the cases approved in each year, and then have another column showing the total number of veterans receiving pensions? Then that might bear some relationship to the total expenditure. In looking down this table there is obviously no relationship between the cases approved each year and the total expenditure. Then, it is not clear what is included in that column "expenditure", when the annual liability is less than the total shown there.


Mr. Mulch:: I assume the hon. member means the number of recipients of war veterans allowance rather than pensions?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I beg your pardon; war veterans allowance.


Hugues Lapointe: Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we have been looking at this report since it was published, and particularly at those tables, with a view to making them clearer in the next publication.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the minister inform me, before that clarification occurs, why this expenditures column is larger than the annual liability column on page 91? Does that include administration expenses or something of that nature?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: If I might venture to reply, the difference between the liability total, which is the annual liability based on the awards, and the annual expenditure is, in this particular case, partially due to the fact that there was a backlog of increased rates during the period under discussion. In addition, there are liabilities which cannot be estimated. These recipients are entitled to hospitalization .and treatment, and in the course of a year the extent to which that is more than the expectation may substantially increase the Cost. It has been pointed out also that this is the liability as of that date, and in some instances some of those awards may be less than 30 days or 60 days old. By the time you have completed your year the expenditures will be exceeded by the difference of the liability as of that moment and the conclusion of the year.


Mr. Higgins:: I do not want to delay the house or you, Mr. Chairman, in any way at all. However, I would feel that I had been remiss if I did not add my voice to those who have spoken on this matter. I want to say, speaking for St. John's East, that we entirely support the Legion's proposal in every way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
522. Assistance fund (war veterans' allowances), $350,000.
Howard Charles Green: Item 522 is the assistance fund for war veterans allowance recipients, and these payments are subject to this second means test to which I referred in my remarks.


I notice that this vote has been cut from $950,000 to $350,000.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: There is a supplementary item for $100,000.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain why that reduction was made?


Hugues Lapointe: The hon. member will see that in the supplementary estimates there is an item of $100,000, which increases that vote. There has been a decrease in the amount in view of the fact that some recipients are in receipt of outside income. When the rates were raised effective January 1, 1952, the fact that those recipients were in receipt of outside income brought them up to the permissive ceiling, so that the assistance fund payment could not be made. The old age security payment was the main source of the outside income.


Howard Charles Green: Then, in effect, the vote is cut by a little more than half, from $950,000 to $450,000.


Hugues Lapointe: I am informed that although the vote for 1952-53 was the amount mentioned by the hon. member, actually the expenditure was much lower than the vote. It had been overestimated.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest to the minister that he have a look at the way in which this second means test is being used. I would not want to be taken as approving of it, because I think it is a very bad thing. It may be that this second means test is being imposed much too harshly.


Hugues Lapointe: I can assure my hon. friend that is not the case. As a matter of fact, the welfare people in each district who are administering this particular fund are being most generous.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian pension commission-[DOT]
528. Administration expenses, $2,051,318.
Mr. Dinsdale:: I have not said anything about this particular department as yet, but I think one of the most important duties of a member in this house is the responsibility of looking after the needs of the veterans in this country. Before mentioning the particular item relating to pensions which I have in mind, I should like to say in passing that I do agree with the representations that have been made with regard to war veterans allowances.
I have a pension case in which I am interested, along with about six or seven other members in this house. I think that fact alone indicates the necessity of appointing a standing committee on veterans affairs.

There has been a lot of duplication of effort and activity in regard to this particular case. I am sure that as various representations are made by different members concerning pension cases, the officials of the department must become exasperated at times trying to explain, repeating the same story to each member who approaches them on the subject. I must say they do maintain a very high level of courtesy, even though they must feel that much unnecessary effort arises from this repetition of investigation.
The case is somewhat similar to that dealt with by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. It concerns a fatal accident that occurred to an officer in the R.C.A.F. The case is well known to the department. It is that of Flight Lieutenant James Olver, J-51458, who was killed at Centralia on December 11, 1951. Briefly the details are as follows: Flying was washed out that particular day. The officer returned to his quarters off the station. He was riding with another officer from Centralia station, who became involved in an accident on the way home. Flight Lieutenant Olver was killed.
Three hearings have been held on this case. Each time the verdict has been returned that the widow and family of the service man are not pensionable because the officer was not on duty at the time of his death. I want to place on record the finding of the board in this regard because it points up a suggestion that I am going to make before concluding my observations. The last hearing came to this conclusion on February 27. Briefly the pension board found as follows:
It should be pointed out this case does not appear to be unusual in that the majority of service personnel, particularly married personnel, live "off the station" and therefore away from the unit concerned and would not appear to be under service jurisdiction so far as their off duty activities, et cetera, are concerned. There may be some service sponsorship so far as deportment is concerned, but their time and their occupation, et cetera, would seem to be at their own discretion from the time they leave the unit. After consideration of the above points, this board must find death in this case was due to an accident which did not arise out of nor was it directly connected with peacetime service after world war II, and death therefore is not pensionable under section 11 (2).
The argument that has been put forward in successive hearings of course has been to the effect that the airman was actually in the course of duty because he was on his way home to his quarters. I am not going to pursue the arguments in the case here, but I am going to say that there are some pertinent observations that arise out of a problem of that kind.
As I look back on the history of pension legislation, after world war I the feeling seemed to be that provision for pensions
Supply-Veterans Affairs for service personnel was a temporary expedient. World war I was the war supposed to end all wars. There would be no further wars, and therefore the need for veterans' welfare would gradually disappear, would wither away. As I have searched the records, it seems that this attitude persisted almost to 1936, when pension legislation became more or less fixed and statutory.
In view of our experience since world war I, and particularly since world war II, we now know that it is going to be necessary for Canada to maintain fairly substantial armed forces. Because of this, veterans' problems have attained permanent status. It is quite significant, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has pointed out, that our present military establishment is made up of 40 per cent married personnel. I would suggest that if we are to have problems arising continually concerning decisions on these borderline or marginal pension cases, it is not going to be much of an inducement for Canadian citizens to make a career out of service activity.
The needs of the world, the problems of maintaining peace in the world and also providing the necessary defence measures in this country today make it necessary that we have permanent forces established. That being so, our attitude towards pensionable liability in regard to service personnel must change considerably. In the particular case to which I have referred, the case of Flight Lieutenant Olver, a widow and young daughter are left, and they have absolutely no claim at all in connection with the loss of life of the husband and father who, believing himself covered by military pension provisions, had not provided the usual civilian protection for his family. As I discussed the case with the members of the department, who have been the essence of courtesy and helpfulness, I found they could go only so far as the statutory measures allow. That would tend to suggest to me there is some need to reconsider the statutory provisions dealing with these borderline cases to make it possible to have some broader interpretation in the Pension Act in regard to death arising from peacetime service.
I come back and suggest that if we had a standing committee on veterans affairs, this is a problem to which such a committee could give some attention. Obviously if it is going to be necessary for Canadians to make a career of military service they have to know in no uncertain terms the position of their families should the breadwinner be suddenly killed whether directly in line with the course of military duties or in borderline cases such as the one I have outlined here.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
I am sure the members of the department- they have never said so, but I would come to this conclusion-would support strongly the idea of a standing committee that could deal with these matters, a committee to which members of this house could go and have a free exchange of ideas on problem cases, and also where some discussion of the necessary statutory changes could take place in order to make it possible to deal in a fair and just way with these problems rather than having to say, as the board has felt obliged to conclude, that a case of this kind is not pensionable under section 11(2) of the act.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I have one small problem to bring to the attention of the minister. I will do it as quickly as I can. It involves only 200 people in all Canada so far as I know. These are widows who were married to members of the British merchant marine during the war. They have received a British pension, but apparently they cannot get it supplemented in Canada. I think that is wrong, because the amount that is received from Britain today is so small that it can hardly keep body and soul together. I ask the minister whether something cannot be done for these 200 people that I know of.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is the minister now in a position to answer one or two of the questions I raised earlier? It seems to me that he perhaps has had the opportunity to consult with the Department of National Defence and get their point of view with regard to matters concerning which the Canadian pension commissioners have made findings.
I proposed three questions, which it seems to me can be clarified only by the Department of National Defence; and that clarification would be a guide to the pension commission. The three questions, briefly, were these: May service vehicles be borrowed? Second, are work tickets required in order to indicate that vehicles are being used with authority? Third, is a member of the forces considered by the Department of National Defence to be on duty when he is placed in charge of a military vehicle?


Hugues Lapointe: Well, I do not think the hon. member can expect me to answer questions relating to conditions in the various armed services. Whether a vehicle can be taken out with or without permission is something that does not in any way come under the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I have here some figures the hon. member requested on Saturday. He made reference to the annual report for the year ending March 31, 1952, and to certain statistics contained therein regarding appeal boards. I
[Mr. Dinsdale.l

understood he was anxious to know the outcome of these boards. I have here some figures showing entitlement decisions of appeal boards of the Canadian pension commission heard during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1952. These figures are as follows: Cases heard, 2,004; cases granted, 665; cases not granted, 1,244; decisions pending, 28; cases struck off, 67; total cases in which decisions were rendered, 1,909.
With regard to application for leave to reopen, under section 58(4) of the act, 282 cases were heard. There were 116 granted and 166 not granted.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Would the minister reply to the question I asked about wives?


Hugues Lapointe: I shall be glad to look into the matter. It had not been brought to my attention before, but I shall be pleased to look into it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: With regard to the other questions I raised, the minister feels that his department is not responsible. May I point out to him that it is in respect of those very questions, and the answers thereto, that the pension commission operates and makes its finding. The pension commission comes under the jurisdiction of the minister's department. There is a difference of opinion with regard to these matters. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, but certainly we have not the information required.
Service personnel are being placed in an awkward position, and I am sure the pension commission is placed in an awkward position when it is not fully informed. Furthermore I think the Department of National Defence is placed under a bit of a cloud if the Canadian pension commission finds that vehicles may be borrowed.


Mr. Lapoinie:: Well, the hon. member has made particular reference during the course of the debate to the claim of a widow, where death was the result of a vehicle accident during service in peacetime. The hon. member is well aware that claims such as that are dealt with under section 11(2) of the Pension Act, and in order that entitlement be conceded it is necessary to establish that death arose out of or was directly connected with service. The hon. member also knows that this parliament has given the Canadian pension commission sole authority and exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate on all claims under the Pension Act. As minister I cannot make any comment on any of the decisions of the commission, nor can I intervene.
I believe this was wise legislation on the part of parliament. Otherwise it can readily be seen that if a minister could intervene in

any of the decisions of the commission his office would be used as an appeal court on all pension matters where applicants were not dealt with as they felt they should have been.
This legislation was passed by parliament as a result of requests by veteran groups. There is nothing more that I can say on the point.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is something the minister can subtract from what he said. I did not suggest at any time that the minister should intervene in the particular case I used as an example to show the conditions I was bringing to the attention of the committee. I hope the minister will not leave on the record anything which might suggest that I asked him to intervene. I stated expressly that the findings of the pension board were conclusive and binding, that we know they are not subject to appeal. I have made no request, and I have no intention of making any request that the minister should intervene. I would ask him to modify that statement which is now on Hansard.


Hugues Lapointe: I did not suggest my hon. friend had asked me to intervene. I just simply mentioned that the act was such that I cannot intervene. I do not know what my hon. friend wants from me in this case. I have listened to him argue these things before. He uses the floor of the House of Commons as a court of appeal for a pension case- which is possibly a very tragic one, but on which the minister can do absolutely nothing; and he knows it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I must rise again, Mr. Chairman. The minister has suggested that, in mentioning the case of Corporal MacAulay, I was asking him to intervene-


Hugues Lapointe: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -with regard to the decision of the pension commissioners.


Hugues Lapointe: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, that was the impression he left; and I ask him to remove that impression.


Hugues Lapointe: If I can withdraw the
impression I shall be pleased to do so.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister is being a little less than fair with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. The hon. member mentioned this case in order to point out what he considered to be a weakness in the present legal position in respect of cases of this type. I think the minister was not as fair as he usually is when he insinuated that the hon. member was merely trying to fight an appeal on that case in the House of Commons.
Supply-Veterans Affairs I am sure on second thought he would not want to charge the hon. member with doing that.


Hugues Lapointe: I did not charge him with anything.


Howard Charles Green: You did a moment ago.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister went on to say-


Hugues Lapointe: If my hon. friend would point out what I said that was contrary to proper procedure in the house, or indicate any insinuation to which he might object, I v/ish he would tell me, and I would be pleased to withdraw it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, if the minister will give me an opportunity to continue with my remarks-


Hugues Lapointe: You have been talking all afternoon.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister said a moment ago that I was arguing this case on the floor of the House of Commons, and appealing to the House of Commons against the ruling of the pension commission. I did no such thing. I used that case as an example to show what might result from decisions of the board. I was not appealing from the ruling of the pension commission.


Mr. Chevrier:: Don't use your finger, please.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
531. To provide for the cost of administration of Veterans' Land Act: soldier settlement and British family settlement, $4,651,087.
Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring before the committee and the minister a problem I have discussed before on two occasions, namely the Veterans' Land Act settlement near Winnipeg. It is a difficult matter, and concerns the septic disposal systems which have been installed at that settlement.
Last year the minister was good enough to have something done about this, and I thank him for what he did. He arranged to have some of the systems taken up, but these veterans are still not quite satisfied. Some of those systems that were taken up were found to be faulty in construction. I am pleased to say that the department fixed them and they have worked satisfactorily since. I know the minister has had a petition from these young fellows, and I should like now to quote one paragraph from the letter they wrote:
We fully realize that maintenance plays a very important part in the successful operation of a septic disposal system, but may we point out that it is impossible to keep it operational when It has not been constructed properly. By this we refer you to the previous letter we submitted and photographs of constructional defects found in all of the three fields we inspected.

Supply-Veterans Affairs
I have the photographs here which I showed the minister last year.
When we contracted to purchase these small holdings we were under the impression that they were to he fully modern and that the Veterans' Land Act itself was to assist returning men. In our case, in order to have a modern dwelling it necessitates the complete relaying of our septic fields, which we are financially unable to do.
I know the settlement quite well, and I know that certain parts are fairly low and there will be trouble in wet weather. I have just one question to ask. If any of these systems go wrong in the future and are taken up and construction found to be faulty, will the veterans affairs people put them right?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The answer is yes. While I am answering that, may I refer also to a remark made by the hon. member a moment ago. As he knows, an investigation was made of the septic tank fields in St. Vital and Charles-wood and in only one instance, that one in Charleswood, was it discovered that a field was faulty in construction and had not been laid in accordance with the specifications. That field was relaid. Although there was some doubt in the minds of the inspectors as to whether this field had been damaged inadvertently after being laid, it was repaired.


William Scottie Bryce: I am sure the veterans will be glad to hear that if there is any fault found with the system the government will stand behind it and make good.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: If there has been faulty construction.


William Scottie Bryce: If some mistake was made when the field was laid. I have photographs here which show that they were faulty but have since been corrected. I am glad that was done, because I do not think these boys should have to pay for something which they did not get. I shall not delay the committee any more. I know there will be trouble with this low-lying ground in wet weather, and the Manitoba health authorities will be right there on top of it.
Many hon. members have been commending the department and handing out bouquets. I am not going to hand out a lot Of bouquets, but I do not think I have ever been negligent in saying thanks to the minister and his assistant and his officers when they do anything for me.


Mr. Fraser:: I have a question which I have asked on a number of previous occasions. Can the department give consideration to allowing veterans who have small holdings which have been taken into municipalities to sell part of their land in order to help in the payment of the taxes which have gone up so greatly? It is almost impossible for many of these men to pay these taxes. Part of their holdings

could be sold and the money obtained from the sale turned over to the department to help pay for the property.


Hugues Lapointe: The present policy is to permit a veteran to sell a portion of his holding as long as he does not reduce the area below what is required by a veteran seeking establishment under the act at the present time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is all right if the veteran is outside a city, but when his holding is taken into the city he must pay for sidewalks and other local improvements. I submit that the veteran should be allowed to sell a portion of his holding under those circumstances. I understand that if he is in receipt of pension he may sell off some of his holding as long as he retains the house in which he lives.


Hugues Lapointe: That is so where the veteran is at least a 50 per cent pensioner and unable to work. It is felt that it would not be quite fair to allow a veteran to subdivide his holding and retain an acreage smaller than that required to be taken by another veteran who wants to settle there.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The department would get the money and it would certainly help the veteran.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the attention of the minister a matter that is of serious concern to a number of veterans in my constituency. I am sure the minister will agree with me when I say that I always talk briefly, reasonably and with common sense. The matter I wish to bring to his attention relates to the reduction of the acreage of small holdings.
When the acreage was raised from half an acre to three acres in most cases, there were hundreds of veterans in my constituency who were denied the opportunity of taking up small holdings under the Veterans' Land Act. This is a particularly serious problem in the district in which I live because of the topography and the shortage of land around Nelson, Trail and some other centres because of the increasing industrial development in the whole area. Because of these circumstances, year after year I have urged the department to give consideration to making exceptions in the particular circumstances that exist in my constituency.
This is of such serious concern that at every meeting of the West Kootenay zone council of the Canadian Legion during the past three or four years a resolution has been passed urging a reduction in the acreage to half an acre. It is a matter that has

caused lengthy debate and serious protest. The boys have asked me to bring this matter to the minister's attention again, and I am doing it now as briefly as possible.
What I cannot understand, Mr. Chairman, is the reason behind this raising of the acreage from half an acre to three acres. I think it is three acres in the majority of cases, although in some circumstances it is reduced to 1-6 acres and so on. I do not understand the reason. There does not seem to be any logic in it. Surely it is just denying the benefits of an excellent act to a large number of veterans.
In my opinion that section of the Veterans Land Act is the best housing scheme in Canada. Many veterans in my district have had an opportunity to take advantage of it.
I am sure the minister's officials will inform him that there are some of the finest small holding settlements in Canada right in the constituency of Kootenay West. It is a treat to visit these boys and find out what is being done. But I urge that consideration be given again to the pleas of these veterans-it is not only in my district, but I understand it also applies to other districts in Canada-to have this acreage reduced to half an acre where it is impossible to obtain any larger area of land and where on that account hundreds of veterans are being denied an opportunity of taking advantage of the act.
Just before going on to one other pet subject of mine, I want to compliment the department on the construction schools that were put into operation in Kootenay West last year. I think three schools were held, largely owing to the fact that the director visited the district and saw the need. All classes were well attended. The instructors were excellent. There was great interest among the men who derived a great deal of benefit. I understand they were taught to read plans in a rough way, to prepare a site, to assemble material, to erect a building in order, and to perform certain more or less rudimentary carpentry work. In any event, all those who took that course told me that it was an excellent one and that they hope the department will, in the future, run similar schools when other men take advantage of this section of the act. It is an excellent idea. The Canadian Legion in my district and the veterans who attended asked me to express to the minister and his officials their sincere appreciation for the operation of those schools in the district last year.
I have another pet peeve, and I think the minister may know what it is. It is not only my peeve but it is the peeve of the 68108-325
Supply-Veterans Affairs Canadian Legion in my district. Resolutions have been passed repeatedly at zone councils. I refer to the reduction of the Veterans' Land Act administration staff in the Kootenay district. We are tired of being the tail of the Okanagan dog. We are an extremely important district. I want it to be understood that, in making that criticism, we are making no criticism of the local officials. The services of the local officials have been commented upon by favourable resolutions at various veteran meetings, but they are simply overburdened with work and are unable to keep up with it. Moreover, the settlement in the area, as the minister will find if he looks the matter up, is increasing every year.
Here is the situation. You have two field officers and a man in charge of housing. The office in Nelson is open one day a week. Veterans may have to drive 150 miles. If it is not convenient to be there on Monday- I think that is the day on which it is open -they are not able to go ahead with their application or attend to their business. You cannot blame the field men. They are out in the field trying to keep up with the work. In fact it is impossible for them to keep up with the work. As I said before, and I think the director will bear me out in this, the applications are increasing daily.
When one makes an argument in cases like this, I think it is a good thing to bring concrete evidence in support of it. I intend to do that by reading two letters I have received from a very responsible veteran who is a competent pioneer farmer, a land appraiser by profession who is considered to be one of the best in the interior. In fact he is employed periodically by some of the insurance companies to appraise land and give them an opinion as to the value of the property for mortgages and so on. I read this letter:
Dear Mr. Herridge:
I am enclosing copies of a letter which I am today passing in to the Legion. I think you will find the letter self-explanatory. As far as I recall, there are about fourteen or fifteen veterans affected in a similar manner along the north shore. Two others, Mr. Charley Noakes of Balfour and Mr. A. Merz of Queens Bay have also made written complaints to the Legion at Nelson on the same subject.
As a matter of fact, the official survey of the constructed power line was made twelve months ago by B.C. land surveyor, Boyd Affleck. At that time survey stakes were set where the power line crossed each property. There was no reason therefore why an easement report could not have been completed any time after that date, and a claim for compensation filed with the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company.
With the usual spring rush at the V.L.A. it is conceivable that the matter will drift on for more months unless pressure is brought to bear. The point is that veterans on these V.L.A. properties are being placed at a disadvantage as compared with

Supply-Veterans Affairs their civilian neighbours, something which I am quite sure was never intended.
Please understand that this letter implies no criticism of Mr. Cooper. He is working at high pressure all the time, and in the summer puts in long hours, . . .
Then I just want to read the letter to the Legion as evidence of the need for additional staff. I might say that I think it was most unfair that the extremely competent senior official of the Veterans' Land Act department who was then in Nelson at that time was laid off. I am not alone in that sentiment. I have the support of all the Legion branches and a good number of the people in the community, including business people. This letter is addressed to the secretary-manager, Canadian Legion, at Nelson. It reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
For some months past the Nelson branch, in company with other branches of the Legion in West Kootenay, has been pressing the Veterans' Land Act administration to provide additional staff for Nelson district, in order that efficient service may be provided for veterans in this area. It is realized that in order to press such a request, concrete examples of inadequate service must be provided. The purpose of this letter is to cite such a case.
In January of 1951 the V.L.A. granted authority to the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company to construct a right of way for a power line across various V.L.A. properties along the north shore in the Nelson district. It was agreed that proper compensation would be made by the company to the veterans concerned, through the V.L.A., when the line was completed, and damage to and loss of value in respect of each property could be properly assessed.
The right of way was slashed in the early spring of 1951 and the power line installed shortly after. It is now two years since this was done and civilian owners of properties affected have long since been paid compensation, but not so the veterans concerned. The explanation offered is that the skeleton staff at Nelson is so busy with more urgent business that they are unable to find time to make the necessary easement reports in these cases in order that claim for compensation may be presented to the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company. This deplorable delay has thus deprived veterans of moneys to which they are entitled, for an unreasonable time.
It is difficult to understand why the administration of the Veterans' Land Act in this district cannot be organized to provide service with more efficiency and dispatch.
We are all aware that the V.L.A. can find time to make very frequent visits to veterans who are in arrears in their monthly payments to the V.L.A., even when quite small amounts are involved. Yet, when the shoe is on the other foot and the money is due the veteran, the matter can be left in abeyance for months.
It is suggested that if the V.L.A. is no longer prepared to provide the necessary staff to carry out the provisions of the act then it is high time that the regulations be revised.
It is hoped that the Legion can insist that action be taken in the matter without further delay.
In fairness to the administration, I may say that after that protest was made by my-

self and by the Legion, some extra help was sent in to the Kootenays and I think, although I am not quite sure, the matter is to be settled in the near future.
I want to bring these facts to the attention of the minister and have him compare them with those in connection with any other district in Canada. I understand the repayment record in West Kootenay is the best in British Columbia. Why? Because the production in the area served by the Nelson office was over $200 million last year. There is a sound development there, and it is becoming increasingly sound. These men who will be applying for loans are largely men employed in permanent industry at good wages or salaries. I believe it is about time that we had an increase in staff at the Nelson office in order to prepare for the future.
I want to tell the minister what the future means. There is a $65 million pulp mill to be built in Kootenay West. Extensions are to be built to the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company plant costing over $30 million. There is a dam being built at Waneta costing over $30 million. All this will mean tremendous development. There is an increasing number of veterans coming in, veterans from the Atlantic to the Pacific who are coming into the area because they realize it is developing into one of the richest areas in Canada. The tremendous industrial development will provide permanent jobs at some of the highest wages in Canada.
This movement creates an increasing demand for housing, and it is going to mean a demand for increased agricultural production. At the present time we only produce 25 per cent of the agricultural production used in the Kootenay district.
I do ask the minister and his officials to give consideration to all these facts. I would ask the department to make Nelson a district office, running under its own steam, so it can report direct to Vancouver instead of delays being occasioned by reports having to go to Kelowna and then to Vancouver, from Vancouver back to Kelowna and from Kelowna to Nelson.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not critical of the officials of the department. I recognize the excellent work the local officials have done; but I am somewhat of the opinion that the senior officials do not realize the position there and the need for a district office in Nelson to serve the purposes and needs of veterans now in the district and of veterans who are to come.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Terminable services-
538. Post rehabilitation benefits, including the training of merchant seamen and salt water fishermen pensioners, $1,858,000.
(S) War service gratuities (chap. 51, statutes of 1944-45, as amended), $3,300,000.
(S) Re-establishment credits (chap. 51, statutes of 1944-45, as amended). $8,750,000; total $13,908,000.
Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask the minister a question on this item, which has to do with the War Service Grants Act. Apparently there is a provision in the act that if a veteran dies before having used his re-establishment credit it can only be paid to his widow or to his mother, in the latter case if she had been dependent upon him.
I have run across a case where there was no widow for the reason that the wife had divorced the veteran shortly before he died. However, there were small children, and this war service re-establishment credit would have been a great help to them. The minister's department has ruled that section 7A of the act is not wide enough to enable them to use that money for the purpose of helping those children. The money, of course, is remaining in the fund untouched; but I am wondering if there is not some way in which that particular re-establishment credit, and the credits in cases of the same type, can be used for the children.


Hugues Lapointe: Section 7A (1) does give some discretion to the minister. It states:
Where a male member who has deferred his application for re-establishment credit dies after discharge, but before he has used his re-establishment credit in full, his widow, or, in case he leaves no widow, his mother, if the mother in the opinion of the minister or such person as the minister may designate, was wholly dependent on the member immediately prior to his death-
I am glad my hon. friend has drawn this matter to my attention and I will certainly look into it to see if the section as it now stands does not give sufficient authority to meet circumstances such as he has mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian pension commission-
760. Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order P.C. 45/8848 of November 22, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act; and including Newfoundland special awards-further amount required, $600,000.
Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I am not endeavouring to talk myself out, but this is a new item and I think I should mention the reason for it. Under the 1939 agreement relating to the commonwealth air training plan the government of the United Kingdom assumed financial liability for pensions and 68108-325J
Supply-Veterans Affairs certain other benefits granted to trainees under the plan who were posted to R.A.F. units on completion of their training.
The liability of the United Kingdom did not extend to personnel posted to Canadian squadrons, of whom there were three in 1939 but who by 1943 numbered 38. Subsequent to the winding up of the training plan the United Kingdom minister of pensions remained liable for pensions for disability and death which had been granted to these R.C.A.F. personnel who served with the R.A.F.
The procedure was for Canada to pay these particular pensions supplemented to Canadian rates and for the United Kingdom government to repay annually to Canada the cost of the pensions at United Kingdom rates. As a result of certain general financial negotiations which took place between my colleague the Minister of Finance and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the United Kingdom government has been relieved of this liability and Canada has assumed full financial responsibility for these pensions from just prior to the end of the 1952-53 fiscal year.
This supplementary estimate of $600,000 is to cover the estimated amount of revenue which the department expected to receive from the United Kingdom as a credit against pensions paid during 1953-54 but which will not now be received.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
761. Post discharge rehabilitation benefits, including the training of merchant seamen and salt water fishermen pensioners-further amount required, $100,000.
Clarence Gillis: I would like to ask the minister a question on this item, but before I do so I wish to make a correction in regard to a statement I made last evening. When I was speaking on the minister's estimates I made the statement that I had received some information privately. I said I had received it from the deputy minister. On thinking the matter over and on looking at the record I want to say that I did not get the information from the deputy minister but received it from another official. I wanted to say that in fairness to the deputy minister, and I want the minister to understand because I was afraid he might fire his deputy.
My question arises out of the fact that I have had some correspondence from parents of boys who were lost in the last war while on service with the navy and air force, and who have no graves. The boys were never

Supply-Veterans Affairs found and the parents have now been circularized to the effect that in October of this year a memorial will be unveiled in Britain commemorating the boys who have no known graves. The circular, of course, points out that there will be no assistance by way of transportation and so forth to enable the parents to attend that unveiling. My information is that the Queen will unveil the memorial.
I have had a couple of letters on the matter suggesting that in view of the fact that if these boys who were lost and have no known grave had returned they would have been entitled to gratuities, educational benefits and general rehabilitation, the government might consider using those gratuities and credits to assist the parents of boys who were lost in making the trip to the unveiling of that memorial.
I do not know whether the minister's department handles this or whether it is the Department of National Defence, but any information the minister might be able to give me would be appreciated.


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I am not quite sure what the hon. member wants. I understood him to ask that gratuities or re-establishment credits accruing to one of these Canadians who may have disappeared during the war should be made part of his estate and accrue to his family; is that what my hon. friend wanted?


Clarence Gillis: No, that is not exactly it. I
was not making this as a general request. What I said was this. According to the letters the boy was lost and has no known grave. In October of this year a memorial is to be unveiled by the Queen commemorating the loss of that group of people. The argument advanced was that, had the boy returned, he would have been entitled to certain gratuities, rehabilitation credits and so forth. He has not returned, and has no known grave.
The parents have been invited to make the trip to take part in the unveiling of the memorial. Would the government consider making part of the rehabilitation credit, that the boy would have been entitled to, available for transportation and living allowances while the family is in Britain at that ceremony? You do not have to say you are paying gratuities, but would the government help to provide transportation and living allowances for these people while in Britain for the unveiling of that memorial?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I was not
aware of the proposal to which my hon. friend refers. I am informed that this 

memorial to which he refers is for merchant seamen, and not men serving in the armed forces. In so far as gratuities that might have been earned by men who were lost or missing during the war are concerned, those gratuities were part of the serviceman's estate, and if the parents were the legal heirs they have received those gratuities.


Clarence Gillis: Will the minister give me this assurance, that he will look into the matter?


Hugues Lapointe: I will.


Clarence Gillis: I do not think it applies to
merchant seamen only. The party I have in mind had a son in the air force, and they have received one of these letters. Will the minister make inquiries?


Hugues Lapointe: I shall be pleased to make
inquiries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
105. Departmental administration, $1,670,515.
Douglas Charles Abbott: I think I have only one advantage over my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, and I am not sure it is an advantage. As a rule, the greater part of the discussion on the Department of Finance takes place in the course of the budget debate. It has not been usual for me, therefore, as in the case of some of my colleagues, to make a general statement dealing with the operations of the department. Its operations, I think, are all too familiar to the members of the house.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I have one or two brief comments I should like to make before we come to the actual questions. I should like to make one or two comments on the course of the Canadian dollar and the beneficial effect on the whole, as I see it, of the fact that it has come down to what I have always thought was a more normal relationship to the United States dollar. Our exporters no longer have the disadvantage, and it was a considerable disadvantage, of a premium on the Canadian dollar. There is a considerable benefit accruing to a good many of our industries, notably newsprint, base metals, livestock, aluminum and lumber, and in general we are in a better competitive selling position.
I think we ought not to forget that it is purely an accident that our unit of currency has the same name as that of the United States unit. It is not the same unit. There are well informed people who believe that we are in a more wholesome position when our dollar actually rules at about 95 or 96 as against the United States dollar. Nevertheless it gratified our pride to have it at a

premium, and I am sure it rocked back on their heels many people in the United States who could hardly understand why that could happen.
I should like to broaden these considerations just for a moment or two by pointing out that in considering the position of the dollar we should not confine ourselves wholly to the United States, but should take a broader view. I believe we should remind ourselves that finance is merely the handmaiden of agriculture, commerce and industry, and that when we come to the thing we talk so much about, convertibility, that must come as a result rather than as a cause. In other words we must do something to free the channels of trade before we can get convertibility, though once we have it in operation, of course, it operates also to facilitate the exchange of goods.
Those things are obvious and I do not propose to dwell on them further. I do wish however to take the occasion to remind the house of what I reminded it on Saturday, of the very grave situation in which the United Kingdom finds itself at the moment by reason of the fact that the United States, notwithstanding the readiness of the President and his cabinet, is not able to step forward as it would like in trade matters. I wish to put a very short extract on the record from remarks made almost a year ago by Mr. Churchill who on June 11, 1952 said this:
It is an alert I am sounding, yet it is more than an alert, it is an alarm ... I warn you that without an intense national realization of our economic position by all parties and by all classes we shall find it very hard to reach that security without which all we have achieved and all that we possess and all our glories might rapidly become nothing.
I want to tie that in briefly with the British budget presented the other day, which has a very close relationship to our welfare. I do not propose to traverse ground which has been traversed in the matter of trade but we do realize the importance to us of the United Kingdom. I read with considerable disappointment on Saturday an article by Susan Strange in the London Observer in which she gave some rather gloomy figures as to British exports, pointing out that 1952 exports were 6 per cent below 1951, and the first three months of 1953 were 2 per cent worse than the preceding three months.
Since Churchill's statement two or three important things have happened. There has been the commonwealth conference; we had the visit of Eden and Butler to Washington; but perhaps most important of all we had the
Supply-Finance
statement made only last Friday by the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. It. A. Butler, from which I wish to quote very briefly. He said:
United States politics is interfering with formation of a co-operative trade program to save the free world from collapse.
Then later he says:
-the fundamental question is:	Can we be
strong enough to survive the ordeal that lies before us? We have shown that we are ready to make sacrifices, but what the statesmen of the free world have not achieved yet is the task of bringing our policies together and making it certain that we have a fundamental basis on which we can build.
If I may digress for a moment, Mr. Chairman, I think a practical implication of this comes to us from the fact that the wheat agreement which we have had for years has not been signed by the United Kingdom. I suppose they have come to the conclusion that, in their own interests, they have to shop around to see if they can make a better bargain. I was interested in noticing, incidentally, that while they are proposing to open the corn exchange within the next few months, some of the people who used to operate it and used to be so expert in that operation are realizing that after 13 or 14 years of bulk purchasing and fixed prices it is not going to be so easy for them to begin to operate again.
I want to quote one more word from Mr. Butler:
Referring to the "task of bringing policies together", he said:
"This is thwarted by politics on the other side of the Atlantic and a certain lack of will and decision on this side. We are doing our best to make up our side of the bargain. It is up to the other side of the Atlantic to make up theirs."
I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the other side of the Atlantic includes Canada as well as the United States.
I have one other comment on the British budget. When Butler practically says there has been a certain lack of will and decision on their side of the Atlantic, he is also justified in saying "We are doing our best to make up our side of the bargain," because it seems to be the consensus of opinion that whatever else may be said about the recent British budget, it is a courageous budget, and that the chancellor has gone all out to do what he indicated when he was here. When he was here, as I recall it, he spoke about "breaking out" from the shackles of the restrictions which have impeded trade so much, and his budget is an attempt to do that.
From our point of view we all recognize the immense importance of the success of that effort because in plain words it is going

Supply-Finance
to affect the British capacity to buy goods in North America; and therefore the challenge to the United States by Butler is in a very real sense a challenge to us also.
Of course the great danger which always haunts us is that the western European nations, if they are not able to trade westward, if they are not able to sell their goods west and buy in the west, will inevitably turn and face the east. There have been some instances of that already. There were . loud outcries in the United States when Great Britain did some business with the other side of the iron curtain; and yet there have been cases-there was a case in the western states with which we are all familiar-where tenders for some large contracts were called for and Britain was the lowest tenderer, and I gather turned down for no other reason than that a United States firm might be injured if that happened. If that kind of thing is going to prevail, then these grave words of Butler that I read a few minutes ago will come to be very real indeed.
I made these few remarks, Mr. Chairman, because I thought it was desirable to have them on the record. Our own welfare, of course; our own trade, our own prosperity, the convertibility of the exchanges, which would mean so much to us, depend on the action of various people, and in no small degree on our own. These are the only general comments that I wish to make. I reserve any other remarks I have to say for the different items.


Mr. Hansell:: I do not generally take a
great deal of time talking on the estimates of the Minister of Finance, and I am not going to take much time now; but I do want to ask one question which I think is extremely important. I was glad the minister did not make any statement when his estimates were called; for to me it is one of the most discouraging things, one of the most disappointing things, one thing that always leaves me hanging out on a limb feeling as though I had a hangover, to listen to an orthodox finance minister try to explain anything about money.
With these introductory remarks I am going to ask the Minister of Finance one thing. What policy is the government adopting to put a little value in our Canadian dollar? The reason that most of us are urging higher pensions for older people, the reason we have voted on resolutions, as we did this morning, asking for greater consideration to be given to needy persons, is not that the number of dollars they get is small but that the dollar is only worth half what

it was worth some years ago. The person who put aside a little money for his security finds now that he cannot buy as much food as he could then.
We might explain why this is so, but I do believe those who are in charge of financial policy, not in charge of budgets, not in charge of bookkeeping, not in charge of imposing taxation and checking expenditures, but those who are in charge of finance policy should tell the people of Canada what policy they expect to pursue to bring the dollar back to the place where it will buy a dollar's worth of food, a dollar's worth of clothing, a dollar's worth of anything in relation to what it bought when people put by their savings. The minister should answer that question. If he cannot answer it, then let him tell the committee that it is beyond his ability to answer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I can best answer my hon. friend by saying that in part at any rate as a result of government policies the value of the Canadian dollar has improved some 3 or 4 per cent over the last couple of years. He and I must differ, at any rate, on these matters. He said when he listened to orthodox finance ministers he was inclined to feel he had a hangover. I am sure he will forgive m# when I say that when I listen to orthodox Social Crediters I have the same sort of feeling. Therefore I think we must agree to differ on these matters.


Ernest George Hansell: The only difference is that while I have a hangover the minister himself is completely knocked out.


Harry Oliver White: There is just one item that I wish to deal with. I have looked over the various items in the estimates and I cannot locate the exact spot on which I should make these remarks, so I am going to say what I have to say now. What I have to say deals with the ruling of Mr. Justice Locke of the Supreme Court of Canada on April 15 in the case against the Stanley Mutual Fire Insurance Company of New Brunswick in connection with the payment of income tax, and a decision was given in favour-


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I suggest to my hon. friend that perhaps his remarks might be more in point when the estimates of my colleague the Minister of National Revenue are under consideration. They will be up shortly. I think they would be more in order then. That is my suggestion.


John Horne Blackmore: In order to get the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Macleod on a basis which would be familiar to each of them, probably the first problem would be

to define what we mean by the value of the Canadian dollar. I imagine that when the minister said the value of the Canadian dollar had improved he meant its value on the exchange is greater. Surely he did not seriously mean that the price structure is going down materially.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has gone down 3 or 4 per cent in the last couple of years. That is what I was referring to; yes.


John Horne Blackmore: If progress goes on at the rate it is going, and in the way it is going, we shall have the primary products falling in price and we shall have the cost of production of the primary products remaining where it is. To make it quite clear, we are going to have the price of wheat down and the price of barley down, and it is likely we shall not find the price of agricultural machinery going down. If this condition goes on we shall see our primary producers crucified between low prices received for their products and high prices for the things they use to produce.
I do not see very much hope in that prospect. So far as I can see, we shall bring on a depression to bring down the price structure. If we have a depression, how can we control the speed with which it develops and the distance it will go? When we get to the bottom of the depression we shall be in a condition very similar to what obtained in the thirties when, as I said a moment ago, the prices of agricultural machinery were up, the price of twine was up, the price of nails was up, everything you went to buy to produce with was at a higher price, but the products being sold by the primary producers were being sold at lower prices.
I think that is what the hon. member for Macleod really wants to know. Does the minister actually believe that, going on as we are going now, we shall have a gradual and steady recession in the price structure, until it will be down to a level comparable with what prevailed in 1946?


Mr. Larson:: Is this the depression you have been expecting for the last ten years?


John Horne Blackmore: Is the hon. member
serious? Was he just trying to be facetious?


Frederick Hugo Larson: I was just asking a question.
You have been talking about this depression for ten years. Is this the one we have been hearing about?


John Horne Blackmore: Is the minister prepared to answer my question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: If the hon. member for
Lethbridge wants me to indulge in the art of prophecy, and to say whether prices will
Supply-Finance
gradually recede to the 1946 level, I would reply that I have not the faintest idea. I personally believe that the ideal situation under existing conditions is stability of prices. I think a sharp price movement either way could cause a dislocation in the economy which would be extremely difficult to take. My personal hope is that we are in for a period of relatively stable prices.


John Horne Blackmore: If that proves to be so,
then what we have actually accomplished as a result of the financial and economic policy in Canada is a definite depreciation in the value of the Canadian dollar to the extent of about 48 per cent, since 1946; and we propose to stabilize at that point. Am I justified in drawing that conclusi<m from the minister's remarks?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Does my hon. friend wish me to answer? Is he asking a question?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. At what point does the minister propose to stabilize prices?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would not want to attempt
to pinpoint any particular level.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister has been at
so many of these conferences and participated in so many reports he has become so completely vague it is impossible for anyone to get anything from what he says.


Douglas Charles Abbott: At least these conferences have produced some advantage, Mr. Chairman.


John Horne Blackmore: We have not seen any evidence of it thus far. I do not know where you would find a gloomier picture than was painted for the House of Commons the other day in the report of the Prime Minister on the result of the meeting at Washington, and the information read into the record by the hon. member for Greenwood concerning the opinions of Mr. Butler in Great Britain.
The general feeling in this House of Commons, and apparently in Great Britain, is that there is only one possible solution to the ills of our world, and that is that the United States must lower her tariff barriers and relax import restrictions to the extent that we can send enough goods into her markets to balance our trade. That seems to be the general concept of both Canada and Great Britain. If I am wrong I would be glad to have the minister set me right.
Now, if that is the general position, then it seems to me that possibly we ought to recognize, and recognize right now, that it is not at all likely that the United States will reduce her tariffs, nor oblige us by a relaxation of import restrictions to any material extent. In other words the United States is not going to let us send goods into

Supply-Finance
her economy to displace those of her own producers, or seriously to mar their welfare. This means that our desire, and the desire of Great Britain, is going to be frustrated. And if that is the only possible way out of the difficulty in which we find ourselves, then we are not going to have that way.
What we all want to know is this. What has the minister in mind as an alternative?


Ernest George Hansell: Nothing.


John Horne Blackmore: Certainly that is a question which any responsible minister and any responsible member of parliament, facing realities as they are, not the way we imagine they should be, should ask himself. That is the question to which we should receive an answer, and a rather specific answer, at that.
For example, would the minister recommend the re-establishment of imperial preferences? Would he be willing to recommend the adoption of something similar to the Ottawa agreements, signed by members of the commonwealth in 1932? I think that is a fair question, and I think the minister is the one to answer it. Has he anything to say on that point?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, if my hon. friend is asking what has been done in order to improve Canada's trading position, I do not know that the committee would wish me at this point to embark upon a review of the numerous actions taken in the last ten or fifteen years to expand Canada's trade on a multilateral basis. We have negotiated trade agreements with a great many countries, both under the original Geneva agreement and those at Annecy and Torquay, which have resulted in a very great expansion in our trade.
I do not share the hon. member's pessimism as to the future. I believe that we shall continue in the future, as we have in the past, to trade extensively with the United States, with the United Kingdom and other members of the sterling area, and with other trading nations of the world.
He has asked me a specific question, as to whether I would be in favour of expanding the imperial preference, extending the Ottawa agreements. My answer is in the negative. Our tariff schedule now contains substantial preferences in favour of the United Kingdom and sterling area countries, as well as other commonwealth countries, and I have heard no suggestion that those preferences should be abrogated. If the hon. member is asking for my personal view, then I would say I think it would be undesirable at this time to attempt to expand that preferential system.


John Horne Blackmore: The question that arises in the mind of any realistic man is this. Why the extreme importance that seems to be attached to the refusal by the United States to admit Canadian cheese, and several other commodities? Why all the earnestness in going to Washington recently, if we feel we can solve our problems without the United States? Why was there all that extraordinary earnestness? Would the minister explain that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I doubt very much whether the administration item of the Department of Finance is the proper place to engage in a general discussion on Canada's trade policies. I said a moment ago that I do not share my hon. friend's pessimistic views as to what will happen with respect to our trade with the United States, or with other countries.
Between all trading countries there are differences of opinion. The United States congress has taken certain action with respect to the exclusion of some of our dairy products, which we feel is injurious to our economy. Appropriate protests have been made against that action. They are being considered by the United States administration; and I have no doubt that, as has always happened in the past, the United States people and congress will be most unwilling to take any action which is unfriendly to Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad to have the
minister say that he doubts this is the place in which to have a general discussion on this matter of trade. I wonder if the minister would enlighten us as to where we should discuss that matter. When we raised it on the estimates of trade and commerce we were told that the Department of Trade and Commerce had nothing to do with determining policy with respect to trade. Who is responsible for determining policy? Is not the Department of Finance responsible?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The Minister of Finance has
a special responsibility with respect to the tariff. When changes in the tariff are made they are introduced by the Minister of Finance. My hon. friend speaks generally of trade. Certainly the Minister of Trade and Commerce has greater responsibility than I in promoting the external trade of Canada. I am surprised to hear that there was any unwillingness on his part to discuss trade policies on his estimates. I think my hon. friend must have misunderstood some statement that was made.


John Horne Blackmore: I suppose probably the
tariff does have a great deal to do with

trade. Would the Ottawa agreements or an agreement comparable to the Ottawa agreements be the result of a recommendation by the Department of Finance?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I could not say, as I was not here when the Ottawa agreements were entered into. I think they were recommended by Mr. Bennett.


John Horne Blackmore: I imagine that he was
minister of finance at that time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, he doubled as prime
minister and minister of finance; that is true.


John Horne Blackmore: And did a remarkably
good job, too. I think the further we get away from Mr. Bennett the more we shall realize the greatness of his statesmanship.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: If loud retorts indicate a vacant mind, there are plenty of them over yonder. After all, I was expressing my own opinion, not necessarily the opinion of the hon. member for Jasper-Edson. I think the agreement with the British commonwealth would come under the Department of Finance. I imagine the minister has gone just about as far as he is prepared to go. He is delightfully vague as usual about this whole matter. But he leaves the Canadian people dangling pretty well in the air.
As I pointed out the other night when we were considering external affairs, we have an adverse trade balance with the United States of something over $700 million a year. Is that extreme? I think not. How long can we as a nation continue to do that? Up to the present time we have obtained the United States dollars with which to balance that adverse trade balance from Great Britain, certain sterling countries and some others. Where did they get the money with which to pay us? In large measure they got the money through such measures as the Marshall aid plan. There were several areas to which the United States granted Marshall aid, and then agreed that a considerable portion of that money should be used by the recipients of Marshall aid to buy Canadian wheat and other Canadian exports, which gave us dollars which the United States had advanced under Marshall aid.
Have we any assurance that the United States is going to continue for any considerable period of time to make such advances under Marshall aid and earmark enough of them as being eligible for expenditure in Canada to buy our wheat? Is the United States likely to continue doing that for a long enough period of time to enable us to go on buying from the United States to the
Supply-.-Finance
extent of an adverse balance of $700 million a year, and paying that back with moneys advanced by the United States, taxed or borrowed from her people?
I do not know whether the minister is optimistic enough to think she will. Suppose she does not. Suppose she stops. Then by what means do we propose to balance our trade with the United States? The minister may not wish to divulge what is in his mind in connection with this matter, but I submit that this is a vitally serious question to every Canadian. We could discuss nothing of more extreme importance right now than this very matter. I think the minister will agree that that would come under his department and this general item. The minister has nothing to say on it.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


John Horne Blackmore: We want to carry anything that is bothering us a little. If there is one all-important thing in the general management of the financial affairs of this country it is that which we have put our finger on. Not only are we running into an adverse trade balance with the United States in respect of the goods we import as against the goods she accepts from us, we are running into an adverse trade balance by reason of the extensive investments the United States is making in our country. What has the minister in mind to do about that?
Just as an illustration take my own province, in which we are all deeply interested. Is it not almost a national calamity to Canada that nearly all the money that financed the vast oil development in Alberta came from the United States? That money constitutes a debt to the United States which we shall have to service with United States dollars. Where are we going to get those dollars? Not only have we that vast oil development; we hear also of the development of iron ore that is contemplated by United States capital and which will also saddle upon this nation a dangerous accretion of debt.
There are extensive investments of United States capital in many of our business enterprises. Great numbers of Canadian securities are now in the hands of United States holders. Every single one of those investments constitutes one more contribution to the financial millstone around our necks which ultimately will sink us. I hope the minister can give us something that will allay the fears of informed Canadians in respect of all these matters.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

Supply-Finance AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, before we took recess I was bringing to the attention of the Minister of Finance some of the difficulties which, of course, he already knows all about. I was probing into his mentality, if possible, to find out what he thought could be a way out of all these difficulties; but he was singularly evasive, as he usually is; he was gracefully so, I might say even delightfully so, nevertheless he was quite evasive. I had said a good deal about the adverse trade balances which confront Canada and the tremendous debt which has been incurred by reason of United States investment in Canada and the accumulated adverse trade balances. I should now like to put on the record three charts which I hope I shall be allowed to put on without having to read.
I have had prepared a chart to show the nature of United States investments in Canada as of December 31, 1950. I think the committee will find this chart to be exceedingly interesting. If I may have the permission of the committee to put that chart on the record, I shall be delighted to do it
without going to the trouble to read it all. Have I that permission?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Will my hon. friend say who prepared that chart? What is it taken from?


John Horne Blackmore: The information is taken from the United States "Survey of Current Business", December, 1952, page 10.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is from United States sources?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. It is compiled from a United States document with which I am sure the minister is familiar.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Agreed.


John Horne Blackmore: The document is the "Survey of Current Business" in the United States. The chart is merely a compilation by one skilled in that kind of work. Have I permission to put it on the record?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no objection, Mr. Chairman.


The Chairman:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horne Blackmore: The chart is as follows:
USA Direct Investments in Canada, Dee. 31, 1950*
Classification	(Millions of Dollars) Amounts	Percentage	Canada Population (14,009,429) Per capita	Annual payments Interest dividends Sinking Funds (Thousands of dollars)	Interest Dividends Sinking Funds Annual Payments Per capita$	$	$i	Agriculture	20-5	[DOT]575181%	1-4633	1,230	[DOT]087798012	Mining and Smelting, Total	334-3	9-379647	23-8625	20,058	1-431750003	Iron	20-6	[DOT]577986	1-4704	1,236	-088226294	Gold, silver and platinum	24-9	[DOT]698634	1-7773	1,494	-106642465	Other metals	276-1	7-746696	19-7083	16,566	1-182489326	Non-Metallic Minerals	12-7	[DOT]356331	-9065	762	[DOT]054391937	Petroleum, Total	418-1	11-730871%	29-8442	25,086	1-790651138	Refining and processing	352-7	9-895906	25-1759	21,162	1-510554079	Tankers	35-7	1-001655	2-5483	2,142	[DOT]1528970210	Pipelines	29-7	[DOT]833310	2-1200	1,782	[DOT]1272000411	Manufacturing, Total	1,881-4	52-787521%	134-2953	112,884	8-0577159812	Food	213-8	5-998709	15-2612	12,828	[DOT]9156690613	Paper and Allied products	367-6	10-313964	26-2395	22,056	1-5743682314	Chemicals and Allied products	198-3	5-563816	14-1548	11,898	[DOT]8492851415	Rubber products	59-0	1-655396	4-2114	3,540	*2526869516	Primary and fabricated metals	248-6	6-975112	17-7452	14,916	1-0647114817	Machinery	203-8	5-718133	14-5473	12,228	[DOT]8728407118	Electrical Machinery, equipment, and sup-	plies	140-5	3-942089	10-0290	8,430	6017375819	Motor vehicles and their equipment	160-0	4-489211	11-4209	9,600	[DOT]6852527620	All other Manufacturing	289-8	8-131090	20-6860	17,388	1-24116407

Supply-Finance
USA Direct Investments in Canada, Dec. 31, 1950*-Continued
Classification	(Millions of Dollars) Amounts	Percentage	Canada Population (14,009,429) Per capita	Annual payments Interest dividends Sinking Funds (Thousands of dollars)	Interest Dividends Sinking Funds Annual Payments Per capita$	$	$21	Transportation and Public Utilities, Total..	284-4	7-979574%	20-3006	17,064	1-2180367922	Railroads	91-3	2-561656	6-5170	5,478	[DOT]3910223623	Water Transportation	11-7	[DOT]328273	[DOT]8352	702	[DOT]0501091124	All Other Transportation	15-8	[DOT]443309	1-1278	948	[DOT]0676687125	Communication	11-2	[DOT]314244	[DOT]7995	672	[DOT]0479676926	Electric Light, Power & Gas	154-4	4-332092	11-0211	9,264	[DOT]6612689227	Trade, Total	240-1	6-736623%	17-1385	14,406	1-0283074328	Wholesale Trade	179-2	5-027917	12-7914	10,752	[DOT]7674831029	Retail Trade	60-9	1-708706	4-3471	3,654	[DOT]2608243330	Finance and Insurance, Total	313-2	8-787632%	22-3564	18,792	1-3413822931	Banking and Other finance	105-9	2-971297	7-5592	6,354	[DOT]4535516732	Holding Companies	12-4	[DOT]347914	[DOT]8851	744	[DOT]0531070833	Insurance	194-9	5-468421	13-9121	11,694	[DOT]8347235434	Miscellaneous, Total	72-1	2-022951%	5-1465	4,326	[DOT]3087920235	Real Estate	9-5	[DOT]266547	-6781	570	[DOT]0406868836	Motion Pictures	22-9	[DOT]642518	1-6346	1,374	[DOT]0980768037	All Other	39-7	1-113886	2-8338	2,382	[DOT]17002834Grand Total	3,564-1	100-000000%	254-4072	213,846	15-26443368Bank of Canada data, as per Contra	1,315-2	93-8796	78,912	5-63277776Grand Total	4,879-3	348-2868	292,758	20-89721144
* USA Survey of Current Business-December 1952-page 10.
I have had prepared another chart which shows the amount outstanding and owing to United States investors in our federal government bonds, in our provincial bonds and in our municipal bonds. It is more or less a breakdown of certain aspects of our commitments to the United States. It is compiled from the statistical summary of the Bank of Canada, January, 1953, page 8, by one skilled in doing that kind of work. If I have the permission of the committee, I will put that on the record.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps I should point out that, as I am informed, the printing bureau have difficulty in printing a chart as such, especially photostatic copies. However, if it is submitted with the consent of the committee, they will do their best in order to have these charts printed in Hansard.


John Horne Blackmore: They are all clear. I believe the bureau can set them up. At least we desire to have them on the record. With the consent of the committee I will put this chart on the record. I am desirous of saving the time of the committee. The chart is as follows:

Supply-Finance
USA INVESTMENTS IN CANADA Dec. 31, 1952
		Percentage	Per Capita
Federal Government*	337-7	25-6767%	$24-1051CNR Guaranteed by Government	5-8	[DOT]4409	-4141CNR Unguaranteed	[DOT]6	[DOT]0457	[DOT]0428Total	344-1	26-1633%	$24-5620Prince Edward Island	2-4	[DOT]1825%	$24-3830Nova Scotia Direct	21-3	1-6195	33-3030Nova Scotia Guaranteed	7-8	[DOT]5931	12-1384New Brunswick Direct	9-7	[DOT]7375	18-809472-8	5 .5353	17-Qsni97-0	7 [DOT] 3754.	91[DOT]0089Ontario Guaranteed	4-9	[DOT]3725	1-0657Manitoba	19-4	1-4751	94[DOT]082,5Saskatchewan	38-8	2-9502	46-6498British Columbia	34-9	2-6535	29-9516Total Provincial	309-0	23-4946%	$24-3625Municipal	187-7	14*2715%	*19.9081Corporation	474-4	36-0706	33-8629Total	$662[DOT]1	50-3421%	$47-2610Grand Total	$1,315-2	100-0000%	$93-8796
Statistical Summary Bank of Canada-January 1953-page 8.
Then I have had prepared a third chart which shows our adverse trade balance during the years 1946 to 1952 inclusive. I had that compiled from information taken from the Canada Year Book, 1951, page 909, and the Canada Year Book, 1951, page 917, and the
dominion bureau of statistics. If I have the permission of the committee, I will put that chart on the record.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horne Blackmore: The chart is as follows:

Supply-Finance


USA-CANADA TRADE BALANCES
[Stage Direction]
Years	Imports from USA 0)	Per Capita	Exports to USA (2)	Per Capita	Excess Imports	Excess Imports Per Capita$	$	$	$	$	$1946	1,405,296,699	114-1868	887,940,676	72-1493	517,356,023	42-03751947	1,974,679,178	156-9447	1,034,226,394	82-1988	940,452,784	74-74591948	1,805,762,785	140-1663	1,500,986,721	116-5091	304,776,064	23-65721949	1,951,860,065	144-0593	1,503,458,711	110-9646	448,401,354	33-09471950	2,130,500,000s	153-8822	2,050,500,000*	148-1040	80,000,000	5-77821951	2,812,900,000	200-7861	2,333,900,000	166-5949	479,000,000	34-19121952	2,977,000,000	212-4997	2,349,100,000	167-6799	627,900,000	44-819815,057,998,727	11,660,112,502	3,397,886,225	
Source:
(*) Canada Year Book, 1951, page 909
(2)	Canada Year Book, 1951, page 917
(3)	Dominion Bureau of Statistics
(4)	Dominion Bureau of Statistics
I believe these charts will give a summary of the essential figures involved in the whole vexatious and anxious problem about which the minister is worrying as much as are the rest of us, and which I was referring to before we took recess.
I should like now to point out this situation. With all these deficit balances on our trading account plus the interest and sinking funds, etc., which Canada must pay to United States investors whose holdings are enumerated in the first chart I submitted, I ask the minister and the government again what policy has the government in mind in order to extricate Canada from these pressing debts, bearing in mind that their payment must be made in United States dollars or in gold?
United States dollars can be obtained only by selling goods to the United States. The disposition of the United States to accept our goods is going to be less favourable as the days go by, as that great nation approaches self-sufficiency. One of the main reasons why that great nation is going to hesitate to take many of our goods is that they are mortally afraid of the onslaught of a depression and unemployment. In 1935-this is just a little bit off the subject, but it shows exactly the kind of thing that is in the minds of many Americans who are best informed-the United States had 23,500,000 people on relief and 15 million unemployed. They do not want to get into any such condition as that
again. They are in danger of doing it if there is an amicable settlement between us and communism. They know they were in danger of descending into that condition before the Korean war started. They do not want in their country any goods which are going to put people on the unemployment rolls in the United States. Every bit of goods we ship into the United States, and which they could make, will put unemployed on their rolls. Surely we as Canadians must face that fact. They are in a position to become largely self-sufficient.
Bearing all this in mind, everyone must realize that the question I have raised is of most vital moment to every person in Canada, and to our children and their children's children yet unborn.
I feel the time has come to start on this problem right now. If we cannot pay our adverse trade balance with the United States now, we shall be less able to do so in five years. The whole nation of Canada is now mortgaged almost to the hilt to the United States, and the United States could foreclose.
I will ask the minister this question, and there is no need for him to try to answer it because he cannot do so: How in the world would you deal with the situation if they did foreclose? Obviously the first thing to do now is to stop importing from the United States the things we can get from elsewhere. If United States investments are embarrassing us and putting us into a bondage impossible to get out of, surely it is high time we
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Finance
began to limit the investment of United States capital in Canada. We must find a way to do it, but it can be done.
I think I shall just leave that question. I will not embarrass the minister by asking him to answer. I know of the difficulties with which he is confronted almost as well as he knows them, even though he is in his present position and has had much experience with it.
I know the minister is desirous of getting his estimates through the committee. If the minister would prefer it, I shall be pleased to defer a number of other things I should like to say on this occasion, if he will just allow this particular item to stand until he gets the rest of his items through and will let me speak at that time. Then we shall not be delaying the whole progress of the house and worrying the minister. Does the minister agree with that? Can we let this item stand until the rest of his estimates are through and then let me go on to say the things I want to say?
Douglas Charles Abbott: I think it might be better to proceed as we have in the past, dealing with the administrative item first and then going on with the other items. I know my hon. friend always has a number of points that he wants to bring forward on this item. I think probably it would be as convenient for the committee to deal with them now as later.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, Mr. Chairman, first may I say I do believe there is a way out, but the trouble is that we have not begun to use the way out. I shall refer to the province of Alberta. In 1935 the debt situation in Alberta looked absolutely impossible, but today in that province we are completely free from debt. Well, how was it done?


Mr. Prudham:: They shifted it to the municipalities.


John Horne Blackmore: Oh, but the municipalities would have increased their debt, no matter what may have been done by the government. Besides, our increased municipal debt is carried at a low rate of interest, 2 per cent for a 20-year term. If those municipalities had borrowed in New York they would have been paying 5 per cent interest.
I would just like to have a right good-I do not know exactly what word I should use but I would like to take the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys to the mat. I tell him that in respect of all his talk against Alberta I can reduce him to mincemeat. He has not a leg to stand on, and he is standing in the light of his own province, a thing which is a shame for any member from that province to do.
The situation in Alberta in 1935 looked as impossible as the situation in the rest

of Canada now does, but by wise and courageous measures we cleared ourselves. I may tell the committee that, by the use of monetary techniques which had already been used in Canada before the day of the Bank of Canada, we can deal with these vexatious problems and extricate ourselves from this dangerous debt situation within a surprisingly short time. I could tell the committee how it can be done but I have not time to do that tonight. It would take quite a long time.
Now, then, if the minister desires to go straight ahead I want to put before him three or four more problems. I want to ask him whether the people of Canada face indefinitely an appalling housing situation such as afflicts us today. Can he conceive of no way of advancing loans for the building of houses other than through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation? Is that the best he can do when money could be made available at 1-J per cent? We are holding people up at the scandalous rate of interest which mortgage organizations are charging, 5J per cent, when Alberta alone has put herself in the position where she can lend at 2 per cent. What on earth is the matter with the Minister of Finance of Canada?


An hon. Member:: He looks pretty good.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, he looks pretty good until you know about his deficiencies, and I am giving you some of them. They do not all belong to the minister, and I will say this for him! I believe he has administered the financial affairs of Canada as well as any of his predecessors since Sir Thomas White. The blame should be given to the inadequacy of the monetary instrument he is dealing with. It is not lack of skill on his part, or of ability or of integrity or any of the other fine qualities that make a minister of finance. It is the fact that he is bound by restrictions -restrictions by which he has no right to be bound, restrictions placed on him by this House of Commons in 1934 when it established the Bank of Canada.
May I return to the housing problem? Surely anyone can see that it is just grotesque, that it is fantastic, that this nation should be afflicted with a housing situation such as now prevails.
The minister has already confessed that the price structure is quite beyond him. I would like to ask him next if the people of Canada have to settle themselves down to a taxation burden like the one we are now enduring, something which constitutes downright oppression and tyranny the like of which no Anglo-Saxon people in this world have ever before endured. Can he offer any way out of that? If he cannot he is a complete

failure, or the system behind him is; and it is the system. We cannot neglect this taxation outrage.
Then we have a defence situation which is filling every Canadian with anxiety and apprehension. Last night, I think, I heard over the radio a report to the effect that General Ridgway before very long is going to make an announcement which will almost paralyse us all, telling about the inadequacy of the NATO organization in Europe. We should have been putting forth our efforts to building up the British commonwealth to what it was in 1914, which we could have done. Instead of that we have neglected the British commonwealth and all the splendid capacity it had because we have been following after one of the alphabetic monstrosities of our time, this NATO, which is only, as I say, a mirage.
Now, is the minister prepared to do anything about that? Does he see anything he can do? I ask him to be rather specific. Does he see anything he can do to build up the British commonwealth and restore Britain to her former fighting strength? He knows what she needs. She needs something to take the place of the foreign investments which she lost in two world wars for us. She needs something which will give her goods for which she does not have to trade other goods. Now, is there any man in Canada, including the Minister of Finance, who says it is physically beyond the power of Canada to help Britain back on her feet and to regain the fighting strength she had in 1914? For him to say it is, is for him to be just utterly unrealistic. All the minister needs to do is use the financial and monetary system in Canada in an intelligent and forwardlooking way to make what is physically possible for Canada financially possible.
Again the international trade prospect is far, far from encouraging. The other night the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave a fine, glowing foreign trade speech in glittering generalities. When I began to probe into the details behind the general statement he had nothing to say. He could not give a detailed answer in respect of any one of these glowing prospects which were deceiving him like a glittering mirage on the desert. There must be a way out of our trade situation. Our fundamental need is to sell goods abroad. Well, we sold goods abroad under the Dominion Notes Act of 1868 during world war I and under the Dominion Notes Act and the Finance Act of 1914, both passed by this house. Under those two acts the Dominion of Canada through the Minister of Finance, Sir Thomas White, printed $50 million
Supply-Finance
worth of debt-free and interest-free currency. With that currency the government bought $50 million worth of Canadian goods and gave the goods to Britain without interest and without debt.
Will anyone pretend for a second that the same device could not be used today to sell abroad as much goods as Canada found it necessary to sell abroad, in excess of those goods for which she could accept goods? The story is all told in the report of the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada published in 1933, page 22, paragraph 47. May I suggest that the minister get all his departmental officials or enough of them- and not the ones from the London school of economics, for they are no good at all- and have them read paragraph 47 of this report. Then they should read Sir Thomas White's comments on the findings of the commission which were forced on Canada against the better judgment of Beaudry Leman and Sir Thomas White, who were the best informed men on finance in Canada. Read what Sir Thomas White said about this matter on pages 85 to 91. I should like to read into the record a good many of the things he said. He said the devices that were used during world war I were not by any means inflationary; they were sound. The Right Hon. W. S. Fielding says almost the same thing at page 23 of the report. If the minister must keep graduates of the London school of economics around him, well let him put them to school under someone who can face the realities as the realities are. The international trade problem is not impossible to solve.
Let me ask one other question to bring it to the minister's attention. It is rumoured today quite definitely, I understand, that the steel companies intend to ask for an advance in the price of steel, starting in the United States. Undoubtedly that will be followed with a similar request in Canada. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, for about the tenth time in this house since I have been here, that the present so-called inflation in this country was induced largely by an advance of $5 a ton in the price of steel in 1946. Then the consequent strike of steel workers forced up wages. There is no answer to that statement. I say that if we have another advance in the price of steel we shall have another dangerous rise in prices, which will further cut down the value of the Canadian dollar.
What would the minister do in case there was a request for an increase of $5 per ton in the price of steel? What would he do about that? Would he let that go on, as he did in 1946 or as his colleagues forced him to do, bringing on another terrible rise in

Supply-Finance
prices and cutting down the value of the Canadian dollar another 50 per cent? Would he do that or would he know something he could do about it? Social Credit would know.
The minister could meet the situation with debt-free money issued under an act like the finance acts of 1914 and 1923, which acts were thrown into the discard by the passing of the Bank of Canada Act. That is the great crime that was committed against Canada, the passing of the Bank of Canada Act! This power of creating money which the dominion government had exercised ever since 1868, was rendered unavailable to the finance minister by the passage of the Bank of Canada Act in 1934. Apparently the people who passed the act were not aware of the terrible damage which was being done.
Now, I do not imagine that a London school of economics graduate would do anything but laugh about that, and feel quite smart; but he would just be foolish. One of the greatest disadvantages we have in Canada is that we are guided too much by the graduates of the London school of economics. Sir Thomas White knew more about finance than all the graduates of the London school of economics we have in Canada. He went through about eight years of financing, and he financed world war I. He tells about it in the report of the commission on banking and currency in Canada. Why do not the Conservatives of Canada read about it and tell us about the achievements of their great finance minister, Sir Thomas White?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We have another good one coming on now. We are all ready to take over.


John Horne Blackmore: You had better indicate it by your words. There is no evidence from what any Conservative speaker has said on the floor of this house in the last eight years that the Conservatives know one single thing different from that which is being carried on by the Minister of Finance. They have not anything to offer at all. They only have a lot more of what we have too much of already.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We are not trying to put him through school. We took it for granted he had been there. We are all ready.


John Horne Blackmore: You are all ready until you get into position. Now those are all questions which any responsible member in this house ought to ask of the minister, and to which he ought to have an answer.
I had thought of going into considerable detail concerning how these various problems, could be solved. Let me just give attention

to one or two. Suppose we have to deal with the problem of United States investors. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, this question, and I shall ask it of the minister straight to his face. Is there any reason under the sun why the money which discovered and developed oil in Alberta should not have come out of the Bank of Canada?


Ernest George Hansell: No answer.


John Horne Blackmore: There is no answer. Ask your London school of economics graduates, and what will they say? They will say that it could not possibly come out of the Bank of Canada. We just had to have United States capital come in here. We have to have it come in here to develop our iron resources. What nonsense! Back in the days of Sir Thomas White, and away back beyond that in 1868, men knew better than that.
Let us take this matter of clearing ourselves of the serious financial difficulty as regards the United States in which we are now. Suppose that we were to take the wonderful coal fields in Alberta and, by using national credit, were to develop those coal fields so that we could generate electricity from them. Supposing national credit were used and the coal fields of Alberta were developed in such a way as to produce electricity, and that development were so managed that the electricity could be introduced into the United States on a competitive basis, there is enough energy in the coal fields of Alberta to extricate this nation completely from debt within 15 years if the national credit were wisely used. That is what Social Credit could do. It would not be repudiating debts or doing anything else injurious to anybody. It would be a matter of using the financial techniques which are known to men today and could be used by men to the advantage of this nation.
I think I shall say no more at the present time. I may have a little more to say later on. In closing I urge everybody with any responsibility in Canada to look into the report of the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada. Do not listen to those Englishmen who came over from London to sit on the commission, and who were apparently put there to enslave this nation financially. Do not depend on them. Listen to the two great Canadians on the commission, Beaudry Leman and Sir Thomas White. Read what they had to say. They told us that the Bank of Canada was going to be in, the way, that with it we would not be as able to cope with the difficulties which were going to confront us. Look at what has happened. I venture to say that the Bank of Canada has not done one thing for

Canada that was not done by the Department of Finance under Sir Thomas White, and done just as well as the Bank of Canada ever will do it. To have traded the power to create debt-free money for the Bank of Canada was certainly a fatuous deal. It was selling this nation down the river. Until we redress the wrong committed when we passed the Bank of Canada Act, we cannot get out of these various difficulties I have asked about. If we do redress that wrong, we can get out of the difficulties.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two general questions which should be asked before we leave the first item. Will the minister say a word about the size of the staff compared with a year ago? While he is on his feet, will he also answer this? I understand that his staff is well over 4,000. I have asked this question before, but with such a large organization has he thought it well to get outside efficiency experts to consider the organization of these 4,000? It seems like a lot to organize.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The contemplated increase in the coming year over the past year is 21. The total last year was 4,886, and by far the greater number, of course, are on the staff of the comptroller of the treasury. As my hon. friend appreciates, that is a large staff because the comptroller has officers in every department of government, including the House of Commons. The contemplated total this year is 4,907. If I may say so, I think that increase is rather modest, considering the largely expanded volume of work, due in part to the Old Age Security Act which came in last year. It is pointed out to me also that the expanding volume of work in connection with defence has affected it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister say a word on the other part of my question, whether he has sought any outside assistance.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, I have not enlisted any outside assistance. My own view is that the personnel section of the treasury board itself is a pretty competent section. It is the section under the assistant deputy minister in charge of the treasury board side of the operation of the department which, in collaboration with the civil service commission, exercises direction and control over the civil service personnel, and I have never felt that up to the present we needed any people outside.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister realizes that I am not in the least critical, but having had some experience with a very much smaller organization, may I say that we did think it worth while from time to time
Supply-Finance
to get somebody to come in from the outside and have a look in order to get a fresh outlook.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As my hon. friend knows, we have had outside assistance in several departments, as a matter of fact in the Department of National Defence, the film board and some others. There have been reports, and I am informed that we use the organization and methods unit of the civil service commission for the purpose of making a constant review.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When these estimates were under discussion a year ago the question of the commodity prices board came up. I do not know whether this is a proper place to discuss it, but at that time we contemplated that it might be dissolved by this time. I do not find an item for it in the estimates.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We are asking no vote for that organization this year, and the application is now in hand for the surrender of its charter.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not going to ask a question, but to make an observation. It amazes me that with 4,000 men the Minister of Finance cannot put their brains all together and answer the hon. member for Lethbridge.
(Translation):


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) if the federal government intends to issue bilingual cheques in Canada? If so, are they distributed in all provinces or only in a few?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, bilingual
cheques are, at this time, issued in the province of Quebec only. This question of bilingual cheques is a very difficult one and, as I said to the delegation I received the other day, bilingual cheques will be issued in the other provinces as soon as circumstances will allow.
Bilingualism is spreading rather rapidly throughout this country. It goes without saying that I am in favour of bilingualism and as it was firmly established in this country without giving rise to any annoying problems, I hope that the same policy will be followed in the future.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the Minister of Finance for his answer; however, he will certainly not be surprised if I say that it does not satisfy me. Bilingualism must exist everywhere in Canada and I take this opportunity to protest vigorously against the injustice being done to a million French Canadians living outside the province of Quebec.

Supply

Finance
Our constitution does not provide any exception for the province of Quebec in the matter of bilingualism. Both languages are official everywhere in Canada, from coast to coast, be it in regard to money orders, stamps or banknotes.
I do not know of anybody in Canada, whether of English, Scottish, Chinese or European origin, having refused federal government cheques because they bore a French inscription. Therefore, I would ask the minister to issue bilingual cheques not only in the province of Quebec, but in all provinces of Canada in order to place the two great races of this country on an equal footing.
I do not want to lengthen unduly this debate, but I wish to say to the minister that the delegates who came to see him recently in that connection may have been satisfied with his reply, but I certainly am not. It adds nothing to what we already knew. The minister who fulfils his mandate in a remarkable way, who represents a Montreal constituency and is well conversant with the situation of French Canadians in our province and in the country, should be the first to ask that bilingual cheques be issued not only for the citizens of the province of Quebec, but for all the citizens of our country.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to my hon. friend's remarks. For the moment, there is nothing I can add to what I have already said.
(Text):


Albany M. Robichaud: I did not intend to take part in this debate at this stage at all, but in view of the question which has been put to the Minister of Finance by my confrere, the hon. member for Chicoutimi, I would be remiss in my duty, representing as I do the French Acadians of the province of New Brunswick, if I did not rise to protest in the most energetic manner against the injustice which is being meted out by this department, or by this government, to over a million French Canadians throughout Canada.
It is all very well for the minister to rise in his place tonight, in answer to a question put to him by the hon. member for Chicoutimi, and say, as he said in French a moment ago -and I must congratulate the minister for answering the hon. member for Chicoutimi in fluent French-"I received a delegation". We know that. "And I told the delegation that this was a very difficult question." The minister also told this delegation that there was no objection of any technical nature to the issuing of bilingual cheques in the Dominion of Canada, not alone in the province of Quebec.
Why, Mr. Chairman, make a special reserve of the grand old province of Quebec, and

neglect the rights of the rest of the Frenchspeaking people of Canada? I stand to be corrected if the Minister of Finance did not say to this delegation that there was no technical objection to the issuing of bilingual cheques. I stand to be corrected; but I point out to the minister-perhaps he already knows it-that in my province of New Brunswick, according to the official statistics, there are 100,712 of my people who speak nothing but the French language. In my province of New Brunswick there are also 96,095 who speak mainly French. But I wish to underline for the attention of the minister, and this government particularly, that there are in the province of New Brunswick over 100,000 French Acadians who speak nothing but French. And what about Manitoba? And what about Ontario? What about the French Acadians of Nova Scotia, of Prince Edward Island, of Newfoundland?


Mr. Balcom:: English.


An hon. Member:: What about them?


Albany M. Robichaud: Who said they speak English? And what difference does it make if they do speak English?


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: The Acadians of Nova Scotia speak English as well as French.


Albany M. Robichaud: I think I am an Acadian, and I speak English as well as French. But this does not take away our right to have our constitutional rights respected. Because we are able to speak both languages I do not think we should be blamed either in this House of Commons or anywhere else. I believe any man who possesses knowledge of and can speak two languages is worth two men. And that is more than my hon. friend over there, who has just interrupted me, can say for himself.
Mr. Chairman, there are 300,000 Frenchspeaking Acadians, French-speaking Canadians, in the maritime provinces, including Newfoundland. And again I say, what about Manitoba? What about Ontario? Are we going to be debarred from our right to have bilingual cheques just because this government sees fit to issue such cheques only in the province of Quebec?
I was not a member of the house but I remember reading Hansard of 1930. Let the Minister of Finance go back to 1930, to 1932, to 1933 and to 1936, and read the very able and eloquent speeches made in this House of Commons by some of the leaders of his own party. Let the Minister of Finance read the speeches made in this House of Commons by my late predecessor, the Hon. P. J. Veniot, who was postmaster general at the time he introduced bilingual stamps in Canada. Let him read, I repeat, the famous speeches made

in this House of Commons by his Liberal predecessors who put up such a brilliant defence of the universal bilingual character of Canadian money. And I submit-


Mr. Applewhaiie:: And you voted against him.


Albany M. Robichaud: I was not a member of the house at the time. Had I been here I would have voted for it. Mr. Chairman, I submit that bilingual money consecrated the principle of universal bilingualism in Canada, and that is in the very domain where Canadian cheques constitute an integral part. There is no argument which will convince me, nor will there be any argument which will convince the French-speaking people of Canada, that the Minister of Finance or this government can now refuse the issuing of bilingual cheques throughout Canada, and reserve them for the province of Quebec alone.
Had I been better prepared I could have made some further remarks on the premises I have just established. But, Mr. Chairman, before resuming my seat I wish to conclude by reading an article which appeared in Le Droit of April 21, 1953. This article contains a resume of the arguments which, had I the time, I could place before you tonight, in favour of the immediate issuing of bilingual cheques throughout Canada.
It is all right for the Minister of Finance to stand up in his wizardly way and say, "Oh, we are giving this matter great and grave consideration, and probably it will come". We are not satisfied with that. We believe the time has come, indeed the time is past, when bilingual cheques should have been issued throughout Canada. I well remember some years ago when the French people in my province made a drive to have the T. Eaton Company issue French catalogues in New Brunswick. Oh, at first we were told that they would not distribute French catalogues east of Matapedia. We protested; and we finally induced them-because we had a good case-to give the French people of my native province French catalogues.
Now, if the T. Eaton Company-which, after all, is but a company-could be induced by our argument to give us French catalogues, why cannot our federal government be likewise persuaded to issue bilingual cheques throughout Canada? I can hear hon. members, especially those from the province of Quebec, going out on the hustings within a few weeks and posing as the great patriots of Canada when they address French meetings. But I say to them tonight: Why don't you rise, you Liberal members from Quebec, and support the hon. member for Chicoutimi,
Supply-Finance
if you do not want to support me, and urge upon your government the issuing of bilingual cheques. If 80 French-speaking members in this House of Commons would rise and unite as one, then I am sure the government could not resist and we would have bilingual cheques in Canada, as we are entitled to have them.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: How do you like that, Fergie?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You will always hear the loud noise from the cracked bell. Keep on clanging.


Albany M. Robichaud: I wish now to quote two paragraphs which appeared in Le Droit. With the permission of hon. members I shall read them into the record. They say:
(Translation):
There are not two kinds of French Canadians.
Because the issuing of bilingual cheques by the federal government raises a question of principle, it is impossible for us to budge from the position we have taken: we do not and cannot accept that federal cheques be bilingual in Quebec and unilingual in the rest of the country. We demand bilingual cheques for all provinces, for the French Canadians are at home and enjoy the same rights everywhere in their country. On the federal plane, we refuse to admit that Canada is an English country with one bilingual province.
In denouncing what we call "linguistic apartheid", we have nothing against any person in particular. We are fighting against a theory and a system. We are opposed to any restrictive interpretation of bilingualism, an interpretation which actually denies French Canadians living outside Quebec the rights which are recognized in the old province. When they go outside Quebec, French Canadians do not lose their nationality. The same sections of the constitution which guarantee the rights of the French language and the same measures which ensure their implementation must apply as well outside as inside the province of Quebec. There are not two kinds of French Canadians, neither are there two interpretations of the same constitutional texts.
(Text):
Mr. Chairman, I leave as my last word by way of recommendation to the minister and the government, the translation of these last words from the above quoted paragraph: "There are no two kinds of French Canadians; neither are there two interpretations of the same constitutional texts".


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the remarks of my hon. friend from Gloucester. I would remind him that bilingual money and bilingual stamps were introduced by a Liberal government, not by a Conservative government.


Albany M. Robichaud: That is what I said.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I appreciate that. I am one who believes in bilingualism, and I practise what I preach. Unfortunately I do not speak French as well as I speak English, though I speak French pretty well.

Supply-Finance
The growth of bilingualism in Canada, I am happy to say, has been fairly rapid. It has my full support, as I said a few moments ago in reply to the hon. member for Chicoutimi; and my own hope is that more and more Canadians whose mother tongue is English will learn to understand and speak French. The constitutional position, which no one knows better than my hon. and learned friend from Gloucester, is that the French and English languages are official in the province of Quebec and in the parliament of Canada.


Albany M. Robichaud: And in the Supreme Court of Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: From a purely constitutional standpoint, French is not official in any other province of Canada. As I say, I am happy that the use of the French language has been extended to other provinces. There are French-language radio stations in other provinces of Canada. I am one who is happy to see that that has taken place.
Personally I deprecate making questions of this kind political issues, because I do not think they should be political issues. Unfortunately they are questions which can arouse emotions rather than reason. In answering the hon. member for Chicoutimi I said that good progress has already been made in extending bilingualism into other parts of Canada. My personal belief is that that can be effected much better and more in the interests of Canadian unity by persuasion than by violent speeches on one side or the other of this house.
My hon. friend is quite right when he says there is no technical objection to extending bilingualism to other parts of Canada. Of course he will appreciate that there is a difference between cheques and instruments like postage stamps. One cannot stop the use of money or stamps at the boundary, let us say, of the province of Quebec. I told the delegation which came to see me that I hoped and believed that the use of bilingual cheques would be extended throughout Canada as soon as circumstances would permit. I should hope that that might be achieved without raising controversies which would not be in the interests of Canadian unity.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Chairman, I listened intently to the speech of the hon. member for Gloucester. I do not think I am wrong in saying that he was daring members from Quebec to support the motion made by the hon. member for Chicoutimi and himself. All Liberal members as well as Conservative members of this house are anxious to have bilingualism established throughout Canada. As the minister has said, he is in favour of

bilingualism and so are we. We may not be able to speak as loudly or with the eloquence of the hon. member, but even though we do not get up very often in the house to talk about bilingualism the hon. member might be surprised to know of the gatherings we have in connection with bilingualism and justice to be rendered to French Canadians at large. I do not want to be too hard on him or on his party, but if we-


Albany M. Robichaud: Be as hard as you wish; I am prepared for you.


Pierre Gauthier: So am I for you. I have seen others in 25 years. Just to give a little history, I remember that in 1934 a motion was presented by Mr. Boulanger, the then member for Bellechasse, but it was talked out. Then there was a motion by Mr. Gobeil which was talked out as well. In 1936 Bill No. 82 was presented by Mr. Dunning, then minister of finance, and under section 15 as I remember it there was a long and fiery discussion on the whole subject of bilingual money.
Mr. Bennett, then leader of the opposition and chief of the Conservative party, stated in the debate that it was wrong of the Liberal party to bring up that question on the floor of the house. He said there was bilingual money because he had ordered the printing of French and English bills. It was not French and English on the same bill; there were French bills and English bills, and he considered that that was bilingualism.
If my hon. friend wants to read some good speeches on this question I would refer him to one made by his former leader, Mr. Bennett, who said that bilingualism in Canada was a concession to French Canadians. The Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe said we did not need concessions, that it was our right to speak both languages, to speak French in the house, to have bilingual money and bilingual cheques. Let him read the speech made by the Right Hon. Minister of Agriculture and he will have something to talk about. Let him read the speech by Mr. Cardin and he will see what bilingualism means to the Liberal party. He will see that the Liberal party has done its best to spread bilingualism in Canada.
As the minister has said, there is no technical difficulty, but there are other difficulties. My hon. friend, who is a good French-speaking Acadian, knows of those difficulties as well as I do.


Albany M. Robichaud: What are they?


Pierre Gauthier: The people in your district know what are the causes for these delays in bilingualism in Canada. You know that.


Mr, Robichaud:: That is not an answer to my question.


Pierre Gauthier: Just go through your district and you will find the answer in your soul or heart.


An hon. Member:: He has not one.


Pierre Gauthier: Yes, he has one. We know the difficulties, and so does the hon. member. Not very long ago an hon. member of his own party asked the Minister of Finance why he had sent out formulas printed in French to the province of Ontario.


An hon. Member:: Forget about it.


Pierre Gauthier: I will not forget about it. If I had been aware that this debate would take place I would be able to give my hon. friend the reference.
(Translation) :


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: We, in the province of Quebec, receive English forms and are not always complaining.
(Text):


Pierre Gauthier: We have given a good example which has been followed in Canada. Canada is considered to be the prototype of bilingualism and we should be proud of that. Let me give a personal illustration. I have four children who all speak two languages, some of them speaking three and four. My wife is one of the best French-Canadian women to be found among French-Canadian women and she taught English to her husband and her four children. That is a good sign that French Canadians are in favour of bilingualism. They give a good example in that way. Lots of Englishspeaking Canadians follow that example. If that practice were universal there would be no difficulties left in Canada. We have had an example tonight where the Englishspeaking Minister of Finance answered my hon. friend in good French. If examples like that are followed we will soon see bilingualism flourishing throughout Canada.
My hon. friend said we were going into an election, and that we have many declarations to make. Yes, we are. We are going to dig into the past and present records. That is our right and privilege, and we are going to do it. We are preparing for it as my hon. friend is preparing. I do not want to let my temper get the best of me. I want to sit down. But may I tell my hon. friend to continue to set a good example, to continue to emphasize the fact that we are a bilingual country and to continue to try to get this belief shared by all his fellow members of the Conservative party.
Supply-Finance
(Translation):


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say to to the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) that it is not a question of French Canadians setting an example and it is especially not a question of the French Canadians of the province of Quebec asking for privileges. We do not care-


Pierre Gauthier: Others have said so before you.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: It is not the hon. member for Portneuf who said it before me, nor will he say it after me.


Pierre Gauthier: Of course not; it was said by the Hon. Mr. Lapointe, a Liberal.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: The hon. member for Portneuf seems to believe that French Canadians should be satisfied with what they are getting.


Pierre Gauthier: I never said that.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I did not interrupt the hon. member for Portneuf when he was speaking and I would ask him to let me finish my remarks.


Pierre Gauthier: You don't speak loudly enough.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order!


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I am surprised to see how subservient the hon. member for Portneuf and his Liberal colleagues are when their party is in power, when they were so vocal in favour of bilingual money and postage stamps for the whole of Canada when they were sitting on the opposition side in 1930. It is the responsibility of this government to grant bilingual cheques to Canadians, whether they live in the province of Quebec, in British Columbia, in Alberta, or in the constituency of my hon. friend, the county of Gloucester. This is a right that we are claiming, a right granted to us under the constitution of this country and of which nobody can deprive us. We are only asking the present government to recognize this right and, along with the hon. member for Portneuf and his fellow members from the Liberal party, I admit that that party has given us the most, so far as bilingualism in Canada is concerned. I ask the government tonight, to give us bilingual cheques, because I know that in the past it has been fair to us and that it could do us justice once more.
That is all I want to say tonight to the Minister of Finance. I am astonished to note that the hon. member for Portneuf seems to believe that we are indulging in opposition merely for the sake of it. We are just asking-

Supply-Finance


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: There is no question of privilege.


André Gauthier: Yes, there is. The hon. member is distorting the meaning of what I have just said.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for
Chicoutimi must resume his seat when an hon. member raises a question of privilege. The hon. member for Portneuf has risen on a question of privilege and in order to know whether he is entitled to rise for that purpose, I must at least listen to what he has to say.


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, the rules forbid an hon. member to impute motives to one of his colleagues. The hon. member for Chicoutimi, in distorting my words, has said all sorts of things which are but figments of his mind. I would simply ask him to understand, once and for all, that we are in favour of bilingualism, 150 per cent if need be. Is that sufficiently clear?


Albany M. Robichaud: Give us bilingual cheques.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Portneuf, I must tell him that I did not impute anything to him. I cannot impute to him any ideas, because he has none.


Pierre Gauthier: Is it you who has
none, or I?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I am speaking of the member for Portneuf. You cannot impute intelligence to anybody if he is without it or has to borrow it from someone else. You cannot impute motives to somebody who shows none.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I do not believe the hon.
member for Chicoutimi is allowed to say of another member that he has to borrow intelligence. I believe he should withdraw those words.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: If the hon. member for Portneuf or anybody else in this house has been hurt by what I have said, I am ready to withdraw.
Once more, we are asking for bilingual cheques, just as the Liberals asked the Bennett government for bilingual banknotes.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of various acts and costs of special functions-
112.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $740,953.
Mr. Catherwood:: I should like to ask the minister what is the total estimated cost of the additions and alterations to the mint. I

should also like to ask him as to what extent the estimated construction and acquisition of this new equipment will facilitate the production at the mint.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The total acquisition of equipment for this year is $740,953. That represents the major part of the new equipment to be put in the expanded facilities at the mint.
Coinage has increased from 5,027,507 pieces in 1908 to well over 100 million pieces at the present time. My understanding is that this increase in the physical facilities of the mint is the first major increase that has taken place since 1908.
The mint has been operating at more than rated capacity, if I may use the industrial phrase. The demand for subsidiary coin, due no doubt to the large increase in the volume of business transactions, has been extremely great. The master of the mint is hopeful that this equipment will be installed before the end of the current fiscal year.
I must say that I should like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the efficient work which is being done at the mint. For instance, in addition to the large volume of regular work which has been going on, the mint has been able to get a design approved and turn out over 3 million medallions which are now ready to be distributed to school children throughout Canada, through the provinces, to commemorate Her Majesty's coronation.
I do not know whether or not I gave my hon. friend the particular information he asked for, but that gives him an indication of the increase in the volume of business turned out by the mint since the original facilities were installed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
113.	Administration of employees' instalment purchase plan, including sale and delivery of Canada savings bonds to government employees; and of employees' group insurance plans, $97,310.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
minister explain why this is a separate item, and in particular will he say why it comes quite separate from an item on page 18 entitled "cost of issuing new loans"? That item is about half-way down the page.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. This item provides for the administrative expenses of the employees' instalment purchase plan which permits employees of the public service of Canada and naval, army and air force personnel to purchase Canada savings bonds by means of payroll deductions. The employee arranges for the financing for a period of one year and subsequently acquires his bond. Provision is also included for the administration of the public service hospital-medical plan to which

about 58,330 federal civil servants have subscribed. I suppose it is fair to say that it is analogous to a section in a large industrial organization which would provide for the payroll subscriptions to Canada savings bonds and perhaps to the various charitable campaigns where payroll deductions are authorized.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How many would be involved? The amount is nearly $100,000. Offhand, that would seem to be a good deal of money. How many would be involved in the service?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The total staff are 35, I am informed, 29 on the employees' instalment purchase plan and six on the medical insurance plan. There is a decrease of some staff this year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Continuing at the bottom of page 17, the first statutory item, the increase is $19 million. Is that wholly due to rising interest rates?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Principally. The increase is in the interest on the funded debt which amounts to $19 million, as my hon. friend has pointed out, and on the unfunded debt the increase is about $13-3 million. The increase is due to two factors, first the increase in the interest rate, and also the increased payments on the principal amount of the superannuation fund. My hon. friend will recall that I pointed out that interest is now being paid on the full actuarial liability of the fund, and that represents an increase over the preceding year. It would be on the unfunded debt, of course.


Victor Quelch: The funded debt was also increased by $122 million, was it not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Gross; that is correct.


Victor Quelch: I wonder if the minister could say anything about future policy with respect to bond issues. A few months ago a bond issue for $100 million was made at 3-75 per cent interest.


Douglas Charles Abbott: 3-76 per cent.


Victor Quelch: At the time it was issued it was stated in the newspapers it would be government policy to refund other issues at a similar rate of interest. If that should be the policy, then debt charges would steadily increase. Although the minister has taken a good deal of credit from the fact that over a period of years we have reduced the net debt, nevertheless debt charges would be steadily climbing. After all, the people of Canada will be more interested in debt charges than in the figure of the national debt. It does not help the people very much to reduce the national debt if debt charges are going to keep climbing.
Supply-Finance


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think I said it was the government's intention to refund further maturing obligations at the same rate or a similar rate of interest.


Victor Quelch: No, it was in the newspapers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The statement did not come from me. During the current fiscal year we have no long-term bonds maturing, so it will not be necessary to enter the market to refund any long-term obligations. We have the usual treasury bills and some short-term obligations which will fall due and those will be refunded, presumably, at the going market rate.
As my hon. friend knows, interest rates both here and in the United States have risen somewhat. That rise in interest rates is, of course, reflected both in the prices of longterm bonds which are outstanding and in the interest which has to be paid when maturing obligations are refunded.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: On page 18 under the heading: "Commission for payment of interest on public debt, services of fiscal agents, London, registrar's fees, etc." the amount is more than doubled. It is increased from $326,100 to $704,600. Why is that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The entire increase in this item is in respect of the commission for payment of coupon and fully registered interest to the chartered banks in Canada as a result of a change in the remuneration. Whereas the previous commission was based on J of 1 per cent of the total face value of coupons, subsequent to April 1, 1952, commission at the above rate could in no case be less than 2J cents per coupon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Payments to municipalities-
Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property-
114.	To provide for payments to municipalities in accordance with the Municipal Grants Act. and the rural municipal grants regulations established by order in council of August 6. 1952, P.C. 3729: and to provide for payments to municipalities under order in council of July 19, 1950, P.C. 3456, in respect of the cost of medical and hospital services and supplies furnished to federal employees and other persons specified therein, $2,701,300.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I wish to comment on this item at some little length because it seems to me this is a case where the municipalities that are already having a very bad time are just being shoved down a little bit further in the mud. I wish to bring to the attention of the committee certain rather important considerations, though I repeat that I realize that if everything I asked were to be done it would only be a step on the way to solving the problem.

Supply-Finance
The minister will realize that I hesitate to argue for additional expenditure, but it seems to me there are times when justice is involved and should be done. Indeed, the minister seems to have put himself a little bit in the position of the priest and the Levite who, when the gentleman fell among thieves, passed by on the other side. I hope my words may turn the minister into a good Samaritan, because that is what we need here.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the minister has recommended $2,701,300 for this purpose, but let us recall to our minds briefly the background of this act.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I merely want to have an understanding. On the first item, administration, we had a general discussion and it seems to me that the speech which the hon. member is initiating is one that could have been made on the first item. We are studying the details of this vote at page 190, and the discussion must be strictly relevant according to our standing order. I know that his remarks will be relevant to the act under which this money is being voted and agreed to by parliament, and I do not want to curtail the discussion. The understanding, however, is that the general discussion is supposed to embrace all activities of the department. This subject could perhaps have been more appropriately dealt with at that time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, as always I defer to you; but I must confess that it does come to me as a great surprise that you are questioning my right to discuss this item. I believe that every word I shall say will be strictly relevant. I propose to argue that this item should be larger, and I cannot do so without giving you my reasons. I shall make my comments as brief as I can, but I confess I shall probably take ten minutes or thereabouts to outline what I have to say. I submit with deference that surely this is a proper place to argue about this item, about the attitude of the minister under this act, and about what is supposed to be done under it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member should not be surprised, because this is a rule that has been followed very closely. In the discussion of estimates of certain departments which we have studied from time to time this session there may have been departures from that ruling. That does not mean that a departure in respect of one department- and I have in mind the Department of National Health and Welfare-should be made the occasion for a departure from the rule

for another department. I am making the point now in an attempt to have the rule observed at the commencement.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What I wish to point out is that the minister apparently takes the attitude that this is really an act of grace. He takes the attitude, as expressed in the act-


Douglas Charles Abbott: The minister does not do that; the British North America Act does.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister takes the attitude that the B.N.A. Act is sacrosanct. My answer to that is that we have a situation today in which the whole fabric of our economy has changed. I am not going to dwell on that. But I do want to point out that the minister goes on then to say that it is fair to deal only with those cases where there is more than an average amount of federal property, because he says that in giving effect to a federal program of this sort we should recognize that the presence of federal property within a municipality normally brings certain definite benefits to the municipality. No doubt that is true, but it is equally true of other business in the municipality. I suggest that that argument really has not value whatever.
I wish to point out what has happened to the municipalities, and the distress into which they have been sinking. I shall seek to show that the minister's proposal has been chiselled and cut down in various ways, so that it is reduced to its very lowest terms. The municipalities have not been treated generously or fairly under the terms of the act itself. I wish to give a few figures for the record, just to show what has happened in the municipalities in the last few years since the war. At this point I am quoting from a speech delivered by the mayor of Ottawa on October 22, 1952. She points out that in the period from 1930 to 1948 dominion taxation increased 718 per cent, provincial taxation 303 per cent and municipal taxation 50 per cent. In 1930 the dominion absorbed 38-6 per cent of the tax revenues in Canada, and in 1948 took 67-5 per cent; in 1930 the provinces took 22 per cent and in 1948 they took 19-8 per cent but the municipalities, which in 1930 enjoyed 39-4 per cent, had but 12-7 per cent in 1948.
To express in a word what this burden means to the municipalities a friend of mine, who is very familiar with municipal affairs, says that the public is aware of constantly increasing assessments on their homes and shops; of constantly increasing mill rates and of constantly increasing municipal taxes. There is an awareness of poor local roads

and streets caused by the high cost of construction and repair, of the high cost of fire services and education. Each time a new school is built, the tremendous increase in costs is published in local newspapers and constantly agitated before local boards of education and councils.
To show the plight to which municipalities are reduced, I cannot do better than quote from a statement by Dr. Althouse, which appeared in the Globe and Mail of April 7, 1953. Dr. Althouse, the chief director of education for Ontario, expressed himself as follows:
Education authorities are expecting a three-year financial crisis and unless the additions to schools are kept down to the essential this difficult period may be extended .	.	. Dr. Althouse warned
that all school boards must co-operate otherwise teachers' salaries would be endangered.
Now I want to say a word as to the effect of this on housing. When we translate this into terms of ordinary day to day life, we put a heavy burden on home owners and particularly on our young married people who are seeking to establish homes. We all have the deepest sympathy with this problem. We all recognize that one of the greatest obstacles in the way of establishing a home is the high taxes.
Upon inquiry I find that municipal taxes on real estate in 1952 amounted to some $500 million. On the basis of the government owning between 4 and 5 per cent, if they paid full rates their taxes would be from $20 to $25 million instead of $2-7 million. At this point I again quote the mayor of Ottawa to show the way in which this legislation is chiselled and haggled in order to keep the municipalities down to the very lowest terms. She has this to say:
There is no logical ground lor taking the average concentration of dominion government property across Canada, finding it to be 4 per cent: then fixing that as the arbitrary figure and maintaining that payment for municipal services, given to the dominion, will be made only in municipalities where the government property exceeds this 4 per cent of total assessments plus government holdings.
She points out also that by arranging to plant new government properties in municipalities with less than 4 per cent, the government can reduce their obligations still lower. Then she goes on to say:
A second inequity is that, while every citizen must accept the municipality's own assessed values as a basis of tax levy, with the right of appeal open, the dominion authority, through its own officials, rejects the municipal assessment valuations and put its own "accepted value" on the properties in the judgment of its own officials and with no right of appeal whatever.
Further she sets out five more inequities.
Third, the dominion, on its own decision, again with no right of appeal left open to the munic-
Supply-Finance
ipality, excludes from taxation items assessable, if privately owned . . .
There is a long list of items given, but I cannot take time to read them.
Fourth, the way in which the dominion authority then calculates the tax levy, having made its own valuations, and taken off 4 per cent to start with, tends to be arbitrary and inequitable, . . .
Fifth, after these various contractions have been applied there is another purely arbitrary mathematical "squeeze"-only 75 per cent of the amount then calculated as due to the municipality as the grant in lieu of taxes is taken.
Sixth, when the grant has been finally calculated, a system of deductions comes in, whereby the dominion officials deduct what they calculate as their valuations of all services which they themselves provide for themselves.
Seventh, a series of withdrawals then enters, whereby the dominion officials withdraw, on their own calculations again, the value of services they deem to have been rendered by dominion services to the city.
I have tried to indicate, first of all, the arbitrary way in which the whole matter is approached. Second, I have tried to indicate the cheese-paring manner in which it is done. We are told it is solely a matter of grace which is to be subject to discretionary determination. Then we are told that the presence of government property brings certain definite benefits to the municipality, and for that reason 4 per cent is justified.
My submission to the minister, Mr. Chairman, is that when we look at the position of the municipalities, we find as I briefly indicated that the federal government revenues have multiplied many times, the provincial revenues several times, and the municipalities have only increased their revenue by half.
Meanwhile their burdens have vastly increased. As we all know, at one time the whole of real estate was able to carry a very large part of the load, but now it is only one of the many forms of raising revenue. The most lucrative forms have been taken over, as we all know, by the dominion.
Furthermore the government has refused one other method of assistance which the municipalities had suggested, through the remission of sales tax, so we are left with the situation that the municipalities are in a worse position with very little prospect of any improvement. There has been no suggestion of improvement from the government that I am aware of; the government holds out no tolerable prospect of relief to them. Surely, Mr. Chairman, that is not a situation which either common sense or a sense of justice should tolerate. The position of the municipalities has gone from bad to worse. I have read a whole list of what I call chiselling, which is indulged in. I realize that it is partly due to the legislation, though not all. It is partly due to a series of regulations.

Supply-Finance


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is far better than any Conservative government ever did for the municipalities.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When we had a Conservative government, which was longer ago than I like to think, the revenues of the government were a tiny fraction of what has accrued to the federal authorities since. I have given the figures which show the almost fantastic rise in federal income and the almost microscopic rise in municipal income, which moreover has been offset by the increase in costs since then. The municipalities are infinitely worse off.
Therefore I believe the minister has given me much the best argument I have had yet, which I might have neglected to make. That is to say, we now find the legislation of 1867, which exempted all federal property, has become an anachronism, just a piece of antediluvian superstition. To have that now trotted out by the minister, as he has done, as if it were still valid in common sense and justice, as unfortunately it is still in legal effect, is I confess very disappointing.
I leave the matter there. This $2,701,300, which is partly statutory and partly in the way the statute has been administered, is just an insult to the municipalities. Even if the federal government paid their shot throughout which would be, as I say, $20 to $25 million, it would be just a beginning of what the municipalities need. But as it is now, it is just a little like throwing a sop or a bone to a dog which has been hungry for a long time, and which needs a square meal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the hon. member for Greenwood has pointed out, the suggestion he has now made, and which has been made from time to time on the floor of the house, would not in itself solve the financial problem of the municipalities, but it would make a contribution toward the solution of that problem. Apart from that, it does seem to me that there is a case, on the basis of fairness and justice, for the claim the municipalities are making for a revision of this whole business of the way in which these payments are made.
The minister can point out, of course, that in part at least the arrangement is set out in the Municipal Grants Act, but in my view
the formula in that act should be reviewed. I readily accept the argument the minister uses from time to time that there are some services that are provided by the federal government to every community in the country, and that there is probably a certain amount of federal property that should not be subject to taxation, or to payments in lieu of taxation. But when you get a large concentration of federal property, as there is in so many of our communities and large cities, it does seem to me the point is reached where something better than has yet been provided should be given.
The minister can say that this is better than we ever had before; but still it is not satisfactory, and I know I speak on behalf of my own city of Winnipeg when I say that we hope consideration will be given to revising the formula under which these payments are made to municipalities.


Mr. Aylesworth:: Is the municipality or township of Pittsburgh drawing any revenue from this act or order in council?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


Wilbert Ross Aylesworth: Why are they not drawing it? In that municipality there are between
1,000	and 1,200 homes; there are many large buildings that cost anywhere between $100,000 up to $300,000 and $400,000 each, and some more than that. Who does the assessing of these government properties? If they are rightly assessed the township of Pittsburgh is entitled to a grant, because to my mind the government property in that township runs to much over 4 per cent of the total assessed property of the township.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would have to look into the situation to see if it is a self-contained military establishment. There is a section in the act which provides that what is known as a self-contained military establishment that has its own services such as water, fire protection and so on, does not have the 4 per cent rule applied to it. I should like to look at the facts to be sure of it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It would be a good idea if the minister put a list of the municipalities that receive grants on Hansard so we shall have it for future occasions.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be glad to do that. They are as follows:

Supply-Finance


PAYMENTS MADE TO MUNICIPALITIES BY THE MUNICIPAL GRANTS BUREAU OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Year 1952-53
Section 5 Grants-Municipal Grants Act.
Newfoundland	St. John's	$	38,407.00Prince Edward Island	Georgetown	
222.00Nova Scotia	Amherst...Canso	
Dartmouth
Halifax....
Kentville... Parrsboro.. Pictou	
6.367.00
3.144.00 33,716.00
327,468.00
4.490.00
1.255.00
2.728.00
New Brunswick	Chatham...
Fredericton Lancaster...
Moncton____
Saint John..
15.475.00
24.551.00
15.728.00
24.155.00
56.472.00
Quebec.
Hull	
Lauzon... Senneville.
31,403.00 (3 years) 3,668.CO 5,464.00
Ontario	Geraldton	
Kingston	
Little Current....
Twp. of Nepean....
Twp. of North York Ottawa	
1.322.00	(3 years) 33,127.00
4.294.00
8.510.00 107,913.00
1,392,316.00
Saskatchewan
Prince Albert, Battleford____
6,965.00
585.00 (3 years)
Alberta.
Calgary. Leduc..
59,962.00
805.00
British Columbia	Delta	
District of Kent	
New Westminster	
Dist. of North Vancouver Twp. of Richmond	
16,060.00
3.153.00
24.791.00
3.466.00
14.382.00
Territories.
Dawson, Y.T	
Hay River, N.W.T..
Whitehorse, Y.T....
Yellowknife, N.W.T.
12,414.00	(3 years)
2.959.00	(2 years)
5.867.00
9.700.00
Total Section 5	$ 2,303,304.00
Section 6 Grants (Transitional Grants)-(22 municipalities)	 99,446.76
Section 7 Grants (Local Improvements)-(28 municipalities)	 100,729.97
Payments under P.C. 3456	 380.00
Total Grants
[Stage Direction]
Rural Grants 1952-5$
Trenton (3)	
Centralia (3)	
Aylmer (2)	
Esquimalt-(Army and Navy) (1)	
Clinton (2)	
Barriefield and Vimy (2)	
Borden (7)	
Artillery School at Picton, Pointe Petre, etc. (3)
MacDonald Airport	
Petawawa (2)	
$	3,406.47
2,020.00
1.825.00
42.114.00
561.00
4.263.00
25.017.00
773.00 1,783.34
15.665.00
Total
$	97,427.81
Note: Figures in brackets represent number of sharing municipalities. * In addition $5,982 is being paid out of the 1953-54 appropriation.
5166
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Finance
Mr. Drew:: Before we pass beyond this item I should like to say a few words. I have listened to the discussion in regard to the adequacy or inadequacy of the provision that is made in this case, and I must say that there is something very anomalous in hearing the minister refer to the British North America Act as the explanation for the position of the government in this instance. It is interesting to hear the government express its faith in the British North America Act when it affords a convenient defence for an improper way of dealing with the municipalities in regard to their plight at this time.
To examine the adequacy of this item it is necessary to look at the over-all picture. If you examine the over-all picture you will find there are a number of considerations which the minister has not dealt with, and which seem to call for consideration of the situation with which the municipalities are confronted at this time. There is no use pretending that we are going to get down to a detailed examination of every component figure that enters into these items. Sometimes there may be an impression outside of parliament that in the discussion of these items it is possible to go into a general bookkeeping examination. That is not so. The most that is possible is to deal with certain principles.
Already this session hope had been expressed that the government would recognize the position of the municipalities. A motion was placed before the house dealing with the sales tax and the excise tax. That has been disposed of, and I do not propose to raise in connection with this item the discussion that took place at that time. The fact, however, is that from one end of Canada to the other mayors and reeves are expressing their grave concern about the position of the municipalities and their ability to carry out the mounting burden that is imposed upon them.
I do not propose to exchange arguments with the minister about which party has shown more consideration in cases of this kind. The fact is that we are confronted with an entirely new situation. Never before, either in war or in peace, under any other government was an amount taken from the people in taxes such as is being taken in this present year. It is today the highest exaction there has ever been. The hon. member for Greenwood showed the progressive and increasing percentage of the tax dollar taken by the dominion up to 1948, but we can carry it beyond that. It is going progressively higher all the time. Last year 78 "cents out of every tax dollar came to the government of Canada, leaving only 22 cents

available to both the municipalities and the provincial governments.
To attempt to place this picture before the house in terms of what was before the fathers of confederation in 1867 is to deal with this in terms of utter unreality. There is no need to suggest any departure from the basic principles of the British North America Act, to suggest that there is a problem that has to be dealt with here that was never contemplated at that time, and never could have been contemplated.
Let us just take one aspect alone of the problems of the municipalities. Certainly in 1867 no one ever heard of civil defence, in the manner in which we now understand those words. No one ever heard of civil defence in the way those words are now understood after the two world wars. Now we have these tremendous demands made upon municipalities to do their share in a very special form of defence which never before was regarded as an obligation of the municipalities. Yet we have the extraordinary situation that those municipalities, which are called upon to buy fire equipment and defence equipment of various kinds, must pay sales tax and excise tax to the Canadian government on that very equipment they must buy as part of the general defence of Canada.
Under those circumstances it is unrealistic to suggest that the needs of municipalities are being met by some inadequate formula such as that which we now have before us. With these other demands, and with the unjust burden of sales tax and excise tax not only on their ordinary requirements for roads, schools and other things of that nature, but also for civil defence, which is really part of the general defence of Canada, most certainly the government of Canada should deal with this subject in a way which recognizes their needs.
As I said before, it is not within the power of members of parliament to deal in exact and minute detail with each of these problems. We are dealing with the Department of Finance, the department which has the over-all responsibility for finance. What is before us now is mainly the general set of principles which guide the responsibilities and administration of that department.
I submit that the municipalities of this country need a new deal at this time. The municipalities of Canada, where the very bedrock of our democracy rests, require greater consideration. Their burdens have increased; their responsibilities have expanded, just as have the responsibilities of the government of Canada. They have

51G7
within the municipalities, and under their school boards, the direct responsibility for education, along with the provincial governments.
I do submit that even at this stage of the session the Minister of Finance would be well advised to let this item stand, and inform the house that he is prepared to reconsider it and bring before the house some provision which, at least in regard to assessment on property occupied by the dominion government, will extend some measure of justice to the municipalities which are carrying such heavy burdens.
At the time these exemptions were originally provided by the British North America Act, the only type of property that was contemplated was that property which would be required for services of a very limited nature, such as direct government services. There were none of these great corporate emanations of government such as we have today. This could go on to the point where, in many municipalities, a very large part of the taxable property would be under the control of the government of Canada, and where municipalities would be called upon to rely upon the discretion of the federal government as to what they were prepared to do.
I rise at this time to ask the Minister of Finance, even at this stage in the discussion of his estimates, and at this stage of the session, to reconsider the position of the government in regard to the position of the municipalities in the matter of taxation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
656. To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for miscellaneous minor and unforeseen expenses including authority to re-use any sums repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations, and special compensation or other rewards for inventions or practical suggestions for improvements-further amount required, $500,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister give us an idea as to the nature of the contingencies referred to in main item 115 and in this supplementary item 656, and will he tell us why this extra half million is being requested?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, this is the item in the estimates each year which generally provides a fund from which important requirements that cannot be foreseen sufficiently well in advance, or with sufficient accuracy to enable estimates to be submitted, may be financed. The major amount is being asked in the supplementaries because our parliamentary timetable is ahead of schedule by about two months this year. We started the session earlier, and the main supplementary estimates were made up about three
Supply-Finance
months before they would ordinarily be brought in. Treasury officials advised me that, under the circumstances, we should provide this extra amount set out in this general contingency vote. That is the reason for it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General items of payroll costs Including superannuation payments-
118. To provide for a government contribution to the superannuation fund in an amount equal to the estimated current and arrears payments of individual contributors in the previous fiscal year, $16,755,989.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say only a brief word on this item. As a matter of fact I shall be more brief than might be expected when I point out that this is the item under which, had the subject not been discussed several times already during this session, I would speak at length about the plight of superannuated civil servants, particularly those whose pensions are in the lower brackets.
I shall put forward what I would like to say tonight by making a very simple and, I hope, helpful suggestion to the Minister of Finance. Newspaper rumours suggest that he may soon be leaving the portfolio of finance and going to some other portfolio. We do not know whether those reports are correct or not; we do not know, of course, to what portfolio he will be moving.
I do suggest, however, that when he leaves his office as Minister of Finance he might leave a memorandum behind him addressed to his successor. Just to save his time, and the time of the committee, I shall suggest what he might put in that memorandum. It could read this way:
My Dear Successor:
I made the mistake of saying No so often to requests for a cost of living bonus for superannuated civil servants, particularly those whose pensions are in the lower brackets, that it became difficult for me to reverse my position and say Yes. However, I did say that this matter could be taken care of by an item in the estimates, and I hope you will include such an item in the first set of estimates you present to the House of Commons.
The claim made by these superannuated civil servants is a just one. That is why I urge you to deal with it. Furthermore, if you do not deal with it, you will never hear the end of it from the member for Winnipeg North Centre. Confidentially. I don't blame him; for I have become convinced myself that we should do something for these faithful servants. I hope you will take care of this matter right away.
Best wishes.
Sincerely yours,
Doug.
I shall send this note over to the minister and I would suggest that he leave it on the

Supply-Finance
desk of whoever takes over the portfolio of finance.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We will look after it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister will do this, he will be performing a real service, and I am sure his own conscience will rest a lot easier.


Douglas Charles Abbott: So many people like to put words in my mouth, so I cannot object to * my hon. friend's doing it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister has not given us a statement concerning this item, as to how it is arrived at.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Does the hon. member want to have a breakdown of this amount?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Shall I put a statement on Hansard, and save time?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I had something further in mind. Should we not have some further explanation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I can give it in this way by summarizing the statement, and then I can put it on Hansard if my hon. friend wishes. The estimate for current contributions this year is $10,820,989; the estimate for arrears, that is to make up for contributions for past service, is $5,935,000, or a total of $16,755,989.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think it would be well if the committee were given what was given to the banking and commerce committee when the measure was before it, to indicate the arrears in the fund and what has been done to bring it up to date.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought I gave that information the other day. The actuarial report which I tabled showed a deficit of about $365 million. Parliament has voted $175 million which has been applied against that deficit. There is still approximately $189 million of a deficit in the fund. We are paying into the superannuation fund interest on both amounts in the fund and the estimated deficit, and current contributions are being made in full.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was not
quite sure whether that $16 million went beyond paying the interest on the deficit. Are we making any contribution this year to bring that down?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We voted $25 million.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grants to universities-
121.	To provide grants to institutions of higher learning recognized in each province by the government of Canada and the government of the

province as being universities or institutions of equivalent standing equal to an amount, for each province, not exceeding 50 cents per head of its population as certified by the dominion bureau of statistics divided among the recognized institutions of the province proportionately to their enrolment of full time intramural students in personal attendance at the recognized institution or at an institution in the same province affiliated with it who are registered in courses of university level recognized as leading to and counting year for year toward a university degree awarded by a university in Canada and the Minister of Finance may for this purpose more particularly define the terms ''university level" and "university degree", $7,415,000.
Mr. Nowlan:: I should like to comment briefly on this item, and I am quite sure the minister is quite familiar with the matters that have been raised in connection with it. This matter is of such importance that one could speak much longer than a moment or two, but I realize the lateness of the hour and I appreciate that the minister wants to complete his estimates tonight.
When this item was first included in the estimates the Prime Minister stated that it was a provisional scheme and suggested that it be tried for a year, after which changes could be made if it proved to be unsatisfactory. As the minister well knows from the representations which have been made, from the east at any rate, the situation has not proved satisfactory to Nova Scotia. In the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne last fall the hon. member for Halifax placed figures on the record in connection with this, which I do not intend to repeat except to give one or two of the highlights.
As you know, this is on a per capita basis, 50 cents per head for every person of population as found by the bureau of statistics, which amount is divided between the student registration. The result is that last year the universities of Nova Scotia received $92.45 per student; those of Ontario received $126.28; Saskatchewan received $180.73 and Newfoundland, $483.16. I do not wish to repeat and put on the record statements made before the Massey commission and by the Prime Minister that this is recognized as a national problem, that the universities are making a national contribution. I simply say that if the universities are making a national contribution, they should be treated on a national basis.
The universities of Nova Scotia are the only ones in Canada which receive no assistance from the provincial government. The universities in every other province receive such assistance. To a minor extent there are grants in Nova Scotia for teachers amounting to $5,000 in the case of Acadia; $5,000 in the case of St. Francis Xavier, and certain grants

to Dalhousie for professional teaching. Other than that they receive no grants from the provincial treasury and are receiving this small payment per student.
I know the minister has given consideration to this matter. I know he has received briefs from the various universities. In the case of veterans the grant was on the basis of so much per student. If that was considered a fair way to approach that problem, I think consideration should be given to these grants. At any rate there should be a national average, and each university should be paid on that basis. If it means additional payments, well and good; but the system is not equitable and fair as it operates at the moment.
I quite realize that having come so far with his estimates the minister will not make any change. I do not want to write a letter, although the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did, but if he wants to create for himself a niche in the hall of immortality he will place an additional supplementary estimate before us to level this up and provide a better basis of payment, because this one is most inequitable.


Mr. Dickey:: Mr. Chairman, I shall not detain the house for more than a moment, but I do think something additional should be said on this matter. The hon. member for Annapolis-Kings was not as correct as he should have been in referring to provincial assistance given to the universities in Nova Scotia. For instance the Nova Scotia technical college, to which he did not refer, receives considerable assistance from the province.
But that was not my purpose in rising. My purpose was merely to say that we in this party believe sincerely in the equality of the principle of these grants to universities. So far as the question of permanency is concerned, so long as this government is in office these grants will be permanent.
A question of a better allocation of funds in so far as Nova Scotia is concerned is one in which my colleagues on this side and I have been extremely interested. All I say is that if the universities of Canada were prepared to take a more statesmanlike approach to this problem it could be rectified very quickly.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I suggest that these speeches might more properly have been made on the first item.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister would expect me to have a word to say on this item. First of all, I am glad to see an amount to cover grants to universities in the estimates. In spite of his declarations in regard to these particular grants I
Supply-Finance
assume that Mr. Duplessis will probably rationalize his acceptance of this money as he has on other occasions. Something tells me that while protesting on the one hand he will be prepared to accept the money on the other.
I am glad to have here a further indication of a desire to give aid to education. I am always in favour of aid to education, whether on a provincial or federal basis, and I hope there will be more. I should like to see the government work out more assistance in the way of scholarships. This is not the first aid to education we have provided at this session. We approved a very useful bill providing for assistance for the children of deceased veterans. My submission is that if that is good for the children of deceased veterans, it is good for the children of other people.
I hope to see an extension of this idea of federal aid to education, of course with due regard to the autonomy of the provinces in such matters as administration.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I want to support the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings, and I am not going to be very long in doing it. Despite what the senior member for Halifax had to say, this is a pretty live issue in Nova Scotia, and has been for the past year. I could make a long speech on the matter, but I shall just read an editorial which appeared in the Sydney Post-Record, of Friday, July 5, 1952 which sets it all out in a very clear manner. It reads:
Federal grants in aid to Canadian universities have been allocated in a way to put Nova Scotia at a serious disadvantage in comparison with the other provinces. Surely this was not the intention of the Massey report recommendations which the government undertook to implement.
In the distribution of the grants for 1951-52, Nova Scotia received the smallest amount per student of any province in the dominion. This injustice must not be repeated for 1952-53. Parliament voted $7,100,000 for assistance to Canadian universities. The total amount was distributed at the rate of 50 cents a head, according to provincial population, but without regard to the number of eligible students in each province.
Mainly because the professional schools of Nova Scotia serve the four Atlantic provinces, Nova Scotia has a high proportion of eligible students under the scheme. The result was that, in the 1951-52 distribution, Nova Scotia's allotment was only $92.45 per student, compared with $126.28 in Ontario, $180.73 in Saskatchewan and $483.16 in Newfoundland. In effect, Nova Scotia is penalized for having a high proportion of eligible students.
Prime Minister St. Laurent has agreed with the findings of the Massey commission that the universities perform a national service. Since the grants are made admittedly as a national assistance, it would seem logical that they should be allocated at a national rate, as was done with the D.V.A. grants.
It is definitely unfair that a student in Nova Scotia should benefit less, through aid to his university, than a student in another province. In the

Supply-Finance
light of the facts Ottawa should re-examine the matter and work out a more equitable means of distribution. It's not to be believed that the government deliberately wishes to penalize Nova Scotia.
I think that summarizes the case clearly, and I would suggest that the minister and his advisers take another look at the matter when a reallocation is made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Insurance-
ISO. Departmental administration, $461,721.
Mr. Slewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Chairman, there is a matter which I should like to raise under this heading, in connection with small loans. It has been of interest to the department, I know; yet the department finds itself powerless to act in a situation which has within it all the elements of a racket. There is in Toronto an outfit known as Consolidated Finance Corporation, and they have been sending out to potential victims this sheet of paper which I have in my hand and which states:
Here's the answer to your debt worries . . .
They manage to answer the debt worries, so they believe, without coming within the purview of the department, which I must say is doing an extraordinarily good job of work in the small loans field. This is what the corporation states, and I think the committee ought to know what is happening so that the corporation can be exposed. The pamphlet states:
The present high cost of living makes it often very difficult to meet the demands of all your creditors.
The result: You get phone calls and letters of demand from your creditors, garnishees on your pay, court judgments and seizures, lawyers' actions . . . problems upon problems!
Now, with one visit to the office of Consolidated Finance you can shed your problems. Simply make a list of all debts you owe for: hospitals, automobile, furniture, jewelry, groceries, doctors, lawyers, loan companies, etc.-Then see us.
What happens is this. The victim goes to the Consolidated Finance Corporation. He owes, let us say, some $200 to several creditors. Consolidated Finance says to the victim, "We are prepared to tackle this for you. Of course, this is not a small loan business, but what we shall do is this. You add up all the accounts you owe, and then pay us 25 per cent as an overriding fee, and we shall go to the various companies concerned and state that you are paying so much money a month to each of them. You will give us the money and we will disburse it. But first of all, of course, this overriding fee of 25 per cent has to be paid." Consolidated Finance gets that fee. It is part of the racket which we too often find in the small loans

business. I know the department is doing its best to clean it up. I should also like to know whether there is any way whereby we can stop firms such as Consolidated Finance Corporation from acting in such a way with innocent people who find themselves in debt, who need help and who invariably go to the wrong people for it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, I understand that an arrangement has been made that we would cut down on the lunch hour by half an hour tomorrow and on the dinner hour by an hour. Under those circumstances I would hope that we would be able to complete the remaining estimates. We shall begin in the morning with transport, fisheries, mines and technical surveys and post office which were mentioned for today. Then we shall proceed with the others in an order which I shall let hon. members opposite know early in the morning.


George Clyde Nowlan: Shall we proceed in that order with those four?


Joseph Henry Harris: Yes; transport, fisheries, mines and technical surveys and post office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just in order to have it on the record, perhaps the minister might make clear at which end of the meal hours the change will be made; in other words, just exactly what hours are we going to sit?


Joseph Henry Harris: We will adjourn at noon from one o'clock until two o'clock and in the evening from six o'clock to seven o'clock.


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

[Stage Direction]
511.	Departmental administration, $2,130,643.
512.	District services-administration, $2,667,545.
513.	Veterans' welfare services, $3,178,042.
Treatment services-
514.	Operation of hospitals and administration, $37,565,335.
515.	Medical research and education, $350,000.
516.	Hospital construction, improvements, new equipment and acquisition of land, $5,583,968.
517.	Prosthetic services-supply, manufacture and administration, $1,001,510.
518.	Veterans bureau, $509,152.
519.	War veterans' allowance board-administration. $141,335.
520.	Veterans' insurance, $86,371.

War veterans' allowances and other benefits-
521.	War veterans' allowances, $26,373,000.
522.	Assistance fund (war veterans' allowances), $350,000.
523.	Unemployment assistance, $20,000.
524.	Hospital and other allowances, $2,750,000. Miscellaneous payments-
525.	To provide for payments to the last post fund; for the payment under regulations of funeral and cemetery charges; for the cost and erection of headstones in Canada; for the maintenance of departmental cemeteries; for the maintenance of Canadian battlefield memorials in France and Belgium and for Canada's share of the expenditures of the imperial war graves commission, $1,674,430.
526.	Employers' liability compensation, $100,000.
527.	Grant to Canadian Legion, $9,000.
Canadian pension commission-
528.	Administration expenses, $2,051,318.
529.	Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order P.C. 45/8848 of November 22, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act; and including Newfoundland special awards, $127,054,000.
530.	Gallantry awards-world war II and special force, $23,000.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
531.	To provide for the cost of administration of Veterans' Land Act; soldier settlement and British family settlement, $4,651,087.
532.	To provide for the upkeep of property, Veterans' Land Act, including engineering and other investigational planning expenses that do not add tangible value to real property; taxes, insurance and maintenance of public utilities, $80,500.
533.	To provide for the payment of grants to veterans settled on provincial lands in accordance with agreements with provincial governments under section 35 of the Veterans' Land Act, 1942, as amended, and payment of grants to veterans settled on dominion lands in accordance with an agreement with the Minister of Resources and Development under section 35 of the Veterans' Land Act, 1942, as amended, $575,000.
534.	To provide for the payment of grants to Indian veterans settled on Indian reserve lands under section 35A of the Veterans' Land Act, 1942, as amended, $175,000.
535.	To provide for the reduction of indebtedness to the director of soldier settlement of a settler in respect of a property in his possession, the title of which is held by the director, or such soldier settler loans which are administered by the Indian affairs branch cf the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, by an amount which will reduce his indebtedness to an amount in keeping with the productive capacity of the property or his ability to repay his indebtedness under regulations approved by the governor in council, $150,000.
536.	To authorize and provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council, for necessary remedial work on properties constructed under individual firm price contracts and sold under the Veterans' Land Act to correct defects for which neither the veteran nor the contractor can be held financially responsible and for such other work on other properties as may be required to protect the interest of the director therein, $7,500.
537.	To authorize and provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council in each case, for the completion of necessary remedial work to
Supply
houses and services constructed under the 1945 building program, $5,000.
Terminable services-
538.	Post discharge rehabilitation benefits, including the training of merchant seamen and salt water fishermen pensioners, $1,858,000.
Veterans affairs-
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
551.	To provide for protection of security- soldier settlement, and refunds of surplus to veterans, $15,000.
552.	To provide for purchase of land and permanent improvements; cost of permanent improvements to be effected; removal of encumbrances; stock and equipment; refunds to veterans (sections 9A and 19); and for protection of security under the Veterans' Land Act, $18,650,000.
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
758.	Assistance fund (war veterans allowances) - further amount required, $100,000.
759. Hospital and other	allowances-further amount required, $250,000.
Canadian pension commission-
760.	Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order P.C. 45/8848 of November 22, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act; and including Newfoundland special awards-further amount required, $600,000.
Terminable services-
761.	Post discharge rehabilitation benefits, including the training of merchant seamen and salt water fishermen pensioners-further amount required, $100,000.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
769. To provide for purchase of land and permanent improvements; costs of permanent improvements to be effected; removal of encumbrances; stock and equipment; refund to veterans (sections 9A and 19); and the protection of security under the Veterans' Land Act-further amount required, $1,650,000.

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
105.	Departmental administration, $1,670,515.
106.	Comptroller of the treasury-central office and branch offices administration, $13,605,551.
Administration of various acts and costs of special functions-
107.	Superannuation and retirement acts, administration, $206,946.
108.	The Bank Act-salaries and expenses of the inspector general of banks' office, $32,835.
109.	Administration of The Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944, and The Veterans' Business and Professional Loans Act, 1946, $78,600.
110.	Expenses of the tariff board, $108,713.
Expenses of the Royal Canadian Mint and the assay office, Vancouver, B.C.-
111.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,051,961.
112.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $740,953.
113.	Administration of employees' instalment purchase plan, including sale and delivery of Canada savings bonds to government employees, and of employees' group insurance plans, $97,310.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
Payments to municipalities-
Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property-
114.	To provide for payments to municipalities in accordance with The Municipal Grants Act. and the rural municipal grants regulations established by order in council of August 6. 1952, P.C. 3729; and to provide for payments to municipalities under order in council of July 19, 1950, P.C. 3456, in respect of the cost of medical and hospital services and supplies furnished to federal employees and other persons specified therein, $2,701,300.
Contingencies and miscellaneous-
115.	To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for miscellaneous minor and unforeseen expenses including authority to re-use any sums repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations, and special compensation or other rewards for inventions or practical suggestions for improvements, $1,000,000.
116.	Cost of telephone service at Ottawa for all departments, $885,000.
117.	Amount required to cover losses incurred on foreign exchange tendered in payment of accounts receivable, $5,000.
General items of payroll costs including superannuation payments-
118.	To provide for a government contribution to the superannuation fund in an amount equal to the estimated current and arrears payments of individual contributors in the previous fiscal year, $16,755,989.
119.	To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for supplementing other votes for the payment of salaries, wages and other paylist charges, $1,500,000.
120.	To provide for the government's contribution, as an employer, to the unemployment insurance fund in respect of government employees paid through the central pay office, $1,150,000.
Grants to universities-[DOT]
121.	To provide grants to institutions of higher learning recognized in each province by the government of Canada and the government of the province as being universities or institutions of equivalent standing equal to an amount, for each province, not exceeding 50 cents per head of its population as certified by the dominion bureau of statistics divided among the recognized institutions of the province proportionately to their enrolment of full time intramural students in personal attendance at the recognized institution or at an institution in the same province affiliated with it who are registered in courses of university level recognized as leading to and counting year for year toward a university degree awarded by a university in Canada and the Minister of Finance may for this purpose more particularly define the terms "university level" and "university degree", $7,415,000.
Miscellaneous grants-
122.	Canadian general council of the Boy Scouts, $15,000.
123.	Canadian council of the Girl Guides association, $9,000.
124.	Boyal Astronomical Society of Canada, $3,000.
125.	Royal Canadian academy of arts, $4,025.
126.	Canadian Writers Foundation, $4,000.
127.	Boys' Clubs of Canada, $10,000.
128.	Canadian Association of Consumers, $6,000.
129.	British Empire and Commonwealth Games Society, $100,000.
130.	To authorize a grant for rehabilitation of the Maison des Etudiants Canadiens in Paris, France, payable in French francs owned by Canada and available only for governmental or other limited purposes, $100,000.
Auditor general's office-
53. Salaries and expenses of office, $611,435. Insurance-[DOT]
160.	Departmental administration, $461,721.
161.	Expenses of work in the interests of fire prevention, $61,820.
Administration of various acts and costs of special functions-
655.	Administration of the Farm Improvement
Loans Act, 1944, and the Veterans' Business and Professional Loans Act,	1946-further amount
required, $5,000.
Contingencies and miscellaneous
[Stage Direction]
656.	To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for miscellaneous minor and unforeseen expenses including authority to re-use any sums repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations, and special compensation or other rewards for inventions or practical suggestions for improvements-further amount required, $500,000.
657.	To authorize the custodian to transfer to the Minister of Finance from time to time, such of the assets (and the proceeds of liquidation thereof and earnings thereon) vested in him in respect of world war II that were formerly owned by residents of Hungary or Roumania as the Minister of Finance prescribes, the proceeds thereof to be credited to the war claims fund to reimburse the fund pro tanto for amounts that claimants are entitled to receive from Hungary and Roumania under the treaties of peace but which have been paid to the claimants out of the war claims fund under the war claims rules, and for the expenses of investigating their claims, $1.
Miscellaneous grants-
658.	Canadian Council of the Girl Guides Association-further amount required, $3,000.
659.	Grant towards the expenses of the convention of the World1 Woman's Christian Temperance Union to be held in June, 1953, $5,000.
660.	To provide for the purchase of Canadian wood to be contributed for the restoration of the Canadian room on the premises of the Royal Empire Society in London, originally provided by Canada and subsequently destroyed by enemy action during world war 2, $6,000.
764. To authorize and provide for loans to the Civil Service Co-Operative Credit Society, Limited, on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, $100,000.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 12, 1953