Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I propose that we open this * afternoon's proceedings with the singing of 0 Canada.
(The members rose and sang 0 Canada and God Save the King).



MESSAGES OF GREETINGS AND GOOD WISHES ON THE OCCASION OF THE 80TH ANNIVERSARY OF CONFEDERATION

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, hon. members, I am sure, will be interested to know that, on this the 80th anniversary of confederation, many communications of greetings and congratulation have been coming to Canada from different parts of the world. Among the number are some that have been received by His Excellency the Governor General, some by myself as Prime Minister and others by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
It will be of interest were I to mention some of the communications that have been thus far received. There are, I understand, others on the way, and probably there will be many more before the day is over.
Among those already received, there is a communication from Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands. Her Majesty has sent a message of best wishes for the well-being and prosperity of Canada.
His Majesty King Paul I of the Hellenes extends congratulations and best wishes in the name of the people of Greece. A message has also been received from the Prime Minister of Greece, M. Maximos, conveying warm wishes for the prosperity of Canada, and a similar communication from the Greek Ambassador resident in Ottawa.
Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek of China extends best wishes for the welfare and happiness of the Canadian people.
The President of Argentina, General Peron, has expressed good wishes from the government and people of Argentina for the well-being and prosperity of Canada. Other messages have been received from the Argentine Foreign Minister and the Argentine Ambassador at Ottawa.
From Premier Ramadier of France there is a message expressing "most cordial wishes for the future of the great Canadian nation to which we are linked by so many' bonds of friendship".
There is also a message from M. Unden, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sweden who expresses "best wishes for our friends the Canadian people". Mr. Jan Masarvk, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Czechoslovakia, sends good wishes, at the same time recalling wartime contributions "which are being continued and which can never be forgotten". There is also a message from the Minister of Czechoslovakia resident in Ottawa. In addition to greetings received from ambassadors and ministers already mentioned, messages of greeting have also been received from the following ambassadors and ministers resident in Ottawa: the Ambassador of France, the Ambassador of Brazil, the Ambassador of Chile, the Minister of Cuba, the Charge d'Affaires ad interim of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Charge d'Affaires ad interim of Switzerland.
Had it not been that a week or two ago an arrangement was made in pursuance of an agreement to take every possible means to expedite the business of the session. I would have been tempted to introduce in the house this afternoon a resolution with respect to this 80th anniversary of confederation, to which all 'hon. members might have felt free to speak. But I have assumed that by proceeding with the business of the house as rapidly as possible, particularly considering the length of the programme still to be overtaken, we would be discharging our duties in a way more acceptable to those whom we represent. At the same time, I should like in a word to say what I think must be much in the thoughts of all hon. members today.
4SSS
Dominion Day

Had time permitted, we should have been, glad to review the eight decades which have passed since confederation and to have dwelt with pardonable pride upon the manner in which, from a few scattered communities, Canada has developed in that time not only into a great nation but as well into a world power. I believe.that at this time hon. members will have a feeling of great thankfulness that our country on this anniversary is perhaps more united and prosperous than it has been at any time in its history; that we have been spared the calamities and disasters which have overtaken so many of the nations of the world; and that our relations with other nations almost without exception could not be happier than they are. I recall that the last time this house was in session on July 1, which was five years ago, the world was in the midst of the great war, and at a very critical stage of the war. At that time it was by no means certain what the outcome might be. I am sure I speak for all hon. members when I voice a feeling of thankfulness for fihe part which Canada was privileged to take in helping to preserve the freedom of mankind in that great conflict. We look back with justifiable pride on the part which our defence forces were able to take, along with those of allied and associated forces; the contributions made by our army, our navy, our air force and the merchant marine; what was done in the way of assisting in supplies of munitions and food, in finance, in organization for all kinds of patriotic activities; the work of the women as well as of men and our young people in that terrible period. It is a source of tremendous pride to us all that today we can rejoice in having participated as we did and helped in the winning of victory. Nor do we forget that in our own generation a like service was rendered by Canada in another world war. There is an equal cause for rejoicing at the part which Canada has since been privileged to take in its postwar work, in helping to relieve the suffering of and to rehabilitate those nations which were so terribly devastated by war; in being able, as we have been, in her hour of great privation to assist Britain financially; and in being able to assist the starving peoples of Europe in the liberal manner in which we have.
I think what perhaps will be a source of increasing pride to the people of Canada, and in particular to their representatives here, is the extent to which Canada's voice and influence has come to be felt for good in the many relations of nations; particularly is this true of relations within the British commonwealth, where Canada's part in the development and

shaping of the commonwealth and its spirit has been what it has; and also the very important part which our country has taken in the work of the great new world organization, the united nations, in which humanity at the moment is placing so largely its hopes for the future. Indeed, as I have said, Canada's voice has come to be the voice of one of the great powers in the world; and wherever it has been expressed, it has been expressed for the good of other nations as well as our own. In our relations with our great neighbour the United States, we have together worked out methods of understanding and cooperation which are an example to nations everywhere.
In conclusion may I draw attention to the rather unique circumstance that while eighty years ago four provinces were uniting to form confederation and to fulfil the dream that some day there might be a vast power of the combined British communities in the northern half of this continent which would strike across space and) time and include all the territory between the waters of the Atlantic and those of the Pacific, today we not only have the nine provinces united as they have been over a number of years but we have in our city a delegation of distinguished gentlemen from the island, of Newfoundland, who are examining and exploring with officials of the government of Canada and its ministers, the possibility of arriving at an agreement which would be to the mutual advantage of Newfoundland and Canada and which might serve to bring that island also into confederation. These are only a few of the many things for which we, as Canadians, have reason today not only to be proud, but also to be profoundly thankful.
In conclusion, may I express the hope that Canada throughout the future may be true to her great past, to which I have made scarcely more than a passing reference, and that our country may go on from year to year, over the decades and over the centuries, ever using her influence in a wider way to promote the cause of w'orld order and to further peace and good will among men and nations on this earth.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow the appropriate example of brevity which was set by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in observing this important occasion in the life of our country. I wish to associate our party with the eloquent words of the Prime Minister, which I think reflect the views and aspirations not only of the people's representatives in this parliament but of the people of Canada in general. I suppose on the occasion of an

Dominion Day
anniversary such as this a nation, just like am individual, would feel like reviewing the past, taking inventory of the present and attempting to chart the course for the future in the light of past and present. As the Prime Minister has said, Canada has reached out in her international and domestic affairs to the point where she can rightly be called one of the great nations of the world. I think that we who feel that this country played her full part in the winning of victory, will wish also to say to the world that this country is prepared also to make her maximum contribution toward the cause of winning and keeping permanent the peace which followed that war.
As the Prime Minister so well stated, this country has laid firm and true foundations as far as our humanitarian policy in international affairs is concerned. We cannot have a permanent and lasting peace if we are prepared to pay only a cheap price for that peace. Whatever the price of a lasting peace may be, it will fall far short of and be of much less consequence than the terribly tragic cost of war. So whatever the cost of honourable and self-respecting peace may be, this country must be prepared to pay it. May I go farther and say that bound up with the cost of that peace must also go the realization that in assessing its true position this country will find it cannot, as an island of relative good times and prosperity, survive in a surging international sea of distress, poverty and suffering. Canada must bring itself to realize this, because after all, in that realization is involved also the cost of the peace that we are now trying to make just and permanent.
I fervently hope and pray that this eightieth milestone in Canadian history since confederation may see all the Canadian people moving forward, resolute and determined, marching shoulder to shoulder, regardless of any differences that may exist within the country, toward a greater Canada and a stronger and more powerful commonwealth of nations, in a world of permanent peace and prosperity in the days that lie ahead.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate this group with the sentiments which have been expressed by the two preceding speakers. Eighty years ago life in this Canada of ours was a fairly simple affair. We were concerned with organizing and putting on a better basis the relations, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) mentioned, of the scattered communities of our half of the continent. In that we have succeeded perhaps beyond the hopes of those who were carrying on the work at that time. Today, while we may not have completely and satisfactorily resolved our own
difficulties, we are engaged with the other nations of the world in trying to settle the complex relationships of a very complex world. I think the people of Canada do feel pleased and proud because of the contribution we have been able to make in the past few years, and I believe we all hope we shall not only continue that work, but that we may be able to do better. To me the great thing in our life in Canada is that the people, through and by the institutions handed down to us by those who have gone before, are able to organize and settle their own affairs by mutual compromise and cooperation. We cannot expect people to travel together if differences separate them. I believe it is only when we can resolve those differences and have the same objectives that we can hope to travel along together; and as the years go by my hope is that we may do that in greater and greater measure.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should say just a word in support of the high and nctble sentiments that have been expressed today by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the other speakers. I am proud of Canada. I am proud of the accomplishments of our great country. I am proud that I was born in Canada. As I look back over my short life as it has been associated with the history of this country I take more and more pride in the fact that this is where my parents settled in order that I might be born a Canadian.
Most of the fine things have been said, I think, but let me just add one hope to the list of hopes for the future. I think I speak for my group when I say I want to see Canada take her full place and full responsibility in a world community of nations. We have much to contribute, not alone of material wealth. Canada is a wealthy country in all ways, but we have not enough, nor could we possibly produce enough, to relieve the world of its great needs at this time. One thing we can do, however, and I hope we shall do. By maintaining our faith in the fundamental truths we can assist in a regeneration of faith throughout the world, that faith which is lagging so greatly in many countries. Furthermore I believe it will be possible for us in Canada to help in a regeneration of the hopes of the various peoples of the world, without which they will not be able to do very much to help themselves. Therein I think lies the greatest possibility for Canada to make a real contribution in future.
I join with the others who have spoken in praying God that we shall be true to the trust that is ours, and that in future we shall continue to be true Canadians.
Dominion Day

(Translation):
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, eighty years ago, the people belonging to the two major races in this country confided in each other and I believe that, at this distance, we can all recognize that it was right, reasonable and proper that they should have done so. This could not be better evidenced than by what happened a few moments ago, when all of us could sing in both languages "O Canada! . . . thy brow is decked with garlands grand".
The Right Honourable the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) recalled that this was due to the fact that this country's arm can bear not only the sword but also the cross. I hope that those eighty years constitute but the beginning of a long history throughout which it will always be possible for Canadians to sing "O Canada! . . . thy brow is decked with garlands grand".
(Text):
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the house will forgive me as a humble immigrant to Canada who owes so very much to this great-hearted and generous land if I say just a word or two on this, Canada's eightieth birthday.
Just an hour ago the carillon was ringing its gladsome notes indicating the unity of the two great races of Canada. I have just three things to say, and I shall be very brief. I remember reading about the oar-songs of the old boatmen in Canada, and I recall the words of the Canadian Boat Song:
From the lone shieling of the misty island Mountains divide us, and the waste of seas-
Yet still the blood is strong, the heart is Highland,	.
And we in dreams behold the Hebrides.
Another verse comes to my mind; it was used by Sir George Ross at a banquet in Toronto many years ago of the St. Andrew's Society:
Oh they may love the southland,
And they may cross the sea But this land is my land,
And Canada for me.
And last I leave with the house some words I quoted four or five weeks ago from Sir John Willison:
0 generous land, 0 mighty inspiration
That floods the morning of the world to he;
Thy people are the builders of a nation Lofty, benignant, free.
[Mr. Low.3



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of the standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cleaver.
Seventh report of the standing committee on standing orders.-Mr. Bertrand (Prescott).


[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton) moved the first reading of Bill No. 395 (from the Senate) respecting the Canada Permanent Trust Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bracken) asked if I would make a statement to the house today about remaining legislation, and as to whether any measures of which notice has not already been given will be introduced. I said at the time I thought everything had been included in what was set forth in the statement I made to the house several weeks ago. I wish to say now I find I am right in that particular.
There is on the Votes and Proceedings of today notice of a measure to be introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and to which I made reference before. I draw special attention to its appearance in today's Votes and Proceedings. The Minister of Finance intends to introduce another bill of some importance, but not for the purpose of proceeding with it at this session. Rather it will be introduced so that it may be considered by hon. members between now and the next session of parliament. The bill is An Act to Amend and Consolidate the Income War Tax Act. As I say, it is being introduced solely for the information of the house. As the bill is lengthy and intricate it was thought by the government it would not be wise to proceed with it at this session, but that it should be taken up in the next session.
I wish to make clear, as I did before, that there may be some bills arising from reports to the house by committees. It is not likely that there will be many, but there will be at least one or two.
It is not the intention of the government to proceed with the bill to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, or with the

Old Age Pensions
resolution respecting the conservation of fisheries on the high seas, both of which were announced to the house on May 21.
Again, as a result of discussion on the estimates, it may well be that some subject will come Up which the house may decide should be dealt with in some way other than merely by discussion on the estimates. I have in mind for example the question of the controlling of traffic on parliament hill, which has been referred to at different times and which, to meet the situation, may necessitate some small amendment to an existing measure.
With the exception of that type of measure which would arise out of discussion, I cannot think of any others it is intended to introduce at this time. It would not do for me to say there will be nothing else; something might arise between now and the close of the session which is totally unforeseen at the present time. However I hope there will not be anything; and at this time I know of nothing likely to come up.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved the third reading of Bill No. 272, to provide for privileges and immunities in respect of the united nations and related international organizations.
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 30, consideration in committee of Bill No. 339, to amend the Old Age Pensions Act-Mr. Martin-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: All the sections with the exception of section 5 have been passed.
On section 5-Pensions to blind persons.


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Chairman, the house will recall that in 1937 when the amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act respecting blind persons were first introduced by the government under the present Prime Minister the age of forty was set as the qualifying age in conformity with the expressed wishes of the organizations chiefly interested in work with
blind persons in this country. The managing director of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Colonel E. A. Baker, expressed himself on behalf of his organization to the effect that pensions for the blind should begin at the age of forty years. The effect of the 1937 amendments was to make it possible for the organizations working with the blind to concentrate on the training and rehabilitation of the group under forty years of age. The government now proposes, by an amendment, which I am going to ask my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs to move, that the eligible age for the blind be lowered from 40 to 21 years. I am sure that this is a step which will commend itself to hon. members who are aware of the plight in which blind persons find themselves, and of the many deserving blind people who will now be given new hope and encouragement by the assistance provided by this amendment. I would ask my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs to move:
That in section 5, line 12, the words "forty years" be deleted and the words "twenty-one years" substituted therefor.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: I move accordingly.


Mr. FLEMING:: I am sure the whole committee will receive this proposed amendment with satisfaction. Right from the time the leader of the opposition first proposed this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will repeat that. From the time this reduction in the age for blind pensioners from forty years to twenty-one years was first proposed in this debate by the leader of the opposition, it has been echoed in all parts of the house. I am sure that while this debate has been long drawn out it has at least served a useful purpose if it has brought the government around to the point where they are willing to make this much needed reduction in the age of blind pensioners. I wish the minister could have acceded to the wishes expressed in different parts of the house that other needed changes be made in the bill.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Mr. LOW:: First let me congratulate the minister upon bringing in the amendment which he has introduced today. No matter who may have had influence upon him, it is to his great credit. Last night I asked the minister if he would give consideration to changing the act to make possible deductions from the incomes of pensioners because of expenses incurred in connection with dependents other than a spouse. It is quite possible that a blind pensioner or an old age pensioner might have

Old Age Pensions
an infant son or daughter, and I am asking that some provision be made for deductions from the ceiling income covering such dependents. That dependent may be as much a burden on the old age pensioner with a small income as he would be on anyone who was incapable of working and on relief. Will the minister say whether he is prepared to support such a suggestion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend will appreciate that this is the Old Age Pensions Act, not a dependents act. The government has sought to provide for dependent children through the Family Allowances Act.


Solon Earl Low: A good deal was said last night about the regulations, and I am given to understand. that at the last interprovincial board meeting-


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Solon Earl Low: I am referring specifically to this bill.


William Ross Macdonald: I would remind the committee that we are considering section 5, pensions to blind persons, which does not permit a general discussion at this time. I hope hon. members will not engage in a general discussion.


Solon Earl Low: A blind pensioner may have dependents, and' that is what I am referring to. I brought it up last night, and the minister asked me to hold it off until today when section 5 would be discussed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I call my hon. friend's attention to 8A (c) (ii) in section 5 of the bill, which provides for dependent children under certain circumstances.


Solon Earl Low: Could that not be extended to old age pensioners as well as to blind pensioners? I understand that at the last interprovincial board meeting the matter was discussed and a resolution was passed unanimously asking that this be done.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was no resolution, unanimous or otherwise.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: Will the amendment which has just been moved have any effect upon clause (iii) ? A blind person may not have lived the whole of his life in tlhis country. It would appear that the section would need to be reworded.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The residence qualifications are the same as for the aged.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I want to express my appreciation of subsection 2 'of section 9 which is provided for by section 5 of the bill. Where

a pensioner had been assisted during the last two or three years of his life by a member of the family and he has been left the pensioner's estate, that estate is not to be penalized to the extent of the amount paid to the pensioners. I know cases in which estates have been penalized.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The five per cent penalty has been removed from the section.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to know that those who endeavour to take care of their old folk are not to be penalized for doing so, as has been the case in the past.
Mr. Ma-cINNIS: In view of the criticism of the minister while the bill was under discussion in committee I wish to express my appreciation of the amendment which has been moved this afternoon. This is a proper age limit, and perhaps it could have been brought diown even lower. A blind person is just as much handicapped1 at twenty-one as he is at forty, and he is just as much handicapped at seventeen years when the family allowance payments cease as he is at twenty-one. However, I do not wish to detract in any way from the value of the amendment just moved, and I express my appreciation to the minister.


Mr. GREEN:: What provision is being made for the extra cost that a blind person must incur in order to carry on? For example, the cost of obtaining guides and* many other incidental expenses which increase their cost of living.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have increased the additional income allowable and the special allowance of ektra income for guiding expenses, which is now to be $120 instead of $75 as formerly. That recommendation was made by the blind institute.


Howard Charles Green: They have to get those amounts from some other source?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: In clause (b) of section 8A reference is made to the War Veterans Allowance Act. I should like to ask either the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of Veterans Affairs to explain whether it is possible for a recipient of war veterans allowance to switch over to an old age pension? In most provinces old age pensioners receive larger payments than the veterans allowance recipient and I know many veterans who are finding it impossible to carry on with the present allowance. What is

Old Age Pensions
tihe position if they wish to drop their war veterans allowance and go on to old age pension?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is a matter
largely for their own choice, but from my little experience of over thirty years I think it would not be to their advantage to do so. The veterans committee will be meeting next year. My personal opinion is tihat it would not be to the advantage of the Veteran to switch over to the old age pension.


Howard Charles Green: The minister will agree that under the government's old age pension policy to date the dominion is contributing up to a maximum of $30 and then expects the provinces to pay whatever is required over that amount to enable a person to live. That means that in Ontario the old age pensioner is going to get $10 additional and in British Columbia S8.75, and I hope it will be the full $10. The recipient of war veterans allowance is now being looked after by the dominion government. Would it not be reasonable for the dominion government to raise the war veterans allowance to the same figure as the old age pension?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has my hon. friend
taken into consideration both the single man and the married recipient of war veterans aillowance? If he makes a careful comparison of the total income permitted from two or three other sources I think he will find that the veteran would lose by switching over.


Howard Charles Green: I am not referring to the case where there is extra income, but where there is the war veterans allowance and nothing else.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no such case.


Howard Charles Green: There are cases in which
the men are not getting an amount over and above the war veterans allowance, and as a result they have to live on $30.41 a month.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no such case unless they are disabled.


Howard Charles Green: I know of cases in which
they have no other benefits; they cannot have any other income except by working or from savings. If the province is to bring the old age pension up to $40, surely there is an obligation on the dominion to bring the war veterans allowance up to $40. Is any move of that kind in contemplation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not want to
enter into an argument. This matter is receiving, I do not like to say consideration, but the anxious care of the government, and early next session my personal opinion, for
what it is worth is that we shall have another veterans committee reviewing the whole situation as it did last year, and with great ability.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Has consideration been given to the request of blind organizations that the legislation respecting the blind be made separate from the Old Age Pensions Act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Consideration has been given to that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will further consideration be given to it, in view of the fact that the request has not yet been implemented?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Further consideration is being given to it.


Mr. BRYCE:: Am I correct in my understanding that this does not apply to blind Indians?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It applies to Indians who are not under the Indian Act.


William Scottie Bryce: Not to the Indian who is blind just the same?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will apply if he becomes enfranchised.


William Scottie Bryce: Has that question been given any consideration?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I made a statement the other night on that whole subject.


William Scottie Bryce: In a word, is the minister in favour of including the Indians for pension?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am very anxious to help them.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Will the minister give us some evidence of that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The other night I made a statement on the subject.


John Horne Blackmore: It won't hurt to repeat it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one has been more attentive and receptive to suggestions than I have been in this debate. I stated the other night that the government was giving consideration not only to that aspect but to the much wider aspect of the Indian problem. We are following with great interest and care the work of the Indian affairs committee and when that is done we may have something further to state.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Health conditions
among the Indians in Canada are not good. Granting of the blind pension and lowering the age is a move in the right direction. If this particular pension could be extended to
Old Age Pensions

the blind Indian it would be an immediate step which would be appreciated. I understand that the minister is waiting for the Indian affairs committee to make its report and then work out the whole situation and provide more care and new services for the Indians. But the minister knows that the work of that committee is not completed, and its recommendations with regard to changing the act will probably be a year late. I would ask the minister if he would consider making this particular pension applicable to the Indians, because so far as the old age pension is concerned that is administered by the provinces, which recognize no responsibility for Indians, whose care is entirely a federal matter. It would be a very fine step to make this blind pension applicable to the Indians at once.


Mr. FRASER:: The other night I mentioned Indians in connection with the old age pension. I know that in my riding the Indians are receiving help from the blind institute, which helps them with food and clothing and fuel and supplies some of them with glasses. I do believe it would be a wise step on the part of this government to include the Indians in this act.


John Horne Blackmore: I want to associate myself with those who have already advocated that pensions be given to the blind Indians. I am not at all satisfied with the progress of the Indian affairs committee. I have been on that committee a couple of years and it seems to me it does not intend to do anything other than just hear evidence and prepare reports. Meanwhile the blind Indians are suffering, and it is the duty of this country to do something about it. I suggest that until the Indian affairs committee does bring in its conclusions a temporary measure at least to provide for the blind Indians would be a most fitting gesture on the part of this government.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: The Minister of Veterans Affairs and I took a trip to Toronto to the convention of the blind last week-end, and we got results because we convinced the government for once that we were right.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: In paragraph 3 of this clause there is a qualification which requires that the person concerned must have resided in Canada for twenty years or more. Further down there is a qualification in respect of those who have resided in Canada and then have left the country for a period and later returned. That latter part of course would not be applicable to persons who come to Canada as immigrants and who have not lived here twenty years. I realize that the same qualifies-
tion is in force in respect to the old age pension, and it may be said that the qualification is necessary in respect to the old age pension so that people will not come to Canada just to get the old age pension. That same argument does not hold good in the matter of the blind pension, because no one knows when blindness is going to come. I should think we could safely do away with that qualification for pensions for the blind, and I would ask the minister to consider deleting it in order that all persons suffering from blindness, regardless of how long they have lived in Canada, provided they have lived long enough to become Canadian citizens, may secure the blind pension.


Mr. BROWN:: The hon. member for Lethbridge made a statement which I think should not go unchallenged. I am sure when he thinks over what he said that he will regret having made the assertion that the Indian affairs committee had been meeting for two years and had accomplished nothing, or words to that effect. I stand corrected if that is not right. Would the hon. member like to repeat what he said there?


John Horne Blackmore: I would like to have Hansard give back what I said, but I will repeat that I am not satisfied.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I would remind hon. members that the clause under consideration is clause 5 relating to pensions for blind persons.


Donald Ferguson Brown: As a matter of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


William Ross Macdonald: I would point out that there are so many interruptions and there is so much noise that it is almost impossible for the chairman to hear what is being said.


Donald Ferguson Brown: As I understand it, the hon. member said that they either intended to do nothing or have done nothing, or words to that effect. Hansard will speak for itself. However, I might remind the hon. member, who is also a member of the committee, that he has an equal responsibility with all members of the committee representing all parts of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the number of persons who will be affected by the amendment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: About 1,700.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That will bring the tota, number of blind pensioners to about 9,000?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Approximately.

Old Age Pensions


Donald Methuen Fleming: A question was asked with regard to the break-down of the $20 million increase in the total cost under this bill as between aged pensioners and blind pensioners. How much of the $20 million is apportion-able to each?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not got it broken
down in the exact way the hon. member requests, but I will get it later.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would be a simple
matter of calculation in the case of the 1,700 additional pensioners coming in under the amendment of today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a matter of calculation, and I will give it to the hon. member later.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: A few minutes ago I
asked the minister to consider deleting the residence qualification from paragraph 3 of the clause, but I have received no reply.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have considered everything. I discussed with the institute for the blind the changes we had in mind, and have gone into it very carefully. They are quite happy over what has been done.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The minister mentioned
having discussed the matter with the institute for the blind. Does the institute approve paragraph 3 as it stands?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. They welcome all
the changes that have been made.


Mrs. STRUM:: Has the institute for the
blind ever suggested that the blind pension might start where the family allowance leaves off?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They asked that it be
lowered to twenty-one.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Have they ever asked
that it start where the family allowance leaves off?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Does not the minister
think there is still a gap in the life of the blind pensioner? If the blind person is to get any specialized training that will later help him to earn his own living, or add to his pension, I think that at that particular stage he will need assistance more than he will earlier or even later. I think the parents of blind children should be encouraged and assisted to help such persons find some kind of expression and fulfilment of satisfaction in living. We should not leave it to charitable institutions, to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind or to the Red Cross. I
hope the minister will give consideration to the closing of that gap in social security for blind persons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister mentioned
the recommendations of the blind federation. What was their recommendation as to the amount of the pension?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have discussed the
matter with them. I told them what I had in mind and they were desirous that whatever changes we made with regard to the old age pensioners should apply to the blind. We have done that, and more. I was talking to Colonel Baker, the managing director of the institute, only about fifteen minutes before coming into the house. I wish I had his 'exact words of thanks to this parliament for what we have done.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
William Ross Macdonald: Shall I report the bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, may I,
through you, since this has been a difficult bill, thank the house for the consideration shown me. I feel sure that hon. members will recognize that in piloting the bill I had in mind only one thing, and that is the welfare of the aged and the blind of the country.
Bill reported.
Mr. MARTIN moved the third reading of the bill.


John Horne Blackmore: I wish to make one brief comment on the bill as a whole. I think that this bill, notwithstanding the good things that are in it, constitutes a triumph on the part of the reactionary elements of the government. In this measure the government has resolutely turned its back on the sunrise and turned its face towards the sunset. The sunrise would have been so glorious. We are living in an age of plenty; we are living in a land of abundance. There is no excuse whatsoever for this bouse passing a bill which at the very best will keep all the elderly people of Canada in a condition of deprivation. I wish to protest against the measure just as strongly as I possibly can within the rules of parliamentary procedure. Sooner or later we must face the fact that in this country we should be making what is physically possible, financially possible. Certainly $30 a month to the aged-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. There is before the house the following motion, that Bill No. 339 be now read a third time.
Old Age Pensions


John Horne Blackmore: I cannot hear you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.- SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Horne Blackmore: I am still speaking.


James Horace King: Order. I will not permit the hon. member to discuss anything else than the motion which is before the house, which is the third reading of the bill.


John Horne Blackmore: Are we discussing the amendment or the bill?


James Horace King: The question is on the bill itself, the third reading.


John Horne Blackmore: I am discussing the inadequacy of the bill and certainly, if a member has any privileges at all, that is in order. I am speaking about the adequacy or inadequacy of the bill, considering the resources of the country. Certainly, in a land with the resources of Canada, with our productive capacity, in an age when we have discovered the secret of making almost anything out of almost anything, as a result of plastic discoveries, in an age when the atomic bomb and its mysteries are unlocked for us, this measure is woefully inadequate.


James Horace King: Order. For the second and last time I would call the hon. member's attention to the fact that the matter before the house is a motion for the third reading of a bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act. I hope I shall not have to ask the hon. gentleman to resume hiS seat. I hope he will confine his remarks to the bill before the house.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, my remarks are absolutely on this bill. Your Honour is in a position of authority and responsibility. You can easily stand up and make it impossible for me to say on this reading things which should be said. If you do, you are responsible. Meanwhile I will say that what I am now saying is entirely in order, that the bill which provides only $30 a month for the elder citizens of Canada, in an age of abundance, in a country like Canada, is simply pathetically inadequate; and I protest against it with every fibre of my being.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my protest to that of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). The week before last I had the privilege of spending a few days at the convention of the National Health League of

Canada in Montreal. In that convention one of the doctors told us he had recently treated a case of scurvy. We thought that scurvy went out with the sailing vessels. We thought it was the result of not having fresh food. But scurvy in this case was the result of an old age pension which, after the rent has been paid, does not permit the pensioner to eat. The result of this bill is to widen slightly the income allowed to a pensioner; but it does nothing really to meet the needs of pensioners in the matter of finding a place to stay and putting food on their tables. I must add to the words of the hon. member for Lethbridge that it is a disgrace and a reproach to the Canadian people that old age pensioners should be gradually dying of malnutrition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say one word before this bill passes. It will not bring very much hope or encouragement to the old people of this country, so meagre is the amount of the increase. But I hope the old people of Canada will be encouraged and will find hope in the long battle which members of parliament on all sides have put up in connection with this measure. The dissatisfaction which has been expressed here augurs well for something better in the future. It means that members of this house are not satisfied, and I trust that the battle which has been waged will give hope to the old age pensioners, even though the $5 increase certainly will not do so.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I have not taken up any time of the house on this bill, but I wish now to register my protest, along with that of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum), against the inadequacy of this measure. This year our national income is almost $12 billion, made possible mainly as a result of our old age pensioners of today; yet we are offering them $30 a month. If the minister's baby were stripped of its fine clothing I think it would be a rather puny baby; in fact, it is a puny baby in the eyes of the people of Canada today. We have had many grand speeches in this house, paying glowing tributes to the people of Canada and to their productive capacity, but we are offering our old age pensioners and our blind pensioners $30 a month, as the best this country can afford. I say it is about time that sane people administered the affairs of this country, if we cannot do any better for our old age pensioners than we are doing at the present time. I must go further and say that if members in this corner of the house are not allowed a little more

Old Age Pensions
latitude, then the sooner we close up here and give the keys to somebody else whom we ace condemning in this house time after time, the better it will be for the Canadian people. Democracy is supposed to rule. Let us have democracy here instead of what we have been having during the past weeks and months.


Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say one last word on this bill. So far I have not contributed anything to this debate. When I think of that 30 measly bucks a month handed out to old age pensioners, I am reminded of the historical beginnings of that figure "30". It started with a man known as Judas Iscariot; and I hate to think of the figure "30" being applied to the old age pensioners of this country. And that is "30" for this afternoon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate, I simply want to say this, and say it in a few words.


James Horace King: I understand that the minister is closing the debate.


Mr. STIRLING:: Is that so? Surely not on third reading.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This measure is not the unimportant measure that it has been suggested to be. Some hon. members have spoken in strong language of the so-called inadequacy of the measure, but few of them have at the same time addressed themselves to what the bill does. Let me remind the house of what it does. It brings to 275,000 Canadian people improved' opportunities for better living standards. That is what it does. It gives to 60,000 aged people for the first time in their lives the opportunity of receiving an old age pension.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And that is what some hon. members are opposing.
' Mr. MARTIN: Hon. members may say that is not very much. When one considers that there are now 215,000, including the blind, receiving old age pensions, I think that to add 60,000 by way of an interim measure is doing something which is of fundamental importance.


Mr. GILLIS:: How long is the interim?


James Horace King: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The next thing is that as a result of this measure five provinces have increased their supplemental payments. The provinces of British Columbia and Ontario have gone up, the former to $38.75 and the latter to $40 as a result of this measure.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Because the pension was inadequate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This bill provides, as distinguished from the bill of which it is an amending part, that any province may increase the pension up to $50 a month. I may say that if not one cent more is spent by the provinces, in the case of six of them the pension will be over $30: $38.75 in British Columbia; $33.75 in Alberta; $33.75 in Saskatchewan and S40 in Ontario. This problem is not one that comes only within the jurisdiction of the dominion government. It is a problem which is basically a provincial one.


Howard Charles Green: No. The dominion should lead.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is the government's
policy to make grants in aid, reinforcing the contributions made by the provinces. There is no country in the world which has provided the liberality of means test that is provided for in this bill. All hon. members have to dlo is to look at the increase in the income limits. Today we have lowered the age at which the pensions are payable to the blind.
Mr. Speaker, as one who has spent all his life in furthering the interests of the people, and will take second place to no man in that regard in this house, I say that I am proud to have brought forward what the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) said was a progressive step, and what the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Matthews), in a responsible and careful speech, referred to as a commendable measure on the part of the government. This is a progressive step. We have raised the level of pensions to the aged. This ' government was the first in the history of Canada to do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But they did it under pressure.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


John Horne Blackmore: On division.


James Horace King: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read the third time and passed.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs, for Mr. Abbott) moved the second reading of Bill No. 3%, to amend the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act.
_______________Veterans Affairs
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-"Guaranteed loan."
Howard Charles Green: I asked some questions last evening which were to be answered today.


Mr. MAYHEW:: Last evening the hon. member for Vancouver South asked how many applications have been rejected. As far as the Department of Finance is concerned we have no knowledge of the number of applications rejected. The applicant goes to his bank and makes his application, so we really have no way of finding out when an application is rejected unless the applicant complains or makes some further representation to the Department of Veterans Affairs. As far as the Department of Finance is concerned we only get those applications that have been approved by the banks, which come forward for approval by the department.


Howard Charles Green: I do suggest there should be some way of finding out how many applications were rejected. It may be that a great many veterans applying for these loans are being turned down by the banks, but from what the parliamentary assistant has said today the government has no information on that point. Surely that is one of the most important questions in connection with this whole plan-whether or not the veteran is getting a square deal from the banks. We should know whether many are being turned down, yet today we can get no information on that point.


Percy Ellis Wright: I must agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South. It seems to me we have no way of judging the adequacy of this measure unless we have information as to the number of loans being made and the number of applications being turned down. Has the minister the number of loans that have been made since the act came into force?


Mr. MAY  HEW@: This act has been in force only five and a half months, and in that time 2,271 loans have been concurred in. They have not all been completed as yet, but that number have been concurred in.


Percy Ellis Wright: What is the total amount, and what is the average loan?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The total of those
actually granted is $816,000. It will require $3,943,000 for the applications that have been concurred in up to the present time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: How many have applied?
	'


Mr. TUCKER:: If I may say just a word-*


George Alexander Cruickshank: We cannot hear back here. I have asked a question of the parliamentary assistant, as to the number who have applied. We do not know that yet.


Walter Adam Tucker: If the hon. member will permit me-


George Alexander Cruickshank: I don't want to hear about Saskatchewan; I want to hear about the veterans.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am speaking on behalf of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and with the permission of the hon. member for Fraser Valley I shall try to give some of the information for which he has asked. As of May 31, 1947, 2,051 applications had come to the Department of Veterans Affairs, of which 2,031 had been concurred in and 20 had not been concurred in.


Mr. BROOKS:: Can you tell us how those are divided across the country?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, I can give that information. The applications by provinces are as follows:
Con-	Not Concurred in curred in
Prince Edward Island ....	30	..Nova Scotia	
80	..New Brunswick	
48	1Quebec	
29	..Montreal	
125	..Ottawa	
81	3Kingston	
84	..Toronto	
300	..Hamilton	
106	..London	
150	..North Bay	
61	..Winnipeg	
il43	2Regina	
124	..Saskatoon	
81	8Calgary	
177	..Edmonton	
176	. .Vancouver	
236	62,03d	20
I repeat, those are the figures as of May 31, 1947.


Howard Charles Green: Are those not only the cases where the bank has accepted the application and passed it on to the Department of Veterans Affairs? The figures we want are of the applications that have been rejected by the banks and therefore have not come near the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Walter Adam Tucker: I was going on to deal with that. What the hon. member has said is quite correct. The figures I have given are the applications that have been dealt with by the banks and passed on to our department. In connection with the applications made to the banks it is unfortunate that we

Veterans Affairs
have not more up to date figures. The banks make a report once every quarter in regard to their administration of the act. So we have the report of the banks only in reference to loans actually made up to March 31, when the act had been in operation only two and a half months. It takes a certain time for those loans to go through the necessary legal process, for the equipment that is being purchased to be procured, and that sort of thing; and really, having in mind that the act wras in force only two and a half months when the return we have was made, I think it is' a rather good record when I say that 493 loans actually had been made, amounting to S816.239. As of yesterday the second quarterly report was due, which of course would bring us more up to date. All the figures we can give hon. members, now, however, are that as of March 31, 1947, the Department of Veterans Affairs had concurred in 1,154 loans totalling SI,986,000. That meant that that number of loans had actually been entertained by the banks and passed on to our department. Of those loans 495 had actually been completed, leaving, as the hon. member can see, well over 600 still in process of going through at the end of the first quarter. That is the actual picture, as far as it can be given to the committee.
With reference to what has been said by the hon. member, a close check is maintained by the Department of Finance in regard to the administration of the act by the banks. Instructions are sent out by the Department of Finance to the banks in connection with the administration of the act. Those instructions are handed to our department for representations before they are sent out. So that there is complete cooperation between the two departments.


Howard Charles Green: The parliamentary assistant has not answered my question at all. He says there is a complete check by the Department of Finance. Apparently that check is not close enough for the department to know how many applications have been turned down by the banks. I repeat that perhaps that is the most important feature of the legislation-whether or not the veteran is getting a fair deal from the banks. We should be told how many applications have been turned down by the banks. We should also know what machinery has been set up so that the veteran who has his application turned down can appeal either to the Department of Finance or the Department of Veterans Affairs for a review. Is there any such machinery in existence? If so, in how many cases has it operated?


Walter Adam Tucker: The officials of our department tell me that when this amendment is accepted it will take care of practically all the complaints made. It is designed to meet the complaints coming to our department in connection with the act. I am told by responsible officials of the department that when the amendment goes through it will take care of practically all the complaints which have come in. I believe it is fair to assume that if there was any feeling that the act is not being administered properly we would have had a considerable volume of complaints. I can state that that is not so.


Howard Charles Green: I am sure the parliamentary assistant will agree that there is a blank which should be filled. The Department of Veterans Affairs should not sit back and wait for complaints to come in from Halifax, Vancouver or the Yukon. It is not easy for a veteran to send a complaint to Ottawa, and he hesitates to do it. But there should be a check by one or both the departments concerned as to how many veterans are being refused loans by banks. I can only take it from what both parliamentary assistants have said that there is no such check, that they have no such information and that they are working in the dark so far as the turning down of applications by the banks is concerned.
If the parliamentary assistant will just sit down for a moment-


Walter Adam Tucker: I thought the hon. member was through.


Howard Charles Green: Sit down and keep cool. I would urge upon the parliamentary assistant that this gap be filled at once and that steps be taken not only to get that information and to keep it up to date, but also to have provisions by which the veteran can complain to the department if his loan is turned down.


Walter Adam Tucker: To answer the question-


Percy Ellis Wright: My question is along the same lines. The parliamentary assistant has said that the banks have already made one quarterly report; is that correct?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes.


Percy Ellis Wright: Did they not state in that report the number of applications they had and the number which were granted? It seems to me that would be part of the report.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member for Vancouver South in my opinion is doing a great service to the veterans in this connection. I wish to ask one or two questions. It seems to me that the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Finance are fighting
Veterans Affairs

among themselves, and the veterans are being left out on a limb. Those departments might as well get together. I want some direct answers to my questions. With all the officials they have, surely they should be able to answer. How many veterans have been turned down by the banks in British Columbia? That is my first question. Then I am entitled to know how many have been turned down in the constituency of Fraser Valley, if any have applied. What is the amount of each application so turned down? I do not want names of individuals. When this matter was discussed in the veterans affairs committee we said that so far as the Department of Veterans Affairs was concerned, nothing was being done. I want to know how many have been turned down by the banks, and the amount in each case, in British Columbia. Were there any appeals, and1 if so who heard those appeals?


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Mr. Chairman-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just a minute; surely, with two parliamentary assistants, one of them should be able to answer a simple question like that.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Mr. Chairman, the first thing I want to make clear is that-
An hon.. MEMBER: Oh, oh.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: You are not in Saskatchewan now. We are trying to do a job here for the returned soldiers, and we want to get on with it as fast as we can.
Let me say first that there is no war at all between the Department of Finance and the Department of Veterans Affairs. On the contrary there is the closest cooperation. The Department of Finance is as anxious to get loans for these men as it can possible be, and is making every move it can make in that direction. But there is no way I can devise- and if anyone in the committee can suggest a way, it would be welcome-whereby we can keep track of the man who goes to a bank and says, "I would like to get a loan under the act." The bank manager may finally come to the conclusion that it would not be advisable to give the loan. There is an application, and no record is made of it.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask

Mr. MAYHEW': Let me finish. There is no record; it was just a conversation which took place.


James Arthur Ross: They report smaller things than that to head office.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: 
Howard Charles Green: Is there any reason on
earth why the government cannot require the banks to make a return showing applications rejected?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: I cannot see any reason
why that information should not be obtained. I suggest it is vital information. We want to know Whether the veterans are being turned down in large numbers. The parliamentary assistant said that a bank manager might discourage a loan. That should be reported to the Department of Veterans Affairs. It may be that a certain bank manager is too harsh. After all, the banks are not taking a great chance under this legislation. They are just about as safe as they could be, because they have the dominion government standing right behind them.


Mr. HARTT:: Why should they discourage them?
_ Mr. GREEN:	I want to find out. That
is all the more reason why we should have this information. If no department has that information, then we must insist that it be obtained. There is no reason why provision could not be made for it to be reported every month.
_ Mr. MUTCH: I think we need to go back for a minute or two to the origins of this legislation. The idea seems to be running through the minds of some of us that this is part of the benefits which "were conceived for veterans generally, but that is not so. Loans made under this legislation are flat business deals. In making a loan the bank is acting primarily as its own agent and only

Veterans Affairs
in a secondary capacity as the agent of the administration. There is nothing to prevent anyone who has served in the forces of Canada from making an application under this act. Conceivably they all might make applications, but those who helped to frame the act, including some of those who are commenting on it today, were aware then and are aware now that it is a business proposition. Conceivably if everybody who might applied for a loan under this legislation and loans were granted to those who were entitled to get them as a business proposition-you do not get a loan because you served, you get a loan because you have a certain financial background and certain financial-


Howard Charles Green: We know all that.


Mr. MUTCH:: Maybe my hon. friend
knows it, but he does not talk as though he remembered it.


James Arthur Ross: That is not the point of the discussion here.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I have been very patient in listening, and whether you are patient or not, you are going to listen. So far as this particular legislation is concerned or so far as any veterans' legislation is concerned I have nothing to learn from my hon. and learned friend or from my hon. and noisy friend. I think it would be to the disadvantage of the veteran himself if we should send across the country the statement that so many thousands had applied for these loans and that only so many hundreds had in fact obtained them. There are bound to be considerable numbers of frivolous applications, and a considerable number of applications must be turned down. If that information were sent out it would leave the impression with many deserving cases that this thing was just a bit of political eyewash and was not designed to help the veteran.


James Arthur Ross: Are you sure it is not?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That is not case, and my hon. friend knows that the figures speak for themselves.


Howard Charles Green: Don't say what I know; I will look after that.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I do not object if it is possible to get from every bank manager in the country how many veterans he gave perfectly sound .banking advice to that they were not open to take advantage of this legislation. Further, we know that the provision for approval by the Department of Veterans Affairs was primarily to make sure that persons who were not entitled to consideration could not obtain any of the benefits under this legislation.


Howard Charles Green: They never bother with the applications that are turned down.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I know they do not, and I see no particular reason why they should. They do not hear from the banks. As I pointed out a moment ago, if there were any considerable number of these the public might be harmfully affected. I want to go on and say to the hon. member for Vancouver South and all those who have had anything to do with these matters that if the veterans feels that the bank, acting as the agent of the government, is acting unreasonably, then it would not be very long before we, let alone the government, would know about it. In my own case I have not had a single complaint.
I may have been fortunate, or the bankers in my district may be more enlightened. But we do know that there have been complaints and as a result of those complaints the officers of the departments are seeking to make this legislation effective by means of these amendments. I am prepared to accept their word that they will take care of the majority of the complaints which have been made. As I remember it, the banker may transact his business in a manner which permits him to be more generous to the veteran than he would be to the civilian. I suggest to the committee in all humility that we will be serving their interests to the greatest extent if we do everything we can to see that this system functions as liberally as possible by accepting these amendments or by making other suggestions rather than by attempting to discredit, not deliberately perhaps-


Howard Charles Green: Just a minute; I must ask that the hon. member withdraw that. That is a most ridiculous statement, that anybody is attempting to discredit the act.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I am casting no reflection upon the hon. member for Vancouver South, and I would be the last in this committee to do it, having worked with him for many years. I would not suggest for one moment that he is deliberately doing that or has any intention of creating such an opinion. I have given it as my opinion, and it is my opinion that by proceeding with that kind of thing we shall not be helping these men. I am not going to withdraw my opinion. I assure my hon. friend that I am not suggesting for one second that that is his intention. I am simply giving a warning, if he prefers it that way. I think there is danger of discouraging the use of this legislation if we broadcast that so many thousands of applications have been rejected, without knowing the background, without knowing whether they were frivolous, or without knowing anything of the economic

Veterans Affairs
position. You do not do a man a favour bylending him money which he cannot repay. We have to rely on somebody, and I would rather rely on a hard-headed bank manager than on a government official, even an official of this government, when it comes to a business decision such as this. For that reason I hope that we can consider how we can help the veteran rather than suggesting, even obliquely or indirectly or unintentionally, that the veteran is not getting the backing which he deserves from the legislation.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have enjoyed very much the lecture from the suburbs of Winnipeg. We had it day in and day out in the veterans affairs committee. I want to tell the previous speaker that the hon. member for Vancouver South, who happens to belong to a different party than that to which the member for Fraser Valley belongs, and I, do not need any lecture from him on our services on behalf of the veterans.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Nobody has suggested that you do.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member spoke for three-quarters of an hour and said nothing. The hon. member took up two-thirds of the time in the veterans affairs committee, and he gets up now and makes insinuations about members who have asked simple questions. I am going to ask a question, and it will have to be awfully simple for him to understand. I am entitled to ask this question as a member of that committee and as a member representing veterans in my riding. My hon. friend is entitled to his ideas.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Thank you very much.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to know how many have applied for loans in the province of British Columbia and in the constituency of Fraser Valley. I should like to know how many have been rejected. That is a simple question. I should like to know the amount of each application that was rejected in the province and in the riding. That is a simple question, and surely I am entitled to an answer.
I want to correct some of the statements that have been made. We said when we brought down this legislation that we were doing it to help the veterans establish themselves on farms and so on. The banks do not stand to lose one dollar. They are protected throughout by the revenues of the Dominion of Canada. My hon. friend may want to protect his banker friends. That may work out all right politically in his riding, but in my riding we are interested in the veterans, not in the bankers. I have asked a direct question and I would like an answer.


Walter Adam Tucker: All the figures I can give I gave before. The number concurred in in the province of British Columbia is 236, to a total amount of $458,069.24. The number not concurred in is six, to the value of $12,833.33. That is as far as the Department of Veterans Affairs is concerned. It is not broken down into constituencies, because I was under the impression that the only way in which this act was not functioning almost to the complete satisfaction of the veteran was in respect to what we are now legislating on. Those were the only matters on which we were getting complaints, and we are bringing in this bill so that the act will function one hundred per cent to the satisfaction of the veteran. I understood that these amendments would be concurred in without a great deal of question. If that is not the wish of the committee, of course we are in the hands of the committee.
In regard to the number declined, the banks have advised the Department of Finance of the number who applied. Of course there are also many applications pending. The only figures we have are those where applications have been granted. In regard to those declined, it is hard to say when a loan is declined because a man may come in and discuss the matter with a bank and not proceed with an application after talking it all over. The act had been in operation for only two and a half months, on March 31 last when the report we have was made. We could easily give the numbers that have actually been granted, but it would be a mistake to suppose that all the remainder-* the difference between those where we had actually given our consent and those granted- are not going through. As has been pointed out, as of March 31 last the applications concurred in by the Minister of Veterans Affairs numbered 1.154 and actually 495 had been completed. The remaining 600 would be in process of going through, either getting the necessary legal documents completed or purchasing the machinery or something of that sort. It is too early, I submit to the committee, to endeavour to make any judgment as to whether any large number of applications is being declined, because as of the last report of the banks, after the act had been in operation for two and half months, they had granted 495 applications out of 1,154 which we had passed on. The rest are in process ol going through. The committee will realize that it takes time for these matters to be completed. Documents have to be completed, machinery purchased, investigations made, and so on, and any informati >n such as is asked

Veterans Affairs
for by hon. members is simply unavailable, that is all. I think that will commend itself to the members of the committee.
We keep in close touch with the veterans through the various branches of our department, and any veteran who feels that he is not being treated right by the bank is perfectly free to make his complaint. Our departmental officials took the attitude that if we could get these amendments through it would meet practically all the complaints we were getting. Hon. members know that I took this up with veterans' representatives in the various parties in the house and asked them if we could get these amendments through to cure the situation without great difficulty. I was pleased with and want to express my appreciation of the cooperation of the veterans' representatives in endeavouring to get these amendments through.


James Arthur Ross: I do not think the parliamentary assistant has yet answered the hon. member for Fraser Valley. I want to go back a little further. This legislation was announced last August, and I could not say just how many veterans asked me after August when the legislation would become operative. I know that a great many veterans in my riding wanted financial assistance to get established in business and some finally got it from private individuals, friends and others. I do not know why, if this legislation was to assist the veterans, it took from last August until last January to become operative.
Following up the question under discussion this afternoon, I know a little bit, as almost a permanent borrower from the banks, about how they report to their head offices and all the minor details within the community that they go into. Have the banks been asked to show in their quarterly statement the number of veterans who have actually come to the banks and discussed the question of a loan? I think the banks should give that information in their quarterly reports. I agree with the parliamentary assistant that a great many people may come in and talk over a loan and be talked out of it by the bank manager. That is perfectly true, but there is no reason why the bank manager should not report these discussions to the head office, and why head office should not include that information in their quarterly report to the department. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg South that it would be detrimental to the whole set-up; far from it. It is simply a matter of business which the Department of Veterans Affairs should ask the Department of Finance to do for them. The banks are not taking much of a chance on these loans.
Most people who could take advantage of the act could obtain a loan on their own resources anyway. I am speaking after a lot of experience with veterans. Has the parliamentary assistant asked the Department of Finance to have this information made available by the banks, and if not, will he do so, in the interests of the veterans and the country as a whole? I am not advocating that foolish loans should be made to everybody, but parliament should be informed as to how successfully the act is working.


Walter Adam Tucker: I can assure the hon. member that our department, in this matter as in all others, intends to follow this up very closely to see that the intention of parliament is carried out. I assure the hon. member, with all the emphasis at my command, that we are watching this act very carefully. It was proclaimed only on January 15, and had been in force only two and a half months when the banks made their first quarterly report-the, only one we have-and so it is impossible to give any figures as to loans declined which really mean anything. I also want to say that it has been very much in the mind of the Veterans Affairs Department to make sure that the act was carrying out the purpose for which it was passed, and that is why this amendment is before the house. It was felt that this would cure almost all the complaints that we were getting, and so we said we will put ourselves in the hands of the house and open the act to make it do what we wanted it to do. I assure hon. members that our department is taking a real interest in this act, as in all other parts of veterans legislation, in order to carry it out to the best possible advantage of the veteran.


Mr. McKAY:: The parliamentary assistant has said that this act has been in effect for only twro and one half months. He is in error, because it was proclaimed on January 15, 1947. I should like to ask the same question as the hon. member for Souris and to support him in what he has said with regard to a number of veterans who have complained about the inoperation of the act. It was passed in this house last August. All through the fall veterans came to me wondering when it would1 be possible for them to go to a bank and secure a loan. Why was there such a lapse of time between the passage of the act through the house and the setting up of machinery and. the putting into effect of the act. so that veterans could get loans. It was so late in some cases that the loan was of no benefit to them at all.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: This matter relates to the Department of Finance and I think I should
Veterans Affairs

comment upon it. Assent to the bill was given on August 31 last-August 31, 1946-and the act was proclaimed on January 15, 1947.
Mr. M civ AY: Almost six months ago,


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Many negotiations had to take place in the interval.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Some hon. gentlemen seem to think that as soon as you pass a bill someone can sit down over night with pencil and paper and scribble out some regulations and that is the end of it. But the amount of time involved in preparing the regulations, first of all in making arrangements with the bank and then getting the regulations ready and submitting them to justice and to veterans affairs, and then trying to get the whole thing worked out, is considerable.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There was not a day lost.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There was no time lost. Hon. members will realize that when we left here at the end of August last year these men had been working day and night, many of them, and they had; only a few days left in which to get their summer holidays, to which they were entitled. Since the act was given assent to, I have been close enough to the whole question to know that no time has been lost by the officials. A great deal of correspondence had to be exchanged between the different branches, and I myself had questions put to me many times by people who wanted to know when we would get the act into operation. I sometimes thought there was delay, but I was on the job in November and well into December and I can assure the committee that there was no delay that could have been avoided in getting the whole thing started.
This legislation this year seeks to aid in every way possible both from the angle of the Department of Defence, from the angle of the Department of Veterans Affairs and from our own point of view, to make it a success, and it can be a success. But there will be a little time in getting it worked out. I would suggest to those who are interested in veterans affairs that they suggest to the veteran that if he is contemplating asking for a loam he use the form which is set out in the regulations here, andi on that form make his application to the bank. Then it can come back to the Department of Finance and we can check up. But we have no way of checking up on private conversations between veterans and bank managers. If the veterans use the form available to them there will be every chance.
We want to encourage these men. The statement has been made that the banks have

nothing to lose. The government guarantees twenty-five per cent of the first million and fifteen per cent of the other, so that the banks have a stake in it; and, regardless of what some people think of the banks, the banks are interested in the progress of the country. Every man who makes a success of his business is an advantage to the banks, and therefore the banks have everything to gain in encouraging these men, if you want to put it on the coldest possible basis. I insist that the banks are trying to do a good job and we shall get it worked out.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Who questioned the banks?


Mr. MAY  HEW@: Nobody.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Why then insinuate?


Gordon Graydon: There is a case which I should like to bring to the attention to the parliamentary assistant. It has been before the department previously, but perhaps now it may be covered by this amended legislation, and I want to have the view of those in charge as to whether or not it would be covered. This was a young veteran who, in August, 1946, noticing in the newspapers that this particular legislation was about to be proclaimed, or was to become law a little later on, believing he had some rights with respect to the purchasing of a business, did purchase that business, giving a mortgage in connection with it. It was a tearoom business, and he gave a mortgage for $2,000. From information I have, it was at the rate of something like eight per cent per annum. Then, feeling that the loan was only for a short time, he made application because he calculated that he would be able to avail himself at once of the loan provided under this legislation. He found then, however, that he was stuck with the loan, that this act could not cover what they chose to call past indebtedness, and the result is that he is now stuck with an eight per cent mortgage over his head. He is in a difficult position financially. I am wondering whether this legislation now covers such a case, which has aroused the interest of one of the major branches of the Canadian Legion and which may be typical of some other veterans who probably are in the same position. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant can enlighten me.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The second amendment is the one dealing with that and it takes care of that very thing. That man will be able to get his loan once this amendment is made, other things being equally satisfactory.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I make a statement in connection with what the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance

Veterans Affairs
said, and I speak for private members. Some of us private members have to borrow money occasionally from the banks, and the banks have been very good to me. The parliamentary assistant is most unfair in his reference, probably because he is in a more fortunate position than we are. As to the suggestion about criticizing the banks, no member who has spoken has passed any criticism upon them. Why should we? The banks cannot lose. The people of Canada are guaranteeing every dollar the banks are lending to the veteran; and it is most unfair for the parliamentary assistant, inadvertently I admit, to imply that when we, as private members, criticize this or any other bill, which is our right, we are criticizing the banks. There has been no criticism of the banks. I owe the banks some money today and I will borrow more tomorrow if they let me, and will enjoy doing so. It is unfair for him to say that we are criticizing the banks.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I am pleased to see the government introducing this amending bill, no doubt after considering the suggestions made last year in the veterans committee. On a question like this we have to offer constructive criticism, and we must not be in too much of a hurry to criticize before the act has been in operation for a certain length of time. For once I cannot agree with the attitude of the hon. member for Fraser Valley. The hon. member for Winnipeg South made a sensible remark. This is a novel type of legislation, something entirely new in the field of loans, partly guaranteed by the government. I have no brief for the banks, but I have talked to a number of bank managers and I know the average bank manager will review any reasonable case and give the veteran all the breaks he can under the terms of the resolution. That is what I have found in my experience. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South said, we are doing no favour to a man by lending him money if he has not a reasonable chance of success.
I wish to make a suggestion with regard to the question of reporting the applications? I have talked to a number of men. You are bound to have large numbers of men without previous experience, possibly lacking in judgment in some instances, who think, because of this legislation, there is an opportunity to borrow some money, and become established in business where their future is assured. With these men going to the bank, explaining their circumstances, when the bank manager sees at once that the proposition they have to offer is unreasonable, is unlikely of success, he can tell them so. But if, after discussing the matter with the bank manager, the veteran wishes to make application, then he makes written application to the bank manager and I think those applications should be reported to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Of men who spoke to me and who were wishing to make applications to the bank for a loan under this act, I know of a few cases on which it would simply b,e a waste of the official's time, a waste of stationery and a waste of the time of everybody concerned to make complete reports, because the men either misunderstood the act or were endeavouring to go into some proposition which was thoroughly unsound in the first instance.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I probably gave a little bit of wrong information to the hon. member for Peel. You cannot borrow money from the bank to pay off old accounts. But where a man entered into an agreement between September 1 and January 15-that is, after the act had been passed, he went into it-he can pay that off with this loan. It could be used, in other words, as a part of the loan.


Howard Charles Green: As his cash payment.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: As his payment.


Howard Charles Green: Is that not all?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: That is all.


Gordon Graydon: May I get this thing
straight? The position is, I think, exactly as I indicated in my earlier remarks. It does look like a chance for this parliament at least to come to the rescue of someone such as the man to whom I referred. It really was not past indebtedness in the ordinary sense of the term, because it was indebtedness incurred with the belief that he could avail himself at once of the terms of this legislation when it was proclaimed. That is a little bit different from the case of a veteran who, without any thought or knowledge of an act of this kind coming into effect, perhaps incurred some indebtedness. This seems to be on a different basis from that, and I was hoping that the parliamentary assistant's first explanation would be the one that was tenable, because it would relieve a situation in a bona fide case, where the veteran is in a difficult position.


Walter Adam Tucker: As hon. members will
recall, the committee gave a great deal of consideration to this question of whether money could be borrowed to pay off any existing indebtedness. After careful consideration, it was felt that it would be difficult to permit that in order to cover a legitimate case such as the hon. member for Peel has mentioned, but at the same time not open the door to having unloaded under this act loans which were made and were turning
Veterans Affairs

out or had turned out to be bad. It was finally the feeling of the committee that you could not permit a loan to be made under this act for the purpose of paying off any existing indebtedness, because it would be open to abuse. That is, a person might make a loan which looked to be good but which turned out to be bad. Then what could be better than to unload it under this act upon the dominion government? So the committee came to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to do that. Hence you cannot borrow money under this act except for the purposes set out in the act, which is to advance the veteran in the ways prescribed.	You
cannot borrow money under the act to pay off existing indebtedness, because it was feared that might lead to abuse. I may say that, as members of the committee will recall, we gave a great deal of consideration tc that feature.


Gordon Graydon: Is no discretion possible?


Walter Adam Tucker: Then there is danger of
abuse.


Mr. ISNOR:: My case is similar to that
mentioned by the hon. member for Peel. Last September three airmen entered into an agreement to construct a good-sized restaurant and dance hall in the suburbs of Halifax, and borrowed money when this act was being considered. The parliamentary assistant should look at it in the light of the fact that it was part of an undertaking entered into, as suggested by the hon. member for Peel. They entered into the transaction on the understanding that it would be brought within the scope of this act when it came into effect. For that reason I think the case referred to by the hon. member for Peel, as well as the one mentioned by me, should be considered in that light, and that favourable attention should be given to their request that a loan be approved to carry out the provisions of the building agreement.
I could go into a more extended review of this case, but I do not think it is necessary. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance has the file. I was hoping that the amendment proposed by this bill would be broad enough to take care of this particular case. Before a decision is given against the hon. member for Peel, I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that he give the matter further thought. I feel that the intention of the original act was to assist young servicemen to establish themselves in business by providing the necessary funds. Having that in mind, and also the fact that these men and no doubt others entered into agreements

such as I have mentioned, I hope the interpretation will be wide enough to meet the situation.


Walter Adam Tucker: Section 3 (1) (iv) of the act prescribes that a loan may be made to a veteran for "any purpose as prescribed which may be deemed to benefit his business." I suppose, if a person had taken on a load of debt at a high rate of interest, for the purpose of going into business, and that load was strangling his changes of success, and there was a chance of getting it at a low rate of interest and spreading it over a long period of time, that might be considered as a purpose "which may be deemed to benefit his business". I think it would be fair to say that will be taken into consideration as a suggestion, if there are many cases which seem to be legitimate, that consideration be given to the possibility of taking care of such cases under the section which I have cited. But, of course, it would have to .be circumscribed and laid down with a great deal of care so that it would not be subject to abuse.


Mr. HARKNESS:: I do not think there is very much in the argument which the parliamentary assistant has put up, that following the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peel in regard to people who have secured loans in order to buy businesses, in anticipation of getting a loan under this particular act, would lead to abuses and that a great number of bad loans would be unloaded on the government. I do not think there is any validity in that argument, for this reason: Every one of those loans must be approved by a bank manager. I do not think any bank manager who has been holding that job for any length of time in this country will recommend a second loan to pay off what has turned out to be a bad loan, because he would take into consideration there would not be a very good chance of the loan being repaid. The fact that a bank manager has to approve the loan before it is made completely throws out the argument put.up by the hon. member for Rosthern.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member has missed the point. The committee had in mind seeing to it that this guarantee of twenty-five per cent of the first million dollars was used to the benefit of veterans, and not to enable any financial institution or anyone else to unload on the government a loan that seemed to be going bad. Remember, there is a heavy guarantee by the government in connection with these loans, and if some financial institution found that a loan which looked very good last fall seemed to be

Veterans Affairs
going bad, because of something that had happened in the meantime, if the right were given under this act to switch a loan of that kind it would simply mean they could unload that debt on the dominion government. That is the point I was trying to make; I am not saying anyone would do so, but the committee suggested that was something which should be borne in mind. I say, if we are to make provision for the case mentioned by the hon. member for Peel we shall have to follow the suggestion of the committee very care-full}' and see to it that it is not subject to abuse in any way.


Percy Ellis Wright: I think what has been suggested would require an amendment to the act, would it not?


Walter Adam Tucker: It could be done by regulation.


Percy Ellis Wright: It would only require a change in the regulations?


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes; any purpose which has been prescribed, which may be deemed to benefit the veteran's business.


Percy Ellis Wright: Some time ago I asked as to the number of applications made to the banks and the number accepted. The parliamentary assistant stated there was no record of those which had been rejected, and I think he made a very good suggestion when he said anyone dissatisfied with the decision of the bank had the right to fill out the application and file it, in which case it would be on record. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs said his department had received a certain number of complaints in regard to loans being refused.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mainly in regard to
delays.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am going to ask him to give the committee the number of complaints that have been received up to date, or to the latest date available, and the number of those complaints that would be taken care of by the amendments now suggested. He told us a large number would be taken care of by these amendments, and if we had those figures we would get a better picture.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am sorry I have not those figures. I took the advice of our officer in charge of the matter. I did not ask him to go back over the files to see the exact number of complaints, but he told me these amendments would take care of practically all of them. If the hon. member wants the exact
number of complaints and just what proportion would be looked after by these amendments it would require going back over the files for the last four or five months, and I do not know whether that would serve any useful purpose. If the hon. member wants the information I suppose we can get it for him, but I should hope that would not hold up this bill. The main objection to the bill that came to me was in connection with the delay in getting it actually into operation, and the delay in getting the regulations promulgated. Once that was done and the act came into active operation, I am bound to say it worked even better than I expected, and that the response was much greater than I expected.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister and the two parliamentary assistants see bo it that from now on they get information from the banks as to the applications that are rejected? This controversy arose out of the question I asked last evening, which was as to how many applications have been rejected. It is obvious that the government has not that information; but under paragraph (m) of subsection (1) of section 7 of the act, which deals with the regulations, we find this power:
... to require reports to be made periodically to the minister by a bank in respect of guaranteed loans.
Will the government undertake to have the information available in future as to the number of applications that have been rejected? I really think we are entitled to that information.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the request is most reasonable. I believe a report should be made by the banks quarterly, or possibly more frequently, giving the information my hon. friend requests. I also want to tell him that if he looks at the correspondence he will see that the Department of Veterans Affairs was most persistent and aggressive in getting more immediate action in regard to this measure.


Howard Charles Green: In other words, the Department of Finance were to blame?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would not blame any department. The Department of Finance had some delicate negotiations to conduct with the banks. It was a new type of legislation, and difficult to put into operation. The Department of Finance have been most cooperative-


Howard Charles Green: They were cooperative but a little slow; is that it?
490S
Veterans Affairs


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Perhaps we were all a little slow; I do not know. Anyway, we were most persistent and aggressive, and I know the Department of Finance had difficult negotiations to conduct with ithe banks before they would agree to what we thought was a rational method of procedure in regard to these loans. That is the story.


Mr. BENTLEY:: I just want a little information, and then to offer a comment. I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs the grounds for non-concurrence in the twenty cases he mentioned a short time ago.


Walter Adam Tucker: The grounds were almost entirely that the persons were not veterans as defined in the act itself. The veteran must be a person resident and domiciled in Canada, who has received or is entitled to a gratuity under the War Service Grants Act, and who has not elected to take benefits under the Veterans' Land Act, 1942. Practically all cases of non-concurrence have been on one of those grounds.


Thomas John Bentley: There would be practically no other ground on which the department could decide not to concur, because when the veterans affairs committee was sitting I believe it was established that only the banks had to right to refuse a loan, and all the Department of Veterans Affairs had to do was to identify the man to the bank as requested.
I should like to support the horn, member for Vancouver South and others who have asked for a report, not of every conversation a bank manager has with any fellow who might want to talk over a loan, but as regards those veterans who have actually made formal application and been formally refused. I think that is proper information.
One other matter was brought up here to which I think a little more careful study might be given. That was the question raised by the hon. member for Peel, in which we are all interested, the matter of making these loans in order to retire loans already made by other people. Take the case of a veteran who comes home and whose brother or some other relative lends him money to start up a business. Later the lender needs the money back. The veteran might try to arrange a loan under this act on a good, going concern, but the fact that he had a previous loan from somebody else would militate against his getting a loan from the bank. I believe the Department of Veterans Affairs should establish machinery of some bind to examine into cases of that sort and make it possible for veterans to get, under

this legislation, loans with which to repay loans previously obtained, so that they may continue with their business. In many cases those loans were made as a matter of family duty, out of pockets which were none too plentifully supplied with money.


Walter Adam Tucker: The matter will be studied, and if it is possible to do anything, it will be done.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Guaranteed loans.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I want to ask a question in regard to the date in this section, which I presume is the date this bill was given royal assent, in relation to people who embarked upon expenditures in order to secure a business, between that date and the time the act actually became operative.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is the next section.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, it is part of subsection (3) of section 2. I know of at least one or two cases where people did exactly what it is intended that this section shall cover, but they did it before royal assent was given. In other words, the measure was under consideration in the house. They were fairly sure it would become law, and they made expenditures in connection with the purchase of businesses, expecting that they could get loans afterwards. If they had done that between the first day of September of last year and January 15 of this year they would have been eligible under this amendment. However, they anticipated what might happen, and they are not eligible. I would ask that the date be moved back at least two months so that it would take in those who anticipated what was to take place.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are prepared to agree to that suggestion.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Why limit it to two months?
I was going to point out that some returned soldiers had entered into business before this act was in force. The intention is to give all returned men a chance to establish themselves in business. If one man was home sooner than the others, why should he be discriminated against? If it can be made retroactive for two months, why not six months? As has been suggested by the hon. member for Nanaimo, why not make it retroactive from the discharge of the soldier? I am sure the department will get into trouble if it makes it two months, because some will ask for three.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Perhaps we might think about it during the recess, with a view to putting in January 1.

Veterans Affairs


Howard Charles Green: The veterans cannot get the benefit in the meantime. I suggest that it would be fair if the date were changed to April 1, the beginning of the fiscal year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Or January 1, 1946.


Howard Charles Green: That is even better. The amendment could be moved now, could it not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The farther it is put back the better pleased I shall be. I suggested1 two months only because I happened to know of one or two cases where the two months would have been effective. But the farther back it is placed, the better it will please me.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What was the reason for putting in September?


Walter Adam Tucker: That was the date the act came into force. There was some objection that there was delay in getting it into operation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move:
That section 2(3) be amended by striking out the word "September" in the eighth line thereof and substituting therefor the word "January."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Howard Charles Green: Has any further consideration been given to making loans available where the veteran is going into a company rather than a partnership? That was the recommendation of the committee last year. That recommendation was not accepted by the government. The British Columbia command of the Canadian Legion passed a resolution in June of this year with regard to the Veterans Business and- Professional Loans Act, which states:
That loans be available for businesses which are incorporated provided that all stock in the organization is owned by the veterans engaged in the business, or their immediate families.


Mr. PROBE:: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That matter has been considered, but so far no decision has been arrived at. I must ask the committee to give further time, so that the department may consider carefully the point raised by the hon. member.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Bank security.


John Oliver Probe: The purpose of this amendment is to add the words "personal" and "or movable" in connection with collateral which a bank may accept as security when making a loan. It may be argued that a veteran is able to get a loan more readily if he is willing to put up all his personal property as collateral to satisfy the bank's requirements in respect of additional security. It would seem to me that this is a vicious principle and one in which we should not concur. The effect of it will be that a bank will tie everything up. It has been my experience that any time I go to a bank for a loan everything I possess is immediately tied up until the loan is satisfied. Where the furniture and personal chattells of a veteran are concerned, surely the government is not demanding the additional few ounces of flesh in addition to the pound it is already demanding by way of security.
Would one of the parliamentary assistants please justify this so that, with my limited intelligence of banking, I may understand it more clearly.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am pleased with this amendment. There are several men in my constituency who purchased small sawmills in the last year. This amendment will permit them to offer as security that personal property.


John Oliver Probe: That is equipment. I am not arguing about shop equipment.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member will find there are limitations set out in paragraphs (a) and (b), where it is stated that this can be taken only upon property in respect of which all or part of the proceeds of the guaranteed loan are to be expended; or an assignment of the rights and interest of a purchaser under an agreement for sale of real or personal, immovable or movable property; or a lien or conditional sale contract for personal, or movable property in respect of which all or part of the proceeds of the guaranteed loan are to be expended. In other words, it is limited to goods which are to be bought with the proceeds of the loan, or part of the proceeds.


John Oliver Probe: That would not be furniture.


Walter Adam Tucker: No.


John Oliver Probe: Let us suppose additional
security is taken by a bank in order to secure itself to better advantage. For example, in paragraph (h) of the section which we have just passed they are allowed to change the conditions under which a loan may be granted,

Railway Act

and that might mean, the calling in of additional security from time to time. Will the effect of section 4 be to make it possible for the bank to extend its security to personal or household effects? I am quite prepared to admit the validity of what the hon. member for Kootenay West said a moment ago because, if there are business articles, it is natural that the bank will take those as part of its collateral.


Walter Adam Tucker: Under the Bank Act, the bank has no power to take such chattel security, and that is the reason for this amendment. This amendment carries it as far as it has to go. The bank can have as security movable or personal property with respect to anything purchased with the proceeds or part of the proceeds of the loan. There is no risk of anything of the kind such as that mentioned by the hon. member for Regina City. Except as mentioned, this does not give a bank the right to take security in the form of personal property, either at the time the loan is made or later.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 255, to amend the Railway Act.
He said: The amendments made in the other place do not affect the substance of the bill, but the form onty. It has to do with the drafting. Amendments were made to sections 5, 6 and 7 and in perhaps eight or nine different places the word "such" was changed to "the". I have no objection to these amendments.
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
402. Departmental administration, $544,000.
Howard Charles Green: We did not expect to have supply until seven o'clock, and I understood that several other bills were to be taken up this afternoon.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The house is going to rise at five o'clock. I gave a promise to the

leader of the Social Credit group, who is not in his seat at the moment, that we would call the bill respecting the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains. He was going to help me in putting it through because I do not know very much about it. I promised supply for seven o'clock this evening, when we come back from another function, and we could spend the next five or ten minutes on the Rocky mountain bill, if that is the desire of the house. I should like the leader of the Social Credit group to be here.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member for Peace River thought it would be impossible for that measure to be reached before five o'clock. However, he will be here shortly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think we had better keep to the understanding we had. The Minister of Transport will be the first in supply at seven o'clock. With the leave of the committee, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



RADIO BROADCASTING


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That the name of Mr. Bentley be substituted for that of Mr. Knight on the special committee on radio broadcasting.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 30, consideration in committee of Bill No. 362, respecting the protection and conservation of the forests on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains-Mr. Mackenzie-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. PEARKES:: The short title of this bill deals with the protection and conservation of forests on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains. I would suggest that the dominion government has a strong, if not a direct interest. in the forest resources and that it should give real and continuing assistance to the efforts of all the provinces in the conservation of their forests. I suggest that, in so far as the eastern slope of the Rockies is concerned, the great hazard to the forests, namely, fire and the movement of insect pests, are not limited by

Forest Conservation
the actual topography of the ground or by provincial boundaries. Forest fires spread, quite heedless of whether the provincial boundary runs across the line of fire and insects spread quite irrespective of the height of ground or whether the forests are on the eastern or the westei-n slope of any particular range of mountains.
I have advocated in the last session that the federal government should show more interest in the development of our forest industries. I would point out that fifty per cent of the total lumber production for the whole of Canada comes from British Columbia and that of that fifty per cent, eighty per cent comes from what is known as the coastal region, where there is still much virgin timber. It seems to me that now is the time for the government to protect that virgin timber because, if that is not done, the time will come when the virgin timber has all been utilized, and we must ensure that by the time the virgin timber has been cut and turned into lumber there is a second crop coming up. It is only by ensuring that this second crop will be available at the time the virgin timber has been exhausted that we can assure that this country will be able to maintain its timber industry.
One-third of the territory of British Columbia is potentially productive either of agricultural products or of timber resources. But only one-sixth of that one-third is agricultural production, and the other ninety-four per cent is only productive if we can keep the timber growing.
The amount of export of timber from British Columbia is fifty per cent at least of the whole of the production of timber in the dominion, and the total export of timber is twenty-five per cent or one-quarter of the total exports of this country. The timber exports are second only to those of agriculture. Other governments, such as the governments of Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom, have spent large amounts of money to ensure that the growing of timber is continued. and I suggest that Canada must stay in the timber business.
I should like to read into the record evidence which was given by Mr. H. R. MacMillan a short time ago when speaking before the commission of inquiry on forest resources of British Columbia:
The coast forest district (of British Columbia) produces over 80 per cent of the annual forest crop of this province. If the young coast forests do not burn, it appears certain that the coast forests will increase in absolute and in relative importance. The forests of the coast district produce more than 80 per cent of the public revenues from all forms of taxation based on forest income. The coast district also grows the largest crop annually per acre. The annual 83166-313J
growth per acre in the coast district is at least eight to ten times the average annual growth in the most productive forest regions east of the Cascade mountains. Growing as it does at an average distance of about twenty miles from the ocean and navigable waters, the coast forest, as compared with the interior forests, is more accessible to a larger provincial population and therefore more valuable as a support to large permanent communities and as a basis of a very important foreign trade. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that the immense forest resources of the coast forest district should be treated, not only as a separate administrative and protective unit, but also as a separate financial unit for protection purposes.
That last sentence refers to the action which is being taken by the provincial government. My whole point is this. I want to emphasize the paramount importance of concentrating efforts, not only on the eastern slopes of the Rockies, but also on the more valuable timber resources of British Columbia.


John Horne Blackmore: Is it the intention to continue with this measure at seven o'clock?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was just going to mention that. I should like to modify what I said a few minutes ago. I was called suddenly out of the house and, when I spoke, was not acquainted with the developments. I think it is the general desire of the house to finish this bill, and so I shall modify what I said last night, with the permission of the house, about taking supply at seven o'clock. We shall first of all finish this bill and then go into supply, first on the Department of Transport and, following that, Justice and Labour, if that will suit the convenience of hon. members. I shall now move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.
At five o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at seven o'clock.




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 362, respecting the protection and conservation of the forests on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains-Mr. Mackenzie-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be well at this stage if you would allow me to say something in a general way about the
Forest Conservation

the federal government for assistance. Ever since 1937, the matter of the protection of the forests, in the interests of the watershed of the east slope of the Rockies, has been under discussion between the federal government, particularly the Department of Mines and Resources, and the provincial department of lands and mines. From the beginning of this discussion the province has taken the stand that the protection of this east slope is of national importance and should, therefore, be financed largely by the federal government.
From the beginning of my experience in public affairs I can say that Alberta has been keenly interested in water conservation. She looked upon the protection of her watersheds1 as a sacred trust. Alberta has also been much interested in water utilization. I do not intend to deal with that; other speakers may wish to say something about it. But I contend that no other province in Canada has done so much in this regard. The interest of the people of my province in water utilization is undim-inshed; rather, I should say, it is growing yearly. Just as an indication of how important this is to the people of Alberta, and how we regard it, I should like to read one or two small extracts from a speech made by Hon. Mr. Manning, premier and provincial treasurer of Alberta, on the occasion of presenting his budget.


An hon. MEMBER:: This year?


Solon Earl Low: Yes. By the way, this is his budget speech delivered on March 7, 1947. I find at page 6 the following statement by the premier:
In my address of last year, I mentioned the St. Mary's river development project as a part of a large scale irrigation programme which, when completed, would add some 345,000 acres of land in the Taber, Medicine Hat and Milk river areas to that already under irrigation. As a preliminary step, the province, the previous year, had undertaken the construction of the East Pothole Coulee dam. an integral part of the larger project. This work has been in progress for almost a year; and will be completed during the coming summer. During the past year, the dominion government awarded two contracts involving an expenditure of over $2,800.000; and construction is now well under way. Negotiations with the dominion government have been carried on for some time in an endeavour to work out a fair and equitable agreement whereby each government will carry its fair share of the cost of construction, colonizing and maintenance of the several proposed projects in the province. Substantial progress has been made along this line and I am hopeful that it will reach fruition in the very near future.
The project known as the Lethbridge southeastern or St. Mary's-Milk river will involve a total expenditure of a sum in excess of $15,000,000.
Just here, let me congratulate both the provincial government and the federal government when reaching that agreement and upon

getting on with the work of water utilization in the southern part of Alberta. Further to emphasize how this matter of water conservation and the protection of forests is regarded in that province I should like to read from page 16 of the same speech by Mr. Manning, where he says:
The estimates of the department of lands and mines are increased by $218,000.
That was over the estimates for the previous year.
A large portion of this is accounted for by two new appropriations-$30,000 to pay grants to municipal taxing authorities who are now restrained from levying mineral taxes-
But this one that follows is most important: -and $55,000 for the commencement of a forestry survey which will have great conserva-tional and commercial value. The balance of the increase in the department is mainly for the purpose of providing additional inspection and protection in our forest reserves.
To sum up what the minister said in this last extract from his budget speech, it simply means that a total of S190.000 over last year's votes for the department of lands and mines was to be spent this year for conservation and surveys on the east slope of the Rocky mountains. I believe there is much evidence that the province has realized fully the great importance of preserving the forests so that the run-off can be controlled and so that we shall have a constant supply of water in those rivers which rise in the east slope, not only for use in Alberta, but also in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the provinces to the east. Alberta, but also in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the provinces to the east. Alberta is still far out in the lead in the matter of conservation of the waters that fall upon this watershed. Alberta is also far out in the lead in the utilization of these waters, particularly in the areas of southern Alberta that were formerly considered drought areas. Alberta naturally would give every support to the bill now before us, and certainly I take pleasure in assuring the committee that this is a most worth-while measure.
In conclusion, may I emphasize one or two important matters that should be considered by the new board which is to be set up under this act. Hon. members will note that the bill provides that a board, to be known as the eastern Rockies forest conservation board, is to be set up, consisting of three members, two of whom shall be appointed by the federal government and one by the lieutenant governor in council, to take charge of the management, development, reclamation, reforestation and all those things concerned with the east slope of the Rockies. The bill also provides for a capital expenditure to be

Forest Conservation
borne by the federal government, covering a period of six years, of 86,300,000 for the location and construction of works for the purpose of making inventory of the forests, for the reforestation of the said area, and for other things that relate to the watershed.
When this board is finally set up and gets under way I hope it will recognize the great need for widespread education and instruction in individual responsibility on the part of the people in the area for the preservation of the watershed. Protection of the forests is not a matter that can be accomplished by a small board or by any particular group of men named by governments. Protection of the watersheds and forests of this whole country must be the individual responsibility of every citizen, not only those living in the area concerned, but also those living out on the plains, who may receive some benefit either directly or indirectly from that great heritage which is ours. That is why I appeal to the new board to take steps at the earliest possible moment to set up, in collaboration with the department of education of Alberta, high school courses, perhaps in composite high schools in the area, for the training of a forestry class of people. In most of the countries of the world where they have been successful in preserving their forests and keeping them free from predators, animal and human, and preserving the wild life, you will find that they have trained and established a forestry class of people. Sweden is a right good example of that, and Ontario has done something similar. I can think of no more useful thing for the board to do than to provide, not only training, but also work for the young people living in areas contiguous to the east slope of the Rockies, so that they can establish themselves and live useful lives in their own communities. Many times I have noticed the number of our young people who are forced by circumstances to go to far fields to seek their livelihood; and I think that is wrong. Here we have a chance to do something worth while to keep those young people in the area by training them in most useful and highly interesting work, that of reforestation, conservation, preservation, the study of wild life, and all that sort of thing. They would remain there, I am sure, for generations; they would be happy, and would feel they were contributing much to the wealth and welfare of this great country. Today we have even greater need of trained foresters than we have of trained agriculturists. I am not saying agriculture should take second place to forestry, but we already have a great number of trained agriculturists. So I say, without fear of contradiction, that
today we are in greater need of a trained forestry class than of further trained agriculturists.
I say this simply because authorities have agreed that we are wasting our resources much faster than it will be possible for us to reclaim them, unless we start right now on a conservation programme. Let me just read from an authority on this subject, by way of answer to anyone who may question what I have just said:
During the pioneer days of the dominion, and up to recent times, the immense natural wealth represented by Canada's forests had received little or no protection in the practice of conservation regarding its development. That is coming at last, but it has come too late to save the mighty firs and cedars of the Pacific coast. As one writer has already pointed out, we cannot wait for another thousand years to go by in order that we may increase our timber supply of this category.
Everywhere we must employ the strictest conservation of what is left, take only what is safe to take, and accept without criticism whatever quantity or quality may be officially allowed us.
Perhaps the board will have something to say about that sort of thing. Then he goes on;
*Reforestation-the planting of seedlings from forest nurseries-must be carried out on an ever-increasing scale, and only merchantable timber in properly regulated quantities must be taken. If we fail in this, history, in the near future, will indeed have a sad story to tell of the fate meted out to our vast forested regions.
Then he quotes some figures which I believe the committee should have before it to show the utter necessity of speed of action if we are to prevent disaster in Canada with respect to our forests. I shall quote some figures given by this man, Mr. J. L. Irwin, who for many years was an official in the department of lands and mines of Alberta. He says:
Statistical information covering Alberta's fire losses from October 1, 1930, to the close of the calendar year 1944 is given as follows.
And I would ask hon. members to note this particularly:
dumber of fires within forest reserves, 4.16.
That is, the number of fires in all the forest reserves covering the greater part of the east slope was only 416. Then:
Number of fires outside forest reserves, 4,472.
These figures give some idea of the tremendous value of organization under forest reserves and under proper supervision by wardens and helpers.
Then:
Number of acres burned over: within forest reserves, 331.046.
That is tragic, in itself. As one travels through forests that are burned over and sees
4&16
Forest Conservation

those stumps standing stark and bare, the beauty of the area gone, the water line uncontrolled, he cannot help feeling how tragic the situation is. Then:
Number of acres burned over: outside forest reserves, 7,200,577.
Let me give that comparison again: inside forest reserves the number of acres burned over is 331,046 acres, and outside forest reserves it is 7,200,577 acres.
With respect to the period from 1930 to 1944, fourteen years, the statement is as follows:
Loss of saw timber, unsalvable; within forest reserves, 959,780,000 F.B.M.; outside forest reserves 2,240,828,000 F.B.M.; total, 3,200,608,000 F.B.J1.
That is, in fourteen years there was a total loss of unsalvable timber to the extent of 3,200,608,000 feet, board measure.
I shall not trouble the committee with any more figures. I believe I have said sufficient to indicate how grateful for this bill are those of us who live in Alberta and who have come to realize the tremendous value of the forest, to Canada, not only from the point of view of merchantable timber, but more especially from that of the conservation of watersheds, to prevent floods in the spring and to make it possible to control the flow so that there will be a regular waiter supply the whole year, not only for Alberta, but for Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
I emphasize that we are keenly interested in doing our share. We are continuing to do it as a province, and I want the committee to know the provincial government is grateful to the dominion government for having brought forward this measure. We shall certainly give it our enthusiastic support.
Mr. MclvAY: Mr. Chairman, I wish to register my support of this measure. I support it particularly because I can see that in time it will confer certain benefits upon Saskatchewan and, indeed, upon the whole of Canada. I approach the subject somewhat differently from the honi. member for Peace River; but I believe he realizes, as do other hon. members, that we in Saskatchewan are very much concerned about the flow of water from the Rocky mountain slope.
We in Saskatchewan are irrigation conscious. As everyone should know, we are vitally concerned in this matter, because the flow of water we need for irrigation purposes must necessarily come from the area which has just been under discussion. The source of prairie water flow to which I have just referred, certainly in so far as the Saskatchewan river is con-

cerned, is in that mountain area, and is confined to the flow from the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains.
There the snowfall is heavy, and it is in the heavy snowfalls that the rivers -which flow through Saskatchewan and the plains to most parts of Manitoba and Alberta have their starting point. Any system of irrigation for the plains is inextricably linked up with the steady flow of water in those rivers. It is because of that I take this stand tonight in strongly supporting the eastern rocky mountain forest conservation bill now before the committee.
If the mountain and' foothills snows to which I have just referred melt too rapidly the waters rush away in flood, with the result that a large part of the water is lost. If the snow melts gradually, with the melting line going farther up the mountain sides as the summer advances, there will be a steady flow into the streams of the foothills, and thence into the prairie rivers such as the North and South Saskatchewan, which can be utilized in any irrigation project affecting the southern areas of Saskatchewan.
Many years ago in its primitive state the eastern slope was a densely forested area. When the slope was in that sthte it retarded the melting of the snows and provided a steady flow of water. But fire, the axe and the lack of a complete reforestation programme have denuded large sections of the slopes, with the result that the snows now melt rapidly and rush away in high tide, very often causing flood conditions.
In such a state these waters confer little benefit on either Alberta or Saskatchewan. The irrigation of the prairies is a highly desirable project and can be permanently effected only by reforesting, the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains, and by having the foothills reservoirs constructed so that the flow may be regulated. It seems to me that the protection of the source of the supply of water is the foundation upon which irrigation for the plains must be built, and the act of the government to ensure a continuity of water supply is one I highly commend.
Western people are now demanding irrigation projects, and a programme which is large enough to rehabilitate large sections of drought stricken areas. As I see it, this bill is a necessary step in that direction. May I express the hope now that irrigation will be one of the major post-war reconstruction projects for western Canada and that the west will not have to wait too long for its complete fulfilment.


Mr. HAZEN:: What was the quantity and value of the standing timber in this area

Forest Conservation
when this great natural resource was handed over by the dominion government to the government of Alberta? What is the present \alue of the standing timber in this area which is to be under the control of this board? What revenue has Alberta received during the past few years from the timber resources in this area?


Mr. GARDINER:: I rise not so much
to answer the questions because I have not the information, and I do not think anyone would have that information here at the moment-information at least of an estimated nature can be had and produced in due course-but to say that this bill provides for the maintenance of forests along the east side of the Rocky mountains and for other works which will make possible the conservation of water which has its source along the east side of the Rockies.
The bill provides for the expenditure of some S6,300,000 within a six-year period under a board of three. This is only one of three understandings that are being reached with the western provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba along the lines suggested by the last speaker. The first of the provisions is contained in this measure which provides for the conservation of water at its source and for the conservation of timber areas which make it possible to retain moisture over a greater length of time at its source rather than have it rush down to the sea in a short time without doing much good to anyone.
The rivers flow from this source through three prairie provinces to the Nelson river and the sea at Hudson bay. The three provinces are concerned with the water that has its source in the Rockies and, as a result there has been an arrangement agreed to by the province of Alberta. This is under discussion with the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I speak of it now because this will probably be the only opportunity to report it to the house before carrying the discussions further with the provinces. I think it should be reported to the house before the discussions are carried further, and I hope they will be continued next week. It does not appear that there would be any opportunity until the supplementary estimates are down to report the matter to the house in any way excepting now.
I want to say now that, so far as the federal government is concerned, there is a provision for the setting up of a board of five to decide upon the distribution of water as it passes through these different streams, largely through the North and South Saskatchewan rivers, eventually into Saskatchewan, then
through Saskatchewan and into Manitoba. That board is to be composed of two members to be appointed by the federal government, one recommended by the Department of Mines and Resources and one by the P.F.R.A. organization under the Department of Agriculture, and a representative from each of the three provinces. The board will consist of officials who will receive no extra pay. They will be men who are engaged in this work and who will be called upon to meet from time to time to determine the proper division of water at the boundary lines of the different provinces, much in the way that the international water board determines the division of water at the international boundary line.
In addition to that, there is an arrangement being entered into based upon the principles contained in an agreement, which has been discussed, but is not in the form of a signed agreement as covering the project on the St. Mary's river. This resulted' from discussions with the Alberta government which were referred to a few moments ago by the hon. member for Peace River-relative to the St. Mary's dam. The understanding reached there is that the federal government will build the dam for the conservation of the water which will be utilized by organizations set up under the provincial irrigation act. The government has made provision for entering into agreements with the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba by which the water will be conserved by the dominion and distributed by the provinces. There will be a point at which the full cost of distribution will be taken over by someone other than the dominion government. The dominion government would take certain action to conserve the water and some other organization set up locally would make use of the water.
In general terms those are the provisions that have been made by the three different arrangements. First, there is the provision to set up a board under this bill to conserve water at its source. Second, there is the provision to set up a board which will determine the division of water as among the provinces. Third, there is the provision for agreements with the provinces under which water will be utilized for irrigation and other purposes. I wanted to make this announcement in order that discussions with the provinces may go on more regularly and in order that the knowledge of those discussions might be placed before the house.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Will the plan the minister has just announced do away with the previously announced scheme whereby the dominion government was to build a dam at or

4918	COMMONS
Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police
near Elbow, Saskatchewan? Will this now be the responsibility of Saskatchewan rather than the federal authorities?


James Garfield Gardiner: This does not make any change in anything that has been announced previously. The previous announcement was to the effect that certain larger works would be undertaken in that area. The provision made in connection with the St. Mary's river is that the dominion will build a dam that stores the water, and then arrangements for the utilization of the water will be entered into with the provinces or with some irrigation district below the dam. It will be the same plan for the whole area.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it intended to have a similar plan in Saskatchewan by which the federal authorities will build a dam at or near Elbow or wherever it is determined along the Saskatchewan river to conserve the waters, and then the responsibility in so far as distribution for irrigation or other purposes is concerned will be that of Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not speaking of any individual project; I am simply laying down the plan under which we are to proceed. The question as to whether there will be a dam at Elbow and how, will have to be decided as a result of discussion. The general plan is that wherever a dam is built the dominion government will proceed much in the way they are proceeding on the St. Mary's.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We went ahead with this bill this evening after it had been indicated by some of the groups in the house that there would be no opposition. Evidently there is to be a good deal of discussion on it, and I think we had better revert to the first order of business which I announced. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
PRIME minister's OFFICE
268. Salaries of staff and other pay-list items, $87,917.
Item stands.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

[Stage Direction]
358. General administration, $273,043.
John George Diefenbaker: The other evening I placed before the minister certain suggestions and asked him certain questions. I wish now to place before the minister further repre-

sentations in connection with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that have been directed to my attention by members of the force from one end of the country to the other.
I mentioned the other evening the marriage regulations, and the minister stated that it was necessary to have a proportion of single men in the mounted police and that no further change in the marriage regulations was anticipated. I would point out that during the last year a change has been made to which strong objection is taken by many members of the force. The period during which a police officer must serve before marriage was reduced to five years. In the period during which seven years' service was required one had to have only S500 available in cash to comply with the marriage regulations. That amount has been changed to SI,200 by an order issued on September 30, 1946, which provides that permission to marry will continue to be granted on completion of five years' service to those members who have proved their value to the force and in all respects meet with the regulations of paragraph 1313. That was changed in the fall of 1946 from S500 to S1.200. I would ask the minister whether consideration should not be given to restoring that to the former amount, representing the total assets of the police officer.


Mr. ILSLEY:: The reason that was changed was that too many men were running into debt. They were getting married on too small an amount.


John George Diefenbaker: You want to get the best possible men in the mounted police.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: First, you make it difficult to get into the force, when it is considered that from January 1, 1946, 8,166 have applied to join the mounted police and, of those, only 566 have been accepted. The standard is so high that only exemplary persons can join the mounted police. Surely -we should not have a rule that weeds out the numbers who make application and then, after they get in, holds them to rules that I suggest are too strict and too stern. However, the minister has given the reason. But the mounted police managed to get along for many years under the rule of S500, and I personally know of only one man, in my many years of contact with the mounted police, wrho was ever seriously involved with overexpenditure in that connection. The minister has given the reason, but I ask consideration of the matter because these little

Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police
things cause a feeling of resentment that should not prevail in a force whose morale is always bound to be as high as that of the mounted police.
The second matter has to do with pensions, a matter that has been up before. It is the discrimination that apparently exists in the matter of pensions as between commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers. I will give an example. Section 52 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act says, in effect, that upon the death of a commissioned officer his widow receives half his pension plus an allowance for each child. If the officer was not yet in receipt of a pension his widow receives an amount equal to one-half of the pension to which he would have been entitled if he had been, retired compulsorily immediately before his death. That applies to commissioned officers. But a non-commissioned officer who had served nineteen years in the force and died in service, not by reason of any act arising out of service, and who, if he had served one year more, would have been entitled to a pension left a widow who was denied any pension because that man was in the ranks. I give one example and ask the minister to give consideration to changing this provision. One particular police officer who would have had twenty years service in the spring of 1947 died in November, 1946. His widow is not eligible for one cent of pension. If he had lived a few months more he w'ould have been entitled, on retirement, to a pension of $67 a month. I suggest that some provision be made whereby the widow of the non-commissioned officer or man in those circumstances should be placed in the same position as the widow of a commissioned officer. It is a matter one often hears discussed. It is one that I am sure will appeal to the fairness and sense of justice of the minister.
The next matter has also to do with pensions, so that when the minister replies he can deal with pensions all at the one time if he will. Section 66 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act reads as follows:
Any constable who has completed not less than twenty years service shall be entitled to retire and receive a pension for life.
One of the reasons why the minister says that the rate of wages is not as high as it might be, having regard to the responsibilities of the mounted police, is that there are attractive pension features. That was the argument advanced by the minister the other evening. My attention has been drawn to the case of a non-commissioned officer and the case of a constable who have served for more than twenty years and who, desiring to retire, are denied the right to do so. The non-83166-314i
commissioned officer applied for pension at the end of twenty-one years' service and was told he could have his discharge plus three weeks' annual leave, but he was refused pension when he made the request for retirement to which he was entitled. This particular case of the non-commissioned officer I bring to the minister's attention because there arc some 300 senior non-commissioned officers who have the right, to retire and are concerned about regulations such as that.
Before I go on to other matters, I will give the minister an opportunity to reply to the general question regarding pensions. It was raised in 1945 and the then minister of justice advised that the whole matter was being considered by an interdepartmental committee. I suggest, since the minister promised that consideration would be given, that the pension system should be arranged so as to make that which is applicable to the R.C.M.P. similar to that which is applicable to the permanent army, navy and air force.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The question of pensions for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has received a great deal of consideration, and I hoped to be able to introduce amendments to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act this session, by which a different pension system would be put into force, but there have been so many difficulties in getting any agreement on that move that I am not able to introduce the legislation this session. The system is this. The officers have a contributory pension scheme. They make their contribution; the government makes its contribution, and then the officers and their dependents get certain pension benefits. But the men have a free scheme.


John George Diefenbaker: The officers plan only goes back to 1934.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know what the history of it is, but that is the system at the present, time. Now, however, you have this peculiar fact in the R.C.M.P., that those other than officers have a free pension scheme. The men make no contribution at all, that is, so far as their own pensions are concerned. But they have themselves set up a pension scheme for their dependents to which the government makes no contribution whatsoever, and the regulation of that scheme is a matter for them. The government makes no contribution at all.
The hon. gentleman says that the scheme works out badly in some respects and perhaps it does. It may work out badly for the men and may work out badly in other ways as well, but up to date the representations I have
4920	COMMONS
Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police
received from the force are that they much prefer to retain their present two schemes, one for the men to which they do not contribute at all, and one for dependents, to which the government does not contribute, instead of having a new scheme which would be on all fours with that applicable to the military forces, which would be contributory entirely and which, in some respects, would be less beneficial to the men and, in other respects, more beneficial. It would be more like other pension schemes.
I have put a great deal of time, and so has the treasury, on the matter of pensions for the R.C.M.P., and it seems to be a problem which is more than ordinarily difficult as pension problems go. In any event, as the Prime Minister announced today, I shall not be ready with legislation this session. That is the first case the hon. gentleman mentioned. That is the case where a widow is not entitled to pension. That derives from a peculiar system applicable in the R.C.M.P., a system which, as I have said, has these two elements, a free pension plan so far as members of the force are concerned, a plan to which the men do not contribute at all, and a plan for their dependents to which the government does not contribute in any way. I intend to get the matter ready, and I have every expectation of getting it ready, for the next session. It is undoubtedly true that the pension provisions of the R.C.M.P. ought to be amended. They will not all be amended in favour of the men, because it is a generous scheme as the matter stands at the present time. Some of the amendments will probably make it better for the men but it will be a different plan in some respects from that which now exists.
The second point brought up by the hon. gentleman was the refusal by someone to allow a non-commissioned officer to retire at the end of twenty years. Certain wartime restrictions upon retirement were imposed-


John George Diefenbaker: This was in 1946.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am told that the restriction is now removed. They are going out much more freely than they were.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure that the members of the force will welcome the statement made by the minister that consideration is being given to removing the unfairnesses and anomalies under which non-commissioned officers and men have suffered as a result of the pension law. In making these suggestions, I am trying to be as helpful as I can to see that these men receive the consideration to which they are entitled. The minister stated that there are difficulties. I know there are members of the bar in all parts of the house
rMr. Ilsley.]
who would willingly do their part to assist the minister in some committee that might be set up. I see across from me the hon. member for Spadina, who has devoted himself to this work and has a knowledge of it, and there are members on all sides of the house, who, I am sure, would give unstintingly of their services to produce an equitable pension situation so far as these men are concerned.
I pass now to one or two other matters. I refer to a question that arose last year out of the fact that certain non-commissioned officers and men resigned from the force, or rather at the termination of their period of service during the period of the war enlisted for overseas service. They served overseas for two or three years and, on their return, joined the mounted police once more. I raised the question on two or three occasions as to why these men, in the computation of their pension period, should not be entitled to count the time they served overseas, and also to their seniority being computed on the basis of their service in the force as well as the period during which they were in the armed forces overseas. The former minister of justice, acting on the advice of the senior officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, replied to me on two occasions. He informed me that the reason why that was not being done was that a circular had been sent out early in the war advising men in the mounted police that they were needed1 in Canada and indicating that if they joined the army they would forfeit their seniority. I have heard from members of the mounted police, both non-commissioned officers and men; and without exception they contend that there must be some mistake in that statement, because a search in the offices of at least a dozen detachments in this country does not reveal any such circular having been delivered. Whether it wa3 delivered or not-and I do not intend to enter into a controversy on that point-I contend that these men who served for years in the force and who, at the termination of their service felt that they could do more by serving overseas in the armed forces, should, not be punished for what I might call desertion for the purpose of active service. In other words, they should not be punished because in their desire to serve in the armed forces when their period in the mounted police was over, they chose to go overseas.
This situation has caused quite a bit of resentment among members of the force. They consider it is not fair to them that, having served, this should be denied to them. They also point out that they are denied credit for their period of service overseas in the compu-

Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police
tation of the period required' for qualification for stars. In other words, for every five years' service, whether in the armed forces or in the mounted police, a star is provided. These men who retired in this way and went overseas feel that they should not be denied the right to wear the stars of service because there was a break in the continuity of their service. Let me put it in this way. Suppose a man in the mounted police had served ten and a half years. His period of service was, say, ten years. His period of service was up. He went overseas. He comes back again and is reinstated. There are instances in which he is still being denied the right to wear his two stars which he had earned by service in the mounted police, because of the break in service occasioned by his enlistment. I ask the minister to remove these picayune things which cause a feeling that the service of these men is not appreciated.. These are the main representations I intend to make, and before I go ahead I shall give the minister an opportunity to answer.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know very much about this armed service problem. Would the hon. gentleman make the same representations in favour of those who served in the armed sendees in Canada as for those who went overseas?


John George Diefenbaker: If they offered for active service.


James Lorimer Ilsley: A great many of them did. A great many of them left the R.C.M.P. against the wishes of the R.C.M.P., on the promise of commissions and advancement in the armed services here in Canada, which they got. They even went back to the R.C.M.P. Some of them sought readmission, and some of them were readmitted. Just what particular obligations do the authorities of the R.C.M.P. owe these men in respect of promotion and advancement in this period I am talking about? Take the Canada ones to begin with.


John George Diefenbaker: If a man volunteered for the armed services, whether he served in Canada or overseas, he did so at the direction of the military authorities and he should not be penalized because his service was in one place or another.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But the authorities of the nation requested1 these men to continue their service in the police force, just as they did with regard to the civil service in some respects. The rule was laid down in the civil service that civil servants, if they desired to enlist in the armed forces, should apply for leave; otherwise they would sever their connection with the service. It may be said that
when a nation is at war the authorities have no right to direct the services of their servants, the officials, or those who are discharging public duties. But I do not think a nation could be organized for war if that is not the case. Some weight should be given to the wishes of the police authorities at the outbreak of the war with regard to the service of these persons; because it must be borne in mind that there were many others who, in all probability, desired to retire and enlist, but who did not do so because they felt that they should not, having been requested not to. From experience, I know that was the case in the civil service. Men were told they should stay here and do their duty, for which they had peculiar qualifications. These civil servants saw others retire, go into the service, get commissions and much larger pay, and work just across the road from them here in Ottawa, in uniform. Later these men come back and want to get into the service again on the same terms as the others.	.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would the minister permit a question? In 1939, No. 1 provost company was formed and went over with the first Canadian division. It was composed, I think I am correct in saying, entirely of members who had recently obtained their discharge from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, no-


George Randolph Pearkes: They were employed
entirely on police duty.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: In connection with the army.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Quite so.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is it suggested that
the military authorities and the commissioner of the mounted police were not in agreement that these men should go?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh nio, I am glad the hon. gentleman mentioned that. We are not talking about those men at all. Those men did not sever their connection with the police force. Facilities were supplied by the police force for their service overseas in that organization. They went with the full blessing and consent of the police authorities, and they forfeit nothing; nor should they forfeit anything. It is the ones who did not pursue 'the course they were directed by their superiors to pursue, who severed their connection with the force contrary to the wishes of their superiors, who have forfeited these privileges.


John George Diefenbaker: I have heard so much about these directions being given by
4922	COMMONS
Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police
the superior officers. On two occasions the Minister of Justice has stated that a circular was issued and sent to the detachments. I have made the statement, on information received from over ten detachments, that a search fails to reveal that circular. I would ask the minister to clear up this matter by letting us see the circular and the date it was issued. He might lay it on the table, because these men say that such a circular was never drawn to their attention.


Mr. CROLL:: The minister asked the hon. member for Lake Centre whether he would differentiate between those who served in Canada and those who served overseas. May I ask the minister if the department is differentiating between an officer who left and went overseas, was wounded and decorated and then came back, and any other officer; whether he is treated a little differently from the man who sever got overseas. Is that the view of the department?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no differentiation.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We know that under the act passed last year the government demanded and insisted that men who left civilian employment to go into the army, no matter how much they might have been needed by their employers and no matter what important positions they might have held, be reemployed by the firms with which they had been employed at the time, and given the same status they had previously.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It seems to me that the government should be placed in the same position as civilian employers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is just the point at issue, as to whether they should be on the same level or a different level, because the question enters as to the nation's authority in time of war, and whether the government should be on the same level as private firms.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Royal has brought to the attention of the house a situation that is anomalous, to say the least. Under the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, as he pointed out, every man who left a position and joined the armed forces is entitled to his job and his seniority. But if he were an employee of the government of Canada that situation does not prevail.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member is absolutely right.


John George Diefenbaker: I remember the former minister of justice saying that act does not apply to His Majesty the King.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Precisely.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely even at this date consideration should be given to assuring that what the king in the right of the Dominion of Canada asks of his subjects, he himself should be prepared to give to the employees of the dominion.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That sounds just beautiful, you know, but it is a generality that will not work out. The government has provided that men shall have certain rights to leave private employment, that employers shall have certain rights of discharge, and all that sort of thing, but certainly those same rules could not apply in the army. Yet if my hon. friend applied this resounding generality of his he would say that what the king requires or directs in regard to industry, and so on, shall apply in the government service. That is not necessarily so at all.


John George Diefenbaker: As far as the
mounted police were concerned they signed on for a definite period.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: When that period ended, their contract with His Majesty ended. They determined then upon a course they were to follow. They said, "We are not going to sign on for a further period of three years; we are going to join the armed forces for active service." Surely the analogy the minister endeavours to draw does not apply to the position ' of affairs I have brought to his attention.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Do I understand that my hon. friend is talking about policemen whose contract with His Majesty was fully discharged and terminated?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And who left at the end of
the contract?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If that happened in private industry there would be no obligation upon the employer to take the man back.


John George Diefenbaker: I am taking that
as an example.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then why mention this civil reemployment act?


John George Diefenbaker: Evidently I have touched a sore point with the minister. All these men ask is that the facts be told. First, the government took the stand that the reason nothing could be done for these men, the reason they were being penalized for having gone overseas in many cases, was that a

Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police
circular had been issued. If that circular was issued, at least the minister would have found ground upon which to stand. That has been the answer for two years now, that such a circular was issued and that, in the face of the circular, these men who were serving in the mounted police joined the armed forces. They say no such circular was ever delivered to them. We can close off this discussion very quickly if the minister will table the circular in the house, advising the members of the force that they were needed in the mounted police in Canada and that if they joined the armed forces they would lose their rights. If such a circular were delivered I would withdraw my objection, because that has been the excuse always given me and the other hon. members who have raised this point. The government said, "Well, these men knew what they were doing. They followed a certain course". Every one of these men who has communicated with me says that he never knew of such a circular, and that a search of their detachment offices reveals no such circular. So I ask the minister this very simple question. Will he table the circular and let the committee know the date it was issued?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The commissioner advises me that this was a letter from the minister to the commissioner, published in general orders. I will table that.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: The other evening I did not have a chance to follow the hon. member for Lake Centre when he discussed the regulations governing the members of the mounted police with respect to marriage. I was not greatly impressed with the minister's remarks on this subject. I think people who attach importance to the institution of marriage would agree that most people do more effective work after they are married than before, and I believe this would go for the personnel of the R.C.M.P. If it is difficult to get married men to serve with the R.C.M.P. in the north countrj' I suggest that the way to solve the problem is to make life in the north more attractive. During the war I remember travelling north to Churchill and meeting a member of the R.C.M.P. who was returning to one of the far northern posts. His wife had been born in the New England states. She was very happy to be getting back to the north after a boring holiday down in the area where she spent the first years of her life. On the same train were a number of Americans employed in construction work in the north. The lowest paid man in the party was to receive for a year $450 a month, with free transportation from his home in the United States to the north and everything found. Others were to receive $500 and $550
a month. In passing, 1 might mention that, since then, Canada has taken over the military installations constructed by these personnel. Naturally the member of the R.C.M.P. felt that his compensation appeared pretty small compared with the wages being paid those Americans who were going north. I think we should not have any regulations-


Mr. MITCHELL:: Where were those
Americans working?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In the far north.


Humphrey Mitchell: Whereabouts?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In the Hudson bay
area, one of the establishments about 500 miles north of Churchill.


Humphrey Mitchell: Where my hon. friend
comes from.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I never received quite so much for living in the north country. But we should not have any regulation saying that members of the staff should wait for five years, three years or two years before marrying. If they are accepted into the force it should be established that anywhere the union jack flies citizens of this country should be permitted to many.
I believe that in the past the Minister of Justice may have had some trouble in obtaining adequate budgets to meet the requirements of this work. But the minister had so much experience as Minister of Finance that I believe he will agree there should not be any insurmountable barrier in getting an adequate budget so that all the people who work under his administration may have an annual income adequate to support a family, if necessary. I do not think we should take the position that police officers who go up to Baffin Land, Coronation Gulf or Aklavik should be singled out as being barred from marriage.


Humphrey Mitchell: Or from Regina.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Anywhere in Canada.
I believe a member of the staff should be permitted to marry.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear, hear.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to see
the minister agree with his genial colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs who, I am pleased to say, supports me in my argument. I believe this whole question should be considered. We should not have regulations which interfere with the personal liberties of the subject.


Howard Charles Green: Is the war duties pay taken into consideration in arriving at a pension? If so, on what basis, and as of what date?
4924	COMMONS
Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, it is. It is regarded
as part of the pay. Then the hon. member asks as of what date. The pay was consolidated in October, 1946; and, for pension purposes, a member of the force is regarded as having received the consolidated pay even for the prior period back to 1942. But if he were pensioned prior to October 1, 1946, and pensioned on a lower basis, the pay not then having been consolidated, his higher pension dates only from October, 1946.


Howard Charles Green: Is that quite fair?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I believe it is.


Howard Charles Green: I have been told by men
who have retired from the force that if they retired before October 1, 1946, their war duties pay was not taken into consideration, although they 'had been drawing war duties pay for several years before retiring.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is taken into account
for the pension they received from October, 1946, on, because October, 1946, was when it was consolidated.


Howard Charles Green: But in respect of a man
who retired on September 1, 1946, is the war duties pay taken into consideration?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. His September instalment of his pension, if there were such a thing, would be on the lower basis. But everything from October 1, on, would be on the higher basis.


Howard Charles Green: A man retires a month
before the consolidation of the war duties pay and the ordinary pay. Is his pension based on his pay plus war duties pay?


James Lorimer Ilsley: He gets his pension on the basis of pay including war duties pay from October 1, 1946. I am trying to say something accurate, although it is intricate.


Howard Charles Green: It sounds intricate to me. Could the minister explain it a little more fully?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does the hon. member understand what I am trying to say?


Howard Charles Green: No, I do not, unfortunately.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then I shall try to say it again. His pension from October 1, 1946, on, is based upon the higher rate of pay, regardless of when he retired.


Howard Charles Green: I see.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But the pension he received prior to October 1, 1946, is on the lower rate of pay.


Howard Charles Green: Thank you.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As we know, many soldiers married overseas. Most of the wives have come out to Canada with the soldiers, but many of them have remained in England. Soldiers deserted their wives or, for some reason or another the wives did not get to Canada. I understand that the English law now provides for divorce for any woman in England who has been deserted by a Canadian, an American, an Australian or the member of any other force. My point is that we have many of these young returned soldiers in Canada whose wives are divorced from them in England. I understand that the English law does not apply in Canada, and that these men are left in a position where they cannot marry again. Then there are the soldiers whose wives will not come out to Canada. I know of a young man in my home town who came back to Canada, bought a site and built a house, but his wife would not come to this country.
This matter may not sound important. I know that we in Canada are averse to weakening our divorce laws. But this is a matter which the Canadian Legion is now considering, and it is being considered by other organizations throughout the country. There are many hundreds of these men. Has the minister's department given consideration to this matter? Has it been taken up with the provinces? I know our divorce laws and regulations are very indefinite on the point, and perhaps nothing could be done unless there had been consultation with the provinces. The matter is not as simple as some of my hon. friends may think. It is a serious matter for these young men who are compelled to live in this country a life of single blessedness, like the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Leave me out of this.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I submit that the question is not even remotely related to the item.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was out of the house when the department was called.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We are discussing the general administration of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I thought it was the general item of the Department of Justice. If the minister does not care to answer at this time, I shall be content.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think I had better not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
359. Land services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses, $8,594,482.44.

Supply-Royal Canadian Mounted Police
John George Diefenbaker: This item deals with general police work. A reading of the commissioner's report would indicate that, even since the war, espionage is an everpresent factor and that our vigilance in this particular respect cannot be allowed to relax. He points out the necessity for keeping constant watch, and in support of that cites the espionage inquiry. We have not heard much about the activities of the mounted police in connection with that inquiry. Would the minister be prepared to advise the committee as to whether a section of the mounted police is devoted to looking into espionage activities? Within the last few days one of the outstanding newsmen in this dominion wrote an article which appeared in the Montreal Herald of Friday, June 27. This reads:
Hitherto untold secrets of the great spy roundup now reveal that the police wanted to arrest hundreds, not just the two dozen they finally tossed into barracks.


Humphrey Mitchell: Who is that written by?


John George Diefenbaker: Harold Dingman in Ottawa.
But today it can be revealed that the R.C.M.P. pleaded with the Minister of Justice- and the cabinet'-to let them jail up to 300 people suspected of being active red agents.
To what degree is that statement correct? Are any of those who were in the list of suspects still subject to investigation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Neither of the two statements read by the hon. gentleman is true in any degree whatsoever.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says there is no foundation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No foundation for the statement and I do not know how it came to be written.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
580. To provide for increased activities of the force, $1,864,142.
John George Diefenbaker: There is a reduction in the main Royal Canadian Mounted Police estimate, and yet here we have an item providing for increased activities of the force. What other services are to be rendered? What is the nature of the increased activities to which reference is made in this item?


James Lorimer Ilsley: During the latter years of the war the estimates of the R.C.M.P. were carried under two headings, the ordinary estimates and the war appropriation estimates. In the fall of 1945, the war appropriation estimates were carried into the
demobilization and reconversion estimates and eventually they will all have to be consolidated. The demobilization and reconversion estimate for this year is 8735,586 less than that of 1946^47. There is an increase in salaries of 863,207 to meet pay adjustments by way of annual increases and also the consolidation of the cost of living bonus in the basic pay. In other pay list items there is a decrease of $79,551 which is caused through the transfer to the item of salaries and to meet the consolidation of the cost of living bonus in the basic salaries. The other objects or activities under this vote have been subject to reduc-' tion, and it is assumed that it will not be necessary to explain separately by objects. Reductions have taken place both in the strength of personnel employed and in otheT general operating expenses. The force is not now required for as many increased activities under demobilization and reconversion.
I questioned the officials of the R.C.M.P. as to the principle under which they carried part of their estimates under demobilization and reconversion and part under the ordinary estimates. I found that some of the divisione of expenses were what I would call arbitrary or a matter of judgment. There are quite a lot of special acitivities being carried on and details of these will be found on pages 104 and 105 of the R.C.M.P. report. Hon. members will find there a list of the war measures and regulations which still call for the services of the R.C.M.P. These include the foreign exchange control order, the wartime prices and trade board order and various others. That is why a certain number of staff have been carried' under this vote instead of under the regular vote of the department. As I say, there is a reduction of 8735,586 in this vote and eventually it will have to be merged.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The wartime prices and trade board have their own inspectors. Do the mounted police carry out the arrests?


James Lorimer Ilsley: A great many investigations are carried on by the R.C.M.P.


Mr. HACKETT:: Does the minister mean that the number in the force may be reduced?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not anticipate it will be reduced; I think they will all be required for regular duties even when the war control orders no longer make any demands upon the force.


Mr. McLURE:: I notice in the details of services on page 215 of the estimates, the same item that appears in the details of services for other departments. Is there any
Supply-Justice

explanation for the item of $65,122 for temporary assistance?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not see any $65,000 item.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There is one item of $8,877 and another of $56,245 for temporary assistance.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are permanents and temporaries. A lot of the civilian staff working for the R.C.M.P. are temporaries and are carried under temporary assistance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
95. Departmental administration, $224,092.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Might I have some comment from the minister on the question I asked a few moments ago with reference to divorce?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think I would have to say that we have not given much consideration to changing the divorce law of Canada.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Have any representations been made on this question by returned soldiers organizations?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I forget which bodies, but some communications have come to me asking that consideration be given to that question. I have not placed it before the cabinet or taken any steps in regard to it.


Mr. LOCKHART:: The minister is aware that there are many of these cases. I could cite twelve of them myself.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And great hardship is being worked too.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I should like to ask a question about veterans who married overseas and whose wives divorced them in accordance with English law, but who are still recognized as being married in this country. Are they debarred from seeking employment which is reserved for single men?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is 'taking me into a field with which I am not acquainted at all. To what sort of employment reserved for single men does he refer? Government service or private service?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It might apply in both. It could apply in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or in a bank or other institution. Is it possible to afford them any protection in the matter of qualifying to make a living without Canada recognizing the English divorce?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall simply have to give consideration to the question. It is not one I could answer offhand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
100.	Supreme Court of Canada-administration, $92,283.
101.	Exchequer Court of Canada-administration, $75,145.
Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Might I ask if any Canadian judges who are retired on pension are living in other countries?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It does not matter where they live. Living outside Canada does not affect the amount of their pension.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: They can draw their money anywhere?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They get the same number of Canadian dollars.


Mr. McMASTER:: The rules of the Supreme Court of Canada require that all appeals made to 'that court be printed. The cost of printing is heavy. In many cases it amounts to a denial of the right of appeal to a poor man. With the different methods we have of duplicating copies today, I think this rule should be changed. The Supreme Court of Canada no doubt makes its own rules; but, after all, we pay the money for administration, and I am satisfied that if the minister would bring this matter to the attention of the court something would be done to remedy what I consider a great injustice. In my own experience my client has been prevented from making an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada by the heavy cost of printing. It varies with each case. A small case might involve a long trial, much evidence and many exhibits. It is a matter that should receive attention.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am quite willing to bring the hon. gentleman's representations to the attention of the chief justice. I do not know any other step I could take.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How many admiralty judges are there in Canada, and how many cases have been heard by each during the past year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are seven, one in British Columbia, one in Ontario, two in Quebec and three in the maritimes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How many cases have they tried in the past year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I could look that up.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My information is that some of them have not had a case in the last

Supply-Justice
ten years. I do not know whether that is correct or not. That is why I asked the question.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know about that.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to join with members of the bar everywhere in this country who commend the minister since he has become Minister of Justice for having appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada a judge of a different political persuasion from that of the government in power. It was a novel departure from the ordinary practice and one which, if followed, would, I think, lead to a great improvement in the judiciary of this country. In the United States the government in power endeavours to choose so far as possible the best men available. While some interpret the best man as meaning the best man within one's own party, the attitude taken in Washington is that at least one-quarter of the appointments could be made from outside the political party in power without impairing the efficiency of the judiciary.
I should now like to ask a number of questions in regard to the judges. Is it intended to continue the practice that became somewhat widespread during the war whereby certain judges, while remaining judges, took up positions in the public service of the country? I realize that during war time that could be understood. I wish to ask this question specifically. Some months ago the appointment was made to the ambassadorship in China of a judge of the court of appeal of Saskatchewan, the Hon. Mr. Justice T. C. Davis. He has not sat on the court of appeal since his appointment in 1939, which could be understood during the war, and recently he has been appointed to an ambassadorship. I would ask the minister whether or not Mr. Justice Davis has resigned as a judge, having been appointed to the diplomatic service.
I would also ask the minister what is being done with regard to the retirement of some of the elderly judges in our country. True, there are exceptions. Mr. Justice Avery in Great Britain has often been pointed out as an exception to the rule, but from time to time ministers of justice have endeavoured to arrive at some plan whereby retirement could be arranged for all judges over seventy-five years of age. The general scheme in that connection is to provide that at that age the pension shall equal the salary as judge, thereby removing any inducement on the part of the incumbent to remain in his position.
How many judges are there in the superior courts of the country over seventy-five years
of age? We had the figure last year, and I believe they have been increased during the last year.
The third question has to do with the exchequer court. From time to time complaints are received) that in this court there is not that celerity, if I may use the expression, in handing down judgments which should characterize the administration of justice. My information is that a considerable number of judgments are two and one-half years overdue. It is one thing to administer justice; it is another thing to administer delay. After all, one of the most important things in the administration of justice is that justice be done and not unnecessarily delayed. I would ask the minister how many judgments are overdue two and one-half years and how many are overdue two years, and what is being done to have these judgments handed down.
I have in mind one particular case, where the judge waited for a couple of years. He was not a judge who took many notes. He forgot the facts. He did not have a list of witnesses, but in time he handed down the judgment and it was a case of deciding whether he would dismiss the action or give judgment for the plaintiff. That is not justice, and that is one of the great dangers about indefinite postponements in handing down judgments. The facts are forgotten and, the facts being forgotten, the judgment may not be in accordance with the facts.
What is being done toward filling vacancies in the district courts of Saskatchewan? With regard to one particular case in my own city, Prince Albert, there has been a vacancy in the district court for the past six months, and it is one of the important judicial districts in Saskatchewan. I am told there are quite a few who are willing to accept appointments, and-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Any of them here?


John George Diefenbaker: No. There is no danger any more, because there is only one member from Saskatchewan on the government side of the house-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They just appointed a strong Conservative last week from British Columbia to the Supreme Court of Canada, and he is a good man.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a superior court. Anyway, there is not much chance for members of parliament today, because the government is not anxious to open constituencies.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You did not score that time.
Supply-Justice


James Lorimer Ilsley: If I remember the questions asked by the hon. gentleman, I shall answer them briefly. The first question was as to the policy of the government in availing itself of the service of judges for positions in the public service. It is not the policy to do that save in exceptional circumstances, and it has been done to a very limited degree. There has been no resignation from Mr. Justice Davis.


John George Diefenbaker: Has he tendered his resignation conditionally?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have no knowledge of any such thing and I feel sure I would have it. I can learn of nothing, conditional or otherwise.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister's
deputy would know.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There has been no resignation, conditional or otherwise. Of course it would be impossible to get the number of judges over seventy-five until tomorrow. If I had had notice of the question I could have had the information tonight, but it would take some little time to find out how many there are. I do not know whether the information is of sufficient importance to the hon. gentleman and the committee to justify delay.


John George Diefenbaker: I am wondering what is being done in order to secure retirement by the indirect route I suggest.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The method suggested by the hon. gentleman was pretty objectionable, I thought, and that was to make the pension equal to the salary. I do not like the sound of that or the content of it either. I do not think people should be paid just as high a pension as their salary. That might get them to leave and it might not.


John George Diefenbaker: You can not do it statutorily.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. The British North America Act precludes us from doing it, and I have no particular plans for making any change in the situation. I think that the principle of the Supreme Court Act is a better one. I suppose there must have been some reason at some time for giving these judges this life tenure or tenure during good behavior. I suppose it was considered a protection of the independence of the judiciary. It seems to me, however, that it would be desirable if we could enact legislation by which they could retire at, seventy-five. We cannot do so, and I do not know that there is anything much we can do about the matter. If we field out a big financial bait to retire, the question is whether the remedy would not be worse than the wrong.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has rather misinterpreted what I suggested. In 1933, as I remember, a measure was introduced in this house and passed, which provided that at seventy-five years of age the salary of the judge would be reduced to the amount that his pension would have been had he retired. That passed through the House of Commons and was turned down in the other place. I am not suggesting at all the payment of a pension equal to the salary, because in that case there might be some appointed at seventy-four who would then retire at seventy-five, which procedure certainly would be subject to objections.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was not acquainted with that plan. It is ingenious, but it does not sound constitutional to me. I mean, if you can reduce salaries in order to force judges to retire, you can interfere pretty effectively with the rule that they hold office during good behaviour, which is guaranteed under the British North America Act.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the law officers of the then minister of justice advised that it was constitutional.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know. I will look that up. It does not sound so to me.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The problems outlined by the hon. member for Lake Centre are important. Has the department given consideration to reducing the salaries by 81,000 a year, for instance, after judges pass the age of seventy? That would be constitutional, and it might result in getting around the difficulty.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think the hon. member is serious about that. Under the British North America Act, judges hold office during good behaviour, which is for life.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: We fix the salaries, though.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But you could fix the salaries in such a way as to nullify the constitutional provision, I should think.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I would not think so; not after they have passed the age of seventy.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think the salaries
can be juggled in such a way as to run the judges out in that way any more than they can be dismissed.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member for
Lake Centre asked the minister some questions about oases in the exchequer court. The minister did not reply, as far as I was able to hear.

Supply-Justice


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Angus MacInnis: I intended to ask a
question in that regard, because I know of one case which has been before the exchequer court now for thirty-seven months. I shall give the minister the particulars of the case, but first I wish to ask him how cases are dealt with in the exchequer court. Are they dealt with in the order of priority in which they come before the court? If not, are priorities arrived at, and who decides which case shall be heard first if they are not heard in the order in which they come before the court ?
In the case of the property of persons of Japanese origin who were evaouated from the Pacific coast in 1942, there were three petitions of right instituted in the exchequer court in July, 1943. Permission to proceed was not obtained from the government until the following October, and a defence was not filed by the government until the following February. Therefore, as will be seen, these cases have really been in the courts for four years. Arrangements were then made to have the cases argued on the points of law involved, and this argument was heard at Ottawa by Hon. Mr. Justice Thorson, president of the exchequer court, on May 29 and 30, 1944, w'hen decision was reserved. I have a letter from the solicitors for the applicants, as I imagine they would be called in this case, which is March 1946. They say, "It is therefore almost two years that we have been waiting for a decision." I am wondering why a decision has not been given in those cases.
During the last few years I have heard a great deal in this house about the glories of the rule of law. If our law does not provide justice to our citizens without regard to their nationality or origin, I insist that it is not law; at least it is not law as I understand the use of the term. What I wish to know is whether there are cases which came before the exchequer court since these cases came before it, and in which judgments have been rendered. I should like to have some information on this matter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The cases are not necessarily decided in the order in which they are begun; ttiat is, a case may be initiated in 1944, and no decision given until 1946, while in the meantime cases which were initiated in 1945 may result in decisions in 1945. I do not know that much more can be said about the matter than that. Much would depend upon the difficulty of the case, its importance and how long it took to deal with it. Of course something would depend upon the judge; there is no doubt about that. Some
judges are slower than others. Perhaps some judges take more pains than others. At any rate, some judges have a reputation for being more prompt with their decisions than others. The number of cases in arrears before the Exchequer Court of Canada has been made the subject of questions in the house this session, and returns have been tabled showing the number outstanding. My recollection is that some cases tried in 1944 have not yet been concluded. I should not like to say any more than that I regret that condition of affairs. But just what to do about it I do not know.


Angus MacInnis: That, I submit, is a most unsatisfactory answer. Last year in this house we increased the salaries of judges and their pensions when they no longer earned salaries, or at least when they no longer drew salaries. Now we find that the administration of justice, and whether justice is to be delayed-and justice delayed is justice denied-depends wholly on the judge, and that nothing can be done about the matter. If a case comes before the courts, the judge can decide to lay it by, not to do anything about it, but to go on and deal with other cases. Surely that is not justice. It may be law', but it is certainly not justice.
I insist that here are people who appealed to the Canadian courts. They engaged respectable solicitors who conducted their appeal in the ordinary manner. Now, three years and one month after that case came before the court, it is still there, undecided. These people do not know where they stand. I just tell the minister that if the answer he gave me tonight is the only one he can give, there is certainly something wrong with our administration of justice.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I feel very much like the hon. member for Vancouver East. I have a great respect for the judiciary, and I sympathize with the feeling I assume the minister has, because it is a delicate matter, perhaps something which is not done at all, for the representative of justice, as the minister is, to say anything by way of urging these men to do what I would regard in plain words as their duty. It seems to me fantastic that this situation should exist. But if nothing else can be done it seems to me that there is certainly one thing the minister can do; that is, recognize this situation and draft other judges, if that can be done. I do not suppose there is any magic about the exchequer court, and other judges could be appointed to see that this situation is not perpetuated. I feel earnestly the truth of what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver East, that this will bring the law
Supply-Justice

into disrepute and even into contempt, because I believe what my hon. friend has said about justice delayed being justice denied.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I want to point out that in recent years two additional judges have been added to the Exchequer Court of Canada.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Within what period?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Within two or three years.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I think it would be relevant to ask whether there is much sign that the situation is improving since the addition of those judges and, if not, whether others should be added. At any rate, I feel like my hon. friend to the left, that for the minister to say he does not know what can be done about the matter certainly to me is unsatisfactory.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The minister may have been a little indiscreet in saying that; but, in addition to the two additional judges who have been appointed, at various times three ad hoc judges have been appointed to help the work of the exchequer court. Still the fact remains that some cases are delayed for long periods. I do not know; there may be special reasons in the cases the hon. gentleman has mentioned, but I do know quite a number of cases are in arrears on the parit of one or two of the judges of the exchequer court. That was what I meant by saying I just do not know what to do about the matter.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I ask this further question with some hesitation and perhaps I should almost say with some deference, because I am not very familiar with the procedure in matters of this kind; but would it be going too far to say there should be almost a practice followed that, if judgments fall in arrears beyond a certain point, further judges should be appointed'? From the point of view of a layman, a sort of reformed lawyer like myself, the present situation does seem fantastic.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not always the remedy. There have been and probably are instances in Canada where judgments have been in arrears for several years, and where it is well known that the court is large enough, so that the mere appointment of more judges would not be the remedy at all.


William Alexander McMaster: In some cases the reason for delay is the temperament of the judge, who wants to arrive at the truth and probably finds it difficult to make up his mind. That has occurred in every court in every province of this country. In Ontario many years ago

they amended the judicature act to provide that if a reserved judgment were not given within six months either party could apply for a new trial. Perhaps such a provision should be included in this act. I suppose it would require an amendment to the Exchequer Court Act, and perhaps the same thing should be done to the Supreme Court Act, but of course the difficulty with the exchequer court is that a single judge hears the case. I think such an amendment ought to be brought in by the minister. It would be helpful to the judge concerned if he knew he had to render judgment within a certain period. I remember a judge of the supreme court in Ontario who saw both sides of a case so clearly that he experienced great difficulty in coming to a decision. That judge was later appointed to the court of appeal, w'here he was a very fine and efficient judge.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister said a
moment ago there might be special circumstances in the case referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I want to say that I do not think any .special circumstances can justify the withholding of a judgment in thp exchequer court or any other court for a period of three years. The case referred to by the hon. member is not unusual; others of us have had cases standing there for long periods of time. I am now awaiting judgment in a case where I appeared as counsel over two and a half years ago. A situation like this is a reproach to the Canadian judicial system. The minister says it may be attributable to the fact that there are not enough judges. Well, I do not know, but the fact of the matter is that the addiion of two judges to that court in recent years does not appear to have appreciably reduced the backlog of cases. But if that backlog is not attributable to the dearth of judges in that court, then I think the minister himself must admit some responsibility for keeping in touch with the situation there and urging upon the judges that some strong effort be made to reduce that backlog, particularly the cases that have been standing longest.
It cannot be viewed with anything short of great regret, to put it mildly, that litigants should be compelled to wait for such long periods of time. The rights of people are hanging in the balance. They go to the court to have those rights settled, and then those rights are left in suspense for these long periods. It cannot be said that our courts are offering justice when they hold cases for so long.
Probably the exchequer court is the most glaring example we have in Canada today in

Supply-Justice
this regard, but it is not the only court in which a situation of this kind has arisen. My colleague from High Park referred to the situation that existed in connection with one supreme court judge in Ontario. I recall a county court judge who became notorious for letting his judgments stand. He died some years ago with one case still undecided in which I had been awaiting judgment for no less than five years. I submit that situations of that kind cannot be permitted to continue. I appreciate the delicacy of the position in which the executive branch of the government finds itself in a situation of this kind; but it is so important that justice should be prompt, so important that there should not be these long delays in determining the rights of litigants who have gone to the court for a decision on their rights, that I submit the minister should approach a situation of this kind and deal with it. If there are not enough judges to cope with this big backlog, to reduce it and take care of the current cases within a reasonable time of their hearing, then I think the minister will have to address himself to that problem. Whatever the reason, whether it be shortage of judges or something else, I suggest that the remedy lies in the hands of the minister. If there is another reason I urge that the minister assume some responsibility, because I submit that the public is entitled to look to the Department of Justice for help.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: On this item I want to draw the attention of the minister to the same question I raised on the previous item. The vote in this instance for the Department of Justice is $5,542,289, and one-fifth of that amount is for temporary assistance.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Order. This is an item of S71,115 for administration.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: This comes under administration. Surely there must be some explanation and some break-down for an amount that, is one-fifth of the total. I refer to the amounts given at pages 119 and 125 in the details.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is the hon. member speaking about item 101?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The administration item.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And the hon. member has referred to details at page 120, is that correct?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And to the item of $18,102 for temporary assistance?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Yes. And then at page 125 there is an item of $889,350.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then what item is the hon. member discussing?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I am discussing the vote for the Department of Justice in the amount of $5,542,289. Through these different votes we find amounts aggregating one-fifth of this total for temporary assistance. I can find no breakdown of it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is all broken down. The hon. member must have added up a great number of items. Where does he get his figure of $1,000,000?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: By adding together the figures for temporary assistance.


William Henry Golding: Item 101 is for administration, in the sum of S71.115 only.


Howard Charles Green: I understand that the hon. member is questioning the amount for temporary assistance, and I believe his question is in order. He is complaining that the temporary assistance amounts constitute such a large percentage of the total vote for the Department of Justice.


James Lorimer Ilsley: AVhat is wrong with having a large proportion of temporary employees?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: It is surprising to find that the amounts for temporary assistance amount to one-fifth of the total vote for the department. I should like to have a break-down of those amounts.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will take the hon. member's word that the amount is $1,000,000. I can think of only one way in which he could have obtained that amount, and that is by working out the items for temporary assistance as they are given in the details. Is that the way he obtained it?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: At page 119 we find $54,999; page 119, $11,005; page 120, S1S.102; page 121, $12,330; page 123, $31,113; page 124, $42,225; page 125, under the penitentiaries branch, $889,350, making a total of $1,069,133.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is exactly the way I thought the hon. member had got the figure. With respect to which of those items does he want particulars? I believe I have them here. It would be most tiresome, but if necessary I could read them. There will be amounts for so many stenographers, so many typists, so many clerks, so many penitentiary guards, so many wardens, so many this, that and the other thing, provided that they are temporary. That is the way in which these items are made up. I have the break-down here; there is a considerable degree of it given in the details. But if the hon. member will mention one item- not the whole lot of them-I will give him the
Supply-Justice

particulars. I do not see what he is suspicious about, though, because naturally penitentiaries cannot be run, without help. Some of this would be temporary help.
Items 100 and 101 agreed to.
102. Yukon territorial court-administration, $5,040.	-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister referred to wardens; are they on the list?


Thomas John Bentley: If we are still on item 102-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have asked a question about what was said by the minister.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Swift Current has the floor.


Thomas John Bentley: If we are still on item 102-and I cannot see any other place in here to ask the question-I shall make some observations. So I hope if this is not the right place I shall be permitted, to proceed, anyway, because there is no other place.
I should like to refer to another court which was established in this country early last year, namely the Taschereau commission, which did a lot of investigational work, and made decisions like a court. Arising out of some of their charges, there were other court cases, where people were tried for espionage activities.


Maurice Hartt: That was no court. .


Thomas John Bentley: They were tried in other courts.


Maurice Hartt: It was no court. You were right when you said the question did not belong here.


Thomas John Bentley: The hon. member can make any observations he wants, after I have finished.


Maurice Hartt: I am making them.


William Henry Golding: Order. We are dealing with item 102, an amount of $5,040 to be granted to His Majesty for administration in the Yukon territorial court.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Thomas John Bentley: No; item 102 deals with the administration of other courts. It refers to judges' salaries. I do not know where this question would come.


Maurice Hartt: Whose fault is that?


Thomas John Bentley: I want to ask it, and I should be able to ask it. It will not hurt anybody to have the question asked.


William Henry Golding: Go ahead.


Thomas John Bentley: Thank you. If I can do so without too much interruption it will not take long. I should like to ask the minister if ten people who have been acquitted of any guilt in connection with espionage trials will be reimbursed for their legal expenses. The reason I ask is that when a person is charged with a serious offence like that it does damage to his character, and probably costs a lot of money besides.
I am not pleading for those who are guilty; but those who have been found not guilty should be reimbursed for the expenses to which they have been put because of charges the crown placed against them. The minister may not wish to answer now; in fact I would prefer his giving consideration to the matter rather than giving a final no at this time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am at a loss to understand why a line should be drawn between certain persons who are acquitted and the great body of persons who are acquitted in criminal trials.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In view of these persons having their names spread across the country by a royal commission, they are in a different category from other persons brought up in courts. The hon. member for Swift Current has a real argument there.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, none at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have a question to ask on this item. Mention was made a few moments ago of a court in which there seemed to be too few judges. I wish to refer to another case where there would seem to be too many. I happened to be in Halifax the other day, and a legal friend of mine raised the question as to delay, if I understood correctly, of some two years in appointing a successor to a judge who had died there. The same person raised this point. He pointed out the great extent to which judges had been on special duty in the last couple of years. For that reason and also because the vacancy had existed for at least two years, the question was raised whether the actual establishment of judges in Nova Scotia was too large and whether it should not be reduced by legislation if the judges were not needed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will consider my hon. friend's representations. I would point out that in various courts in Canada at times vacancies have existed which have run into longer periods than that. Sometimes they should have been filled before they were, and at other times they were apparently filled soon enough, even though the vacancy had existed for some time. The two judges who were

Supply-Justice
absent from Nova Scotia for part of the time during the war are back there now, and the same thing applies to judges in other provinces.
The government tries to see that the convenience of the people is not prejudiced and that the business of the country does not suffer. Sometimes it is possible to allow vacancies to run for quite a long time without there being any apparent inconvenience.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Is it not a fact that it was because of their outstanding ability that Mr. Justice W. F. Carroll was appointed and served in such an able manner on the coal commission and that Mr. Justice M. B. Archibald was appointed to serve as chairman of the national war labour board, and that thus the situation complained of by the hon. member was created?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was not complaining; I was just asking.
Mr. ILSI.EY: Both those gentlemen are judges of exceptional ability.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister about a vacancy in Prince Albert which has been in existence for six months. The situation there is serious. A judge comes up from Humboldt from time to time, but it is not fair to him. It is difficult for solicitors to carry on, and I should like to know what is to be done about that appointment?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know what will be done about the appointment. If the hon. gentleman says that there is some inconvenience to the public I shall look into the situation, but I say again that often vacancies can last quite a little while in some provinces and in some courts without there being any real inconvenience to the public. It depends upon quite a number of circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: That answer does not mean anything. I know there are difficulties when there are different claimants, each of whom believes he is entitled to the appointment. Prince Albert is one of the oldest judicial districts in western Canada and one of the most important in Saskatchewan, but it is almost impossible for solicitors to carry on. Never has there been a vacancy extending beyond a month at any time before and the reason is the importance of Prince Albert as a judicial centre. It is not fair to litigants and to members of the bar that the present situation should continue because of the difficulties created by rival claimants for the position.


William Ross Macdonald: I feel I should direct the attention of the committee to the fact that we are discussing vote 102 which deals with the Y'ukon Territory.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Ross Macdonald: Either I have not the right vote or the committee has not the right vote.


John George Diefenbaker: Item 102 deals with administration, other courts.


Mr. TIMMINS:: Has the minister had any conversations or correspondence with Ontario relative to increasing the number of county court judges and enlarging their jurisdiction in order 'that they may deal with divorce cases? This is particularly necessary in some of the urban centres of Ontario. There have been as many as 1,500 divorce actions on the supreme court lists at Toronto, and five special judges have been appointed in July to take care of the divorce actions pending in the supreme court, although July is generally a vacation month.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There has been no correspondence with the government of Ontario with reference to the increase in the number of county court judges in that province or with reference to conferring divorce jurisdiction upon county court judges. If the hon. member is making that as a suggestion I would be prepared to give it consideration. I do not know whether it would be practical, but the suggestion comes to me with the force of a new idea.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
104. Combines investigation branch, $120,775.
John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister advise the committee how many prosecutions took place during the past year against alleged combines or monopolies, and also whether any proceedings were started on the part of private individuals under the amendments to the act which were passed last year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for Kamloops asked a question to be found in Votes and Proceedings of March 19. 1947. He asked how many informations had been laid and how many prosecutions had been launched under the Combines Investigation Aot since the coming into effect of the amendments to that act which were .passed at the last session of parliament. The answer was that the Department of Justice had no knowledge of any informations having been laid by private individuals or by the attorney general of any province and, next, that none had been laid by the Attorney General of Canada.
Supply-Justice


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have there been any complaints to the government with regard to newsprint, and have any inquiries been made as to possible infractions of the Combines Investigation Act in that field? Has the government asked the combines investigation branch to look into the matter and, if so. has a report been made?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I received a long letter-[DOT]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would that be from Mr. Percy Bengough, president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think that is the one, and I think it is the only one if I remember correctly, although I may have received telegrams from some organizations, which I took to be labour organizations, suggesting that there was some combine in the manufacture of newsprint which was contrary to the Combines Investigation Act. I referred the matter to the commissioner and I received a confidential report from him. No proceedings have been taken by the minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister say where we go from here? This matter has been raised in the house on previous occasions and it seems to be a serious one. I noticed my hon. friend the hon. member for Vancouver South a few moments ago reading a copy of a paper from his city, the Vancouver Sun, which, I understand, has considerable difficulty in getting sufficient quantities of newsprint to meet its demands. I am also led to believe that a newspaper in Winnipeg which is seeking to get organized and get started has had considerable difficulty in getting any intimation that it can secure newsprint, although it is one of the products that is in pretty high production in Canada at the present time. My own inquiries resulted in my getting hold of certain documents put out by the newsprint people themselves, which indicated that, following the ending of control by the wartime prices and trade board, the newsprint people instituted their own control of the supply of that product. That control, in turn, seems to have these strange effects upon Canadian newspapers seeking newsprint. I know that involved in it is the whole question of export. I have not the figure in my mind at the moment ; but it appears to me that a pretty high percentage of our newsprint is exported to the United States. In fact, occasionally you can pick up the comics that are inserted in our Canadian newspapers and find that they have been printed in the United States on newsprint made in Canada. Yet the situation to which I have referred obtains in this country. I know of the letter

which Mr. Bengough wrote in connection with this matter and in which he sets out these facts and offers suggestions. I feel that the matter should be pursued by the government with as much expedition as possible.


Maurice Hartt: If the hon. member can prove that the newspaper industry is a trust or monopoly, why does he not register a complaint? He has a right as a citizen to do so.


An hon. MEMBER:: He would not get a
decision.


Maurice Hartt: The inference is that newsprint is a monopoly. Can the hon. member vouch for that statement? If so, why does he not complain to the courts?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member has corrected himself. He said previously the newspaper business and now he says newsprint. There is quite a difference. Some of the facts to which I have referred are known, namely, the difficulty that certain newspapers have in getting newsprint; and the document to which I have referred is public property, namely, the claim by the newsprint people that they have had to institute their own control to take the place of the control formerly exercised by the wartime prices and trade board. When the newsprint people admit that they have their own control, and the result of that control is that papers like the Vancouver Sun, which is no C.C.F. paper by any means, cannot get sufficient quantities of paper to meet the demands from its subscribers and also to meet the demand for advertising space, it does suggest that there is something which should be looked into. I have been careful not to make any allegation or charge. I am stating what appears to some people to be pretty close to the line. The combines investigation branch should look into the matter and we should know something about it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Penitentiaries branch-
105. Branch administration, $153,141.
John George Diefenbaker: The lack of permanent employees among penitentiary employees has been up before. At one time the employees came within the provisions of the Civil Service Act and could be made permanent, but about 1932 a change was made in the law and all the penitentiary employees were placed in the position of being temporary employees. Now that changes have been made in the administration and General Gibson has investigated the efficiency of the operation of the penitentiaries and knows something of the

Supply-Justice
ability and standards of the employees, the officials, the guards and wardens, will the minister give consideration to having these officials made permanent under the Civil Service Act? From time to time objections are raised by these employees with regard to this matter. They state that they are in the position of having held over them at all times the threat of being removed without having the precautionary right or the relative rights that they would possess against dismissal if they were permanent employees under the Civil Service Act. Would the minister also let the committee know whether during the past year any of the guards or wardens or officials have been dismissed? If so, how many from each of the penitentiaries, and what rights has an individual employed in a penitentiary to protection against unfair dismissal? Has he any right of appeal? How is that right of appeal exercised? To what extent does the minister have brought to his attention the complaints raised by those who have been dismissed or removed? To what extent are their rights preserved?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Retirements in the fiscal year 1916-47 were as follows: resigned, 104; retired, sixty-six; dismissed, thirteen; died, three; transferred, two. That makes 188 in all. The hon. gentleman also asked, Where did the thirteen dismissals take place? Six were from Kingston penitentiary, three from St. Vincent de Paul, two from Manitoba, one from British Columbia and one from Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: What were the
reasons for their dismissal?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The cause of the dismissal is not in the material before me. They were dismissed for cause in every case.


John George Diefenbaker: What rights have they by way of appeal?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They may appeal to the minister. I have asked the officials to find out whether there is such a provision in any act, but they are not just sure. However, that is the practice. It is well known they may appeal to the minister if they wish.


John George Diefenbaker: Have there been any appeals to the minister?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not to me.


John George Diefenbaker: Have there been any during the past year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


John Thomas Hackett: Possibly the minister has hopes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend asked me some other questions.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked whether consideration would be given to having these officials in the penitentiary become permanent under the Civil Service Act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will give that matter consideration. The reverse step was taken in 1933. They were taken out from under the Civil Service Act and placed under the wardens, for reasons which appeared at the time to be good and which perhaps still are.
I will take the matter up.


John George Diefenbaker: How many appointments were made to the penitentiary service in the last year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There were 235.


John George Diefenbaker: How many were ex-service men?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There were 2C0.


William Scottie Bryce: I should like to get some information from the minister regarding the superannuation of officers in the penitentiaries. The thing that worries me is that when they have paid the debt they owe they will still have to keep on paying until they die. I have here three cases which I have worked out. I have the particulars of each of them and I will give the first one. This officer began service with the penitentiary branch in 1921 at Stony Mountain. He elected to come under the superannuation fund in 1944. He found at that time that he was SI,600 in arrears, plus four per cent interest, which amounted to S800 that he had to pay extra. He could not pay this amount in a lump sum, so that he elected to pay for life $17.02 plus current superannuation until he should retire from the service. After having paid! for twr years, that is, to date, he finds that he still has eleven years to pay before reaching the age of sixty-five. That means he will have to pay S17.02 a month for thirteen years, When he will have paid S2,655.12. He found also that he will have paid more than the original amount, and he still has to pay $17.02 until he dies. At the time he elected to come under the superannuation fund he had served twenty-four years and he stood to gain, through a gratuity of one month's pay for every year he served, or approximately $3,000 which he forfeited by coming under the superannuation fund. He was earning 8125 a month at the time. If he stays in the service until he retires at the age of sixty-five he will have served thirty-seven years. He wall draw a pension of $123.78, less S17.02, which will
Supply-Justice

leave him $106.76. He had been earning S2.004 each year for the last ten years. I could give the other cases too; they are similar to this one. They will have paid everything they owe to the government in connection with the superannuation scheme. The first man, if he retires at the age of sixty-five, will pay SH-O? for the other three years, and at t'he age of sixty-eight he will have paid everything he owed. The other fellow pays $16.42 and he will have paid everything at the age of sixty-eight. Another man pays $23.70 and at the age of sixty-nine he will have paid everything. If these fellows live to the age of eighty they have to keep on paying that money. Can the minister explain why they have to keep on paying that money after they have made good their debt?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot explain it offhand, but I suspect the reason is that, should they have died earlier, they would have paid less than the amount that would be sufficient from the point of view of the fund. Is that not the reason?


William Scottie Bryce: I do not think so. I do not know of any other superannuation scheme in connection with the government or any other service where a man, after paying what he is entitled to pay according to the regulations or the fund, has to keep on paj-ing after he is superannuated. I can see the force of one man paying for three years, another for three and another for four, because they were later coming in and had to make up the difference. These fellows paid four per cent compound interest on the arrears of the debt, but when they have paid that they will still have to pay from $17 to $20 a month until the day they die. I am not going to hold up the item any longer if the minister will assure me that he will look into the question. I have these cases typewritten so that there will not be any mistake about the matter, and I can give them to the minister.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is not a separate scheme. It is not like the R.C.M.P. pension scheme we were discussing earlier in the evening, a thing by itself. This is a well known superannuation scheme covering all civil servants, the same as exists everywhere, and it is a generous and just scheme. I feel sure that there must be some explanation and a good explanation of the facts.


Mr.   BRACE@: That is what I am trying to find out.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member has sprung it upon me rather suddenly.


William Scottie Bryce: I shall be only too pleased to give the minister time to look into it. He need not give me an answer tonight, so long as he does give me an answer, in order that I may go back to these men and tell them why they have to keep on paying to the end of the chapter.


John Thomas Hackett: The answer is this, is it not, that it is part of the scheme, and if these men were not to pay after superannuation they and others would have to pay before superannuation? I think it is just part of a scheme which is not unknown in other walks and callings.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think so. The hon. gentleman wants some explanation for his correspondents and I will get it from the finance department, who have charge of the superannuation scheme. In fact, they could give it to him if he would go there. They would give him the full particulars. If he wants me to get it for him I shall.
Mr. BRA'CE: I shall be pleased. Before anybody else takes my place, may I bring up another matter I referred to last year and that is the housing situation at Stony Mountain. What will they do about the houses that are fifty years overdue there?
Mr. ILSLEAr: It is the intention of those administering the system to put up more houses at Stony Mountain as soon as the shortage is alleviated to some extent, but it cannot be done this year because there is a terrific demand for materials for housing all over the country.
Mr. BRA'CE: A further question. The housing facilities are not sufficient for the wardens and office staff at Stony Mountain. A great many of them' have to stay in Winnipeg. I asked last year whether the department would consider putting a bus in there similar to the provincial government service, taking them out and bringing them back. Has that been considered?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am informed that a number of officers have their own cars and that a bus runs past the penitentiary between Winnipeg and Stonewall and they may use those buses.


William Scottie Bryce: That is correct. There is a bus between Winnipeg and Stonewall that passes there. But it does not pass at the right time. AVhen the wardens are on duty, the bus is going the other way. It is going to the country. When the wardens are going off duty, it is bringing the farmers back to the country. That bus service is really no good for them. I think you would create a group

Supply-Justice
of contented wardens there if you did supply a bus. I did not press for it during the war; but, now that the war is over I would ask the minister to give this matter further consideration.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall do that.


William Scottie Bryce: What has been done about the hours of labour? They have repeatedly asked that they get a forty-four hour week. We have other people all over the country asking for a forty-hour week and these people are still working at the old hours; their hours of labour are far from satisfactory, having in mind keeping good men on the job.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is forty-eight hours a week, anyway.


William Scottie Bryce: Is there not any hope of a reduction to at least forty-four hours?


Mr. HOMUTH:: The fellows inside have no special hours.


William Scottie Bryce: I never knew that the hon. member had that experience.
Has the department inaugurated any new system in advertising the various positions in the penitentiary service? What I meant by that is this. If you have a good promising man at Kingston, for instance, has he an opportunity of seeing an advertisement of a position in British Columbia, or do you still keep him within the circle of one penitentiary?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Normally there is no demand or wish to move from one penitentiary to another. I am informed that occasionally, for some special position, a man is moved; but ordinarily that is not done.


William Scottie Bryce: I think it would be a good thing if thos positions were advertised, so that these men could have that opportunity.
Has the minister ever considered the advisability of setting up a school for penitentiary officers?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


William Scottie Bryce: Is it in operation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


William Scottie Bryce: When will it start?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Very soon. If the hon. gentleman will refer to the report which I tabled in February, he will see that definite plans are being made for officers, guards and so on, in penitentiaries.


William Scottie Bryce: Are all these people to be included in the civil service after the reorganization?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is the question the hon. member for Lake Centre asked me to consider. They were taken out of the civil service in 1933, and now it is said they ought to be put back in again. I do not know what should be done. I suppose either system would have some advantages.


An hon. MEMBER:: In again, out again.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It does not follow that whatever is, is wrong.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a fairly safe assumption.


William Scottie Bryce: I would not say that. With regard to these men who gave service to their country and have returned to their jobs; will the time they served overseas be added to their service for superannuation purposes?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. If they were allowed leave of absence, naturally it is.


William Scottie Bryce: That time counts?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Mr. JAENICKE:: I should like to ask the minister to make a statement in connection with the appointments of the two assistant commissioners, who are to be appointed by virtue of the recent amendment to the Penitentiary Act. Have these assistant commissioners been appointed? If not, are they soon to be appointed? When they are appointed or are about to be appointed, will the minister give consideration to their qualifications? I think that at least one should be an alienist, a psychiatrist, or an expert of that kind. I point out that this is especially important in view of the revolutionary amendment to the criminal code which is, I presume, to come before parliament in a few days. Would the minister make a statement in that respect?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Two or three times before during this session I have said that it is the government's intention to appoint as one of the deputy commissioners a psychiatrist, or a medical man with some knowledge of psychiatry. I hope we shall be able to get one. There are not many psychiatrists in the country. The qualifications of the other deputy commissioner are set out in General Gibson's report. Our plans are definite about these appointments. I think that was all the hon. gentleman asked me, was it not? He asked me whether appointments had been made. I believe the act received royal assent only on Friday last, and nothing has as yet been done under the act.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: The minister has not as yet anyone in mind?
493S
Supply-Justice


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, we have certain persons in mind, but I do not know whether they will be available.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When the minister was answering a question asked by the hon. member for Queens, he mentioned wardens being on the temporary list. Are some of them not permanent?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; none of the wardens are temporary.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When the minister answered the hon. member's question, he put wardens in with the others. That is the reason I ask the question now.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, I said something like this, that you cannot run penitentiaries without guards, wardens and so on; and some of your help has to be temporary. I did not intend to say that wardens were.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I just wanted to make sure.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I desire to draw the minister's attention to what he said in the house on June 3. As reported at page 3740 of Hansard, he said:
. . . There will be occasions later in the session when these matters can be discussed more properly than they can be on this bill.
I understood at that time that the minister proposed to make a statement beyond anything he has so far made in the house as to his approach to this question. Am I right in thinking that the minister is not proposing to make any statement now?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Naturally I have given some thought to whether or not I should make a statement and to just how far I should go. I think I have gone quite a distance already this session. In the first place, we secured this report from General Gibson, and I tabled the report. I said that the government was in accord with the recommendations of that report, at least generally speaking, and would proceed with the carrying out of those recommendations. That was a first step and, in my judgment, a wise and practical step with regard to the penitentiary system. I do not know that I should be expected to go very much farther. That report has a great deal in it. I said that there are some things which I am not in favour of, not in that report, but in certain other reports. I think I have gone about as far as I should go in placing myself or the government on record at this stage.
I listened to the hon. gentleman's speech asking us to proceed and saying there should be a greater note of urgency in what we say about this penitentiary question. I have taken that all to heart; I understand exactly what.

he means. There has been an immense amount of discussion over the years about our methods. I do not know that it is so, that we are so far behind the rest of the world; and when I hear about a lot of these modern methods I am not sure exactly what is meant. I find that great confusion and great differences of opinion exist as to just what methods should be applied. I have read the Saskatchewan report, which is interesting, but I am not prepared to stand here and make a pronouncement upon penological principles or a statement about the relative advantages of the penological approach and the psychiatric approach, about which there seems to be quite a lot of discussion. We shall set up our commission just as soon as we can, and proceed just as quickly as we can.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not going to take time to labour this point. I think I fully understand the difficulties the minister has outlined, and I believe I fully understand his unwillingness to step out and make a statement ex cathedra about a lot of things until he has had a chance to consider them. But I would make this point, that I believe the people of this country are entitled-obviously not tonight, and I am afraid not this session, but as soon as possible -to much more from the minister than we have ever had. I believe the people of Canada, particularly those who are concerned about this matter, of whom there are many, are entitled to more than merely a report by a commissioner, though I think that report is very good and I believe the commissioner is a good man. The people are looking for something from the minister as to what he believes about this thing, what his aims and objectives are. He has not had much time to prepare that. I am not going to labour the point further now, but I suggest that before too long-I hope it might be early in the next session of this parliament-we may have from him a considered statement as to what his aims and objectives are and what his approach is to this whole question. Up to the present I submit that it has been a rather mechanical matter; we have dealt with this, that and the other point. Now I think we want to know his approach to this question in a broad and philosophic manner.


John Thomas Hackett: Possibly the minister
would not object to saying whether the attitude of his department in appointing one commissioner is to be interpreted as abandoning forever some of the main points of the Archambault report. I have understood that this was a beginning, that it does not neces-

Supply-Justice
sarily mean that the minister or the government is eliminating finally any of the recommendations of the report.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct. It does
not mean that we are definitely and permanently opposed to those recommendations. I think at the present time the step we are taking is the proper one. I do not believe it is possible at the present time to centralize in the federal authority control of all the prisons in Canada. I do not think it is possible, and I do not think it is desirable. The time may come when it is both, and when that time comes we may have an elaborate organization here at Ottawa; we may have a board and conduct all the parole activities of the country from Ottawa. That may happen, but I am not advocating it at the moment. I agree with the hon. gentleman that when we start in this way it does not mean that we are eliminating the possibility that something else may come in time. It may.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits-
107. William Tatton, $564.
William Alexander McMaster: With the consent of the committee, I should like to speak for a moment on the question of pensions under the Judges Act, which is a statutory vote. I have taken so little of the time of the house in the past that I feel I might be allowed five minutes to speak about one judge of the supreme court of Ontario. Tonight a certain amount of criticism has been levelled at judges because of the way in which they have performed their work, but the judge of whom I am about to speak was never criticized by any person. Mr. Justice Middleton has the unique distinction of being the only living retired judge of the supreme court of Ontario. There are twenty-three judges on the bench of that court, and perhaps, because there is no retiring age, he is in that position. I have often felt that it would have been a great loss to the province of Ontario if Mr. Justice Middleton had been compelled to retire at the age of seventy-five. He carried on for many years after reaching that age, and when he felt unable to continue to render the best service to the country he voluntarily retired, and has now reached a very advanced age.
I believe many members of the bar intended at some time to offer some testimonial to Judge Middleton, but because of the war and the dislocation following the war this has never been done. So I hope no one will think it presumptuous on my part to say something about him in this parliament of Canada. Mr. Justice Middleton was an outstanding member of the bar in the latter part of the last century. His work at Osgoode Hall, both in practice court, in single court and in the court of appeal, was outstanding. He was appointed to the bench in the first decade of the present century by the then minister of justice, who at the present time is a distinguished member of the other place and who, I think, himself should have some testimonial or something said about the great work he did. The minister of whom I speak, then Mr. A. B. Ayles-worth, left a large and lucrative law practice to become minister of justice, and during the time he was in office performed his duties in a way that every minister of justice would do well to emulate, as I believe they have tried to do since.
Immediately after his appointment, Mr. Justice Middleton presided in nisi prim cases. He became a trial judge. He had not practised a great deal in such cases before his appointment, but immediately became distinguished and popular because of the way in which he handled the cases which came before him. He was kind and amiable to the litigants and to the counsel who appeared before him, and he earned an enviable reputation because of his judgments. On one occasion an officer of the court told me he complained because so many of his judgments were being overruled; but the obvious answer was, of course, that he tried about three times as many cases as an ordinary judge. Later he was elevated to the court of appeal, and in that position carried on with the same industry and learning he had displayed as a trial judge. Several years ago he voluntarily retired, after a long tenure on the bench. As the hon. member for Rosedale interjects, he was always expert in rules of practice, and his advice while sitting as a judge was sought in many cases by his brother judges. I feel that the bar and people of Ontario would wish that I, on their behalf, should express their appreciation of his service whilst on the bench.
While I am on my feet, I should like to speak about another judge who also occupies a unique position in Ontario as the only living retired judge of the county court of the county of York. In his case, because legislation specified the retiring age of judges of the county courts, he was compelled to retire at the age of seventy-five years, and by his retirement the people of York county lost the services of a judge who could have carried on for many more years. I am referring to Mr. Justice Jackson, who is a great personal friend of mine. And may I add that one of the happiest events of my being in parliament is the being able to express in these inadequate words the appreciation of
4940	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-Merchant Seamen
the bar of Ontario for tihe work of these two outstanding members of the justiciary of Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Demobilization and reconversion-
510. To provide for expenses in connection with prize courts, $10,000.
John George Diefenbaker: To what extent was any action taken by prize courts in the past year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There were no expenditures in 1946 up bo September 30. I believe that is
the latest information we have. However, some money is expended in some years. These are the expenditures in certain past years:
1940-41	 $9,697.74
[DOT]194il-42	 5,757.09
1942-	43	
nil1943-	44	
nil1944-	45	
nil1945-	46	
5,240.23
The main estimates were prepared at the end of 1946, and there were no expenditures up to September 30 of that year. This is the usual $10,000 vote to cover possible expenditures for 1947-48.


John Thomas Hackett: I believe it was when the Volstead Act was in effect that the department had the greatest amount of work of 'this kind. In those days ships sailed for Mexico seven times a day from Windsor.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
402. Departmental administration, $544,000.
Mr. MERRITT:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise the question of the bringing of merchant seamen who served during the war under veterans benefits. The minister has had' representations made to him several times already during the session, so that on this occasion I dhall state my case briefly.
The committee will be aware that the merchant seamen who served in Canada's merchant marine during the war received very few of the benefits which were awarded to the veterans of the war. For instance, their benefits in respect of educational training were limited to vocational training, if they were to continue at sea. Their benefits under the Veterans' Land Act were available only to those merchant seamen who had suffered disability during service.
In all those respects the 'merchant seamen were not treated as veterans. Tonight I am asking the minister to subscribe to the principle that merchant seamen were veterans. I am not saying to him that there should not

be differences between the treatment accorded the men who served in the armed forces and those who served as merchant seamen, because the conditions of service were different, and .there may be some cases in which there should be slight differences. However, it is :my intention to ask the minister to change from the principle under which merchant seamen have some veterans' rights arising from their war services, but with those rights definitely limited, bo 'the principle that they have all rights, less those it is necessary to except in order to bring about fairness and equity among all those who served.
I have seen various figures quoted as to the number who served in the merchant marine during the war. One set of figures shows that there were 1,400 in the merchant marine in 1939. One of my colleagues places the figure at 1,000. My figures indicate further that in 1945 there were 12,000 in the merchant marine. Therefore eighty-eight per cent of those who served during the war were temporary merchant seamen for the duration of the war only, and who had not chosen the sea as their career. If evidence were needed, I believe that is sufficient to indicate that their service was a war service, and their intention in going to sea was to contribute to the war effort.
The minister knows that many of them are young chaps. Some are right out of school, and their normal education was interrupted by their desire to serve their country during the war. May I give one illustration of the nature of the service they performed. A spokesman for the group now attending the university of British Columbia got in touch with me and told me there were eighteen ex-merchant seamen studying at that university. He pointed out how members of the armed forces in much larger numbers were receiving educational benefits, while the exmerchant seamen had to work their way through university. I asked him how many of the eighteen were actually in a convoy subjected to torpedo attack during the war. He did not know exactly, but found out and telephoned me later to the effect that fifteen of the eighteen had been in convoys which had suffered torpedo attack and in which ships had been lost.
I believe that gives a good indication of the nature of the service performed, and the risks run. The two sets of figures I have given can leave little doubt that this was a war service and should be treated as such.
I have in my hand a statement by one of the officers of the merchant navy veterans

Supply-Transport-Merchant Seamen
committee at the university of British Columbia which I think will be quite interesting to the committee. He says:
What good is unemployment insurance, or veterans insurance to student-veterans? So-called benefits to merchant seamen are just so much writing on paper. The only merchant seaman veteran who gets any benefits at all is the chap -who wishes to stay at sea as a profession. Seamen-veterans in that category number less than ten per cent.
Although the minister may say that certain educational and vocational training benefits have been given, the number who have taken advantage of them is so small that I cannot believe it constitutes a discharge by the government of its obligations to these seamen. Questions have been raised as to the obligations of these men to serve, and it has been suggested that their obligation was different from that of the armed forces. Perhaps it was for the first two or three years of the war, but these men served and continued to serve. In 1944 the manning pool agreement was signed by most of them. As the minister knows, that agreement contained a definite undertaking to serve for the duration of the war or for two years, whichever was the lesser. At least from that time on, those who signed the manning pool agreement were bound to continue in service, and to all intents and purposes their service was just as binding upon them as was service in the armed forces binding upon its members.
It has been suggested that the rates of pay were more advantageous to merchant seamen than to those of equal rank in the armed forces. I do not find that to be so. It is true that a war risk bonus of $44 a month was given for service at sea, but the basic rate of pay for an ordinary seaman was $84 a month. A radio operator, whose rank I believe corresponded with that of a sub-lieutenant in the navy, received $109 a month. Of course that was subject to income tax. Compared with similar rates of pay in the armed forces and having in mind that the pay of merchant seamen was subject to income tax, I cannot feel-


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Income tax was payable only on the basic rate.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That is so; income tax was payable on the basic rate. I do not think that could do any more than warrant the minister in making some reduction in the reestablishment credits or gratuities or things of that kind. The difference was not sufficient to warrant keeping merchant seamen out of the principle of war service and veterans benefits.
I am concerned lest one of the things that has held the minister and the government back from taking a step which, it seems to me, is all too obvious is administrative difficulty. I looked up the debate on this matter of income tax paid by merchant seamen which took place in the house in 1942, and I find that the Minister of Finance stated frankly, as reported on page 4365 of Hansard, that, for administrative reasons, 'there had been no exemption of merchant seamen from income tax. The administrative reasons he gave were perfectly clear, that these seamen were employed by civilian employers on civilian ships and that it would be difficult to exempt them from income tax.
This matter is so important that we cannot consider administrative difficulties. Administrative difficulties will have to be dealt with by means of an administrative plan and not by excluding these men from a principle which I feel to be sound.
I am not going to argue the matter any longer, nor am I going to try to detail to the minister the additional benefits to which I think merchant seamen are entitled. Those benefits should certainly include educational training on a much wider scale than has been granted. I am simply going to reiterate that we should establish a principle whereby these men would be entitled to be treated as veterans, with possible exceptions from that principle in the extent of the benefits that are granted.


Lionel Chevrier: First of all, let me say that, while the hon. member has made out a good case for the position as he sees it, there is another side with which I am faced and which I think I should place before the committee. One thing must not be forgotten. The men of the merchant navy, while they did a formidable task in the war job, were volunteers. There can be no doubt about that. That certainly was the position which my predecessor took an it is the position in which I find myself.


Howard Charles Green: So were all the navy and the air force and most of the army.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend has been interrupting every time I discuss this matter, both on the bill for compensation and now. I have no objection to his interrupting, but I wish he would just hold himself for a moment or two until I put my position on the record. If he has anything to ask I shall be glad to listen to him just as I listened to him when he wanted to discuss workmen's compensation.

Supply-Transport-M erchant

Seamen
It is a fact, whether my hon. friend likes it or not, that they were recruited as civilians.


Howard Charles Green: You said they had volunteered; you did not say they were civilians.


Lionel Chevrier: I said they were volunteers, but they were engaged in a civilian capacity.


Howard Charles Green: You did not say that.


Lionel Chevrier: I am saying it now. If one listened to all that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said one would think the merchant seamen have received no benefits at all, when in fact they have received quite a number of benefits. I am just wondering if my hon. friend is familiar with them all.
I have to challenge some of the statements he made a moment ago. I did not want to interrupt him at the time. For instance, this is the monthly remuneration to which a merchant seaman was entitled. The basic pay was $47.07 in January, 1942, but that basic rate was increased to $89.93, to which was added a war risk bonus of $44.50, making a total of $134.43 a month. Income tax was paid on the basic rate only. The war risk bonus and the subsistence allowance were exempt. So much for the war risk bonus.
Then there followed two special bonuses, one called the war service bonus and the other the special bonus, each of ten per cent. One of these was paid on gross earnings after a minimum period of six months service in dangerous waters. It was paid to 6,388 merchant seamen, at a cost of $1,800,000. Then there was an additional war service bonus of ten per cent on gross earnings for service subsequent to April 1, 1944, until the end of the war. That was paid to 4,226 seamen, at a cost of $443,700.
There were also a number of provisions by a special order in council which had to do with railway transportation, leave on pay at the end of each year, round-trip rail transportation from a manning pool to the seaman's home at the low cost of one-third of the one-way fare.
Merchant seamen, on agreement, on completion of service were entitled to receive railway transportation from the port of discharge to their place of permanent domicile. If incapacitated from sickness or injury during service on a manning pool two-year agreement, the merchant seamen received basic pay for a maximum period of twelve weeks. There was over $90,000 paid to those who applied under that particular order.
There was also vocational training which was paid to those who wanted to continue the calling of a merchant seaman. I agree with what my hon. friend has said that that
[Mr. Chevrier.)
does not cover vocational training for a member of the merchant navy outside of his calling. It is directed toward his own calling. That was because the director of merchant seamen was of the opinion that it was his responsibility to make sure that those men got the best possible training, and he asked that vocational training be given to men of that category.
Merchant seamen who left civil employment to serve at sea during the war are entitled to the benefits of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act.
Again, pension for disability incurred from enemy action or counteraction is payable to merchant seamen serving on any Canadian ship, and to Canadian merchant seamen serving on ships of allied nations employed in service essential to the prosecution of the war. We went through that at some length in the debate on the bill to amend the Merchant Seamen's Compensation Act.
In case of death from similar causes, widows and dependent children are pensionable.
A Canadian merchant 9eaman in receipt of a pension from an allied nation is entitled, during residence in Canada, to have his pension raised to the Canadian scale.
Merchant seamen detained by the enemy received a detention allowance, equivalent to their basic pay and war risk bonus, and also the special bonus. Dependents of merchant seamen who were detained by the enemy received appropriate portions of this detention allowance for their maintenance, the remainder being paid to the seaman on his return to Canada.
Unemployment insurance coverage for merchant seamen was passed at the last session and came into effect on October 1, 1946. By a special provision under the act, seafarers have been placed on a parity for unemployment insurance purposes with Canada's wartime armed forces. Under this provision many seamen are given credit for wartime service without payment of contributions after they have become established in insurable employment.
Medical and dental care is extended to pensioners, while men on service are covered by the sick mariners fund and the Merchant Seamen's Compensation Act. They are also entitled to medical service and repatriation when hospitalized in foreign parts.
There are a number of other things to which I might refer; for instance, the manning pools that were set up during the war and the many advantages which merchant seamen got under these manning pools. A man in a manning pool awaiting call or assignment to

Supply-Transport-Mrrchant Seamen
a ship was given, the opportunity of going out and working in industry, which was not given to members of the armed forces.
There were two training schools set up, one in Nova Scotia and one in Ontario, at Prescott, for the purpose of training engineers and the like.
I could go on. I have an additional list of welfare benefits, clubs that were set up all across this country to assist merchant seamen, and so on. So when it is said that they have received no benefits or benefits that are entirely inadequate, I have to take issue with that statement. That they may be entitled to more; that they have performed wonderful service for Canada-with such a statement I cannot quarrel because that is a fact. While I should like to see perhaps many things done that are not done for the merchant seamen, it is unfortunate to some extent that the merchant navy was not placed in a different category. I am not making any apologies for that. My hon. friends will remember that the subject was discussed last year and again this year on the compensation act, and at that time I think I made the position of the) department and the government fairly clear. I hope hon. members do not think the position of the merchant navy and the contribution made by them to the war effort is not realized and not appreciated; it is. When compared with other countries, I think the position in Canada far surpasses that of all other lands.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister has made a brave show of these benefits. I have written them down, and when you examine them you find two startling things. A great number of them such as the manning pool advantages, leave and railway transportation, the detention allowance for merchant seamen who were captured by the enemy-these are all what I would call "in-service" benefits. They are not veterans benefits at all. I do not think the minister can count those when we come to discuss whether these men are receiving veterans benefits. On the other hand, with regard to the other list of benefits he gave, reinstatement in civilian employment, bonuses for disabilities, and medical and dental care for pensioners, those benefits are strictly limited in their application to those who suffered a disability from enemy action, as I understand it, and are not even available to those who suffered disability through the ordinary perils of the sea.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend is not omitting the war service bonuses of ten per cent?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I shall deal with those in a moment. Second, of course, the completion 83166-315J
of training benefits is limited to those who want to continue in sea service. When you look at these two sets of benefits as I have put them before the committee .they are only a brave show, but not nearly good enough. They do not satisfy me at all that the minister is giving practical recognition to the respect he feels for these men.
The minister mentions the ten per cent bonus. I said, when I spoke before, that I was perfectly prepared to take those things into account as deductions perhaps from the general principle. It may be that you could prove to me that the merchant seamen are not entitled to a reestablishment credit at all. I do not say you could, but you might be able to do so. But that does not help the minister in arguing that these men should not be treated as veterans.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, July 2, 1947