[Stage Direction]
Canada's support
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Special mention must also be made of the fine cooperation of the Canadian meat board, the Canadian wheat board, and the grain branch of the Canadian Department of Trade and Commerce, which together with the various other specialized procurement agencies of the Canadian government have participated in the accomplishment of the greatest peacetime enterprise of procurement and movement of goods in history.
An extraordinary contribution has also been made to our operations through the vigorous cooperation of the transport controller and the Canadian shipping board who have made possible the delivery of indispensable supplies to the needy countries of Europe in the face of shipping shortages and a variety of other difficulties, and achieved an unprecedented record of peacetime ocean shipping.
We are also deeply appreciative of the services of the Canadian army in the transfer of surplus vehicles to the shattered countries of Europe at the time of their most urgent need following the cessation of hostilities.
Without the full cooperation of these agencies and their affiliates, the work of this administration would have been impossible. It will, therefore, be appreciated if you will convey to all those agencies mentioned and, through them, to the entire catalogue of associated government agencies, the sincere gratitude of this administration and of the millions of persons who have benefited from their work.
I should also like to take this opportunity of thanking you personally for the exceptional contribution you made to the work of UNRRA. We have always regarded you as one of the foundation members, and your advice and assistance through the most critical days of UNRRA were of exceptional value to the organization. ,We shall remain always in your debt.
,	Sincerely yours.
*[DOT]*	Lowell W. Rooks,
Director General.
When I spoke of reading this letter to the house, Mr. Pearson, with his customary modesty, remarked that he thought I should omit the last paragraph. I should like to say that I think all hon. members appreciate the great service which the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs has rendered in carrying forward this all important work and will be glad to have of record Mr. Rooks' appreciation of Mr. Pearson's services.
In his expression of appreciation, General Rooks has given us the assurance that, in contributing to UNRRA, Canada 'has been able to meet a real and urgent need. I hope that we shall always have the means to respond with similar generosity in the presence of distress and want in other parts of the world.
I should like in this connection to remind hon. members of the statement I made in the house on Tuesday last, June 24, when I informed the house that the government has decided to recommend to parliament an appropriation of $20 million for post-UNRRA relief needs in 1947. This is continued evidence of our belief that the Canadian people,
iMr. Mackenzie King.]
conscious of the great devastation which the war has brought about, are -prepared to play their full part in the necessary work of rehabilitation.	^
I need not remind hon. members that when I made the announcement to which I have referred, it was received heartily by both sides of the house and by members of all parties.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table
order in council P.C. 2474, dated June 24, 1947, proclaiming section 14 of the National Housing Act. Witlh the permission of the house I should like to make a brief statement by way of explanation. Section 14 of the National Housing Act provides for loans to assist in the construction of houses on farms.
When speaking in the house on July 29 last on the amendments to the National Housing Act, the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply stated that the farm-lending section of the act would be brought into force by proclamation. He explained that much preparatory work had to be done in developing a suitable procedure for making farm loams. Negotiations had to be conducted with the lending institutions. Mortgage forms had to be prepared for each province. In their preparation it was intended -that new ground would be broken in respect of grain-growing farms in the prairie provinces. The old form of mortgage with the crop share lease did not meet the circumstances of farmers in the grain-growing areas. A new method of mortgage repayment was required which would provide an adequate escape clause for distress years and payments in good crop years which increase in direct proportion to the yield and value of the crop.
Before the new form of mortgage could be applied, certain adjustments in provincial legislation in each of the prairie provinces were considered necessary. Accordingly, discussions were held early in the year with the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, when the proposed mortgage form and repayment formula were reviewed. Subsequent to these meetings, written submissions were made to each province detailing what legislative changes were required.
The necessary amending legislation was not passed by any of the prairie legislatures at this year's sessions. There was, however, a good

Questions
deal of interest shown in the proposals, and negotiations are being continued with the governments concerned.
In the meantime, however, the facilities of section 14 will be available to farmers in six of the provinces. So far as the prairie provinces are concerned-, it is not intended that loans will be made on grain-growing farms until satisfactory arrangements have been completed for using a flexible payment mortgage. The ordinary payment mortgage on this type of farm does not meet the circumstances of farmers whose incomes fluctuate widely from year to year, owing to variations in grain yields and value. Applications, however, will be considered from farmers in Manitoba and Alberta who do not operate farms which are primarily grain growing in character, and where Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation considers the orthodox money payment mortgage to be satisfactory. The facilities of the act will not be extended to any kind of farm in Saskatchewan until more general farm debt legislation problems are clarified.
An explanatory booklet entitled "Farm Housing Loans" is being prepared by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This will be sent to farmers in reply to inquiries about the facilities of the National Housing Act. The booklet explains the provisions of section 14 and outlines the procedure by which farmers make application for loans. Farmers are asked to direct inquiries to the nearest regional or branch office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN LESAGE (Montmagny-L'Islet) moved the first reading of Bill No. 378 (from the senate) to incorporate the Limitholders' Mutual Insurance Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 379, for the relief of Evelyn Clara Woods Cross.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 380, for the relief of Minnie Brai-master Kazarensky.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 381, for the relief of Peter Moroz, otherwise known as Peter	Morris.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 382, for the relief of Lome Earl Barth.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 383, for the relief of Thomas Wynn Hayes, junior.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 384, for the relief of Clare Black Wolfe.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	385,	for	the relief	of	Anna
Lovannah Theoret Wilson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 386, for the relief of Norma Lorraine Desrosiers.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 387, for the relief of Rose Jacobson Greenberg.-M-r. Maybank.
Bill No. 388, for the relief of Guido Corbo. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 389. for the relief of Harold Ashton Hugh Roberts.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill	No.	390,	for	the relief	of	Mary
Kalichman Pulver.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 391, for the relief of Gaston Dorval Lachance.-'Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 392, for the relief of Donat St. Jean. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 393, for the relief of Sheila Sydney Donor Gordon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 394, for the relief of Thomas Walter John Moon.-Mr. Maybank.

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

Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	Are retired bankers, who paid income taxes to the government on their total salaries from 1924 to 1946 and possibly from 1918 to 1924, exempt from paying income taxes today on that portion contributed by them for superannuation during this period?
2.	If so, for what reason?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	Yes, but only on such portion of their pension as is attributable to contributions made by them during the years 1928 to 1945 inclusive.
2. Subsection 1 (h) of section 5 of the Income War Tax Act as enacted by 18-19 George V, chapter 12 (1928) provided that where the trustees or administrators of any employees' superannuation or pension fund elected thereunder to have the investment income of such fund exempt from taxation, the employees' contributions thereto would not be allowed as a deduction in determining their taxable income. Moreover, in such event, the pension ultimately payable to the employee was made exempt from tax only to such proportion of the total amount paid by him into the fund as was so paid after the effective date of the said election.
The trustees of all bank pension funds elected to have the investment income thereof exempt from tax and as a result all bank pensions now being paid are tax free to the extent provided by such formula.
Questions

This formula is, of course, also applicable to all other pensions paid from funds in respect of which the trustees similarly elected.
Subsection 1 (h) of section 5 as above referred to was repealed effective from January 1, 1946, but the proportional exemption in respect of employees' contributions from 1928 to 1945 inclusive was maintained under the subsection as reenacted by 10 George VI, chapter 55 (1946) and now in force.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. McCtlAIG:
1.	How many persons have immigrated into Canada in each of the years since 1930?
2.	How many persons have emigrated from Canada in each corresponding year since 1930?
Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Fiscal year ended-
March 31,	1931	
88,223March 31,	1932	
25,752March 31,	1933	
19,782March 31.	1934	
13,903March 31,	1935	
12,136March 31,	1936	
11,103March 31,	1937	
12,023March 31,	1938	
15.645March 31,	1939	
17,128March 31,	1940	
16,205March 31,	1941	
11,496March 31,	1942	
8,865March 31,	1943	
7,445March 31,	1944	
9,040March 31,	1945	
15.306March 31,	1946	
31,081March 31,	1947	
66,9902.	No record is kept of persons leaving Canada.


INDIANS AND ESKIMOS-HOSPITALIZATION
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What steps have been taken by the government to make grants, this year, to hospitals in the Hudson and James bay and Moosonee districts which care for Indians and Eskimos?
2.	What other institutions, if any, in these areas receive grants?
3.	How much was voted and spent in Canada for this purpose in the last fiscal year?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	None. The hospitalization of Indians and Eskimos in the districts mentioned is paid for on a per diem basis.
2.	None.
3.	Voted, 8204,320; spent, $3,304.40. $200,000 of the amount voted was to be a grant to the Fort William Sanatorium board toward the capital cost of building an extension which would provide additional beds for tuberculous Indians. As building conditions prevented this work being started the grant was not actually made during the fiscal year.


INDIANS AND ESKIMOS-CITIZENSHIP STATUS
Mr. CHURCH:: What action has been taken by the government to grant citizenship status to Canadian Indians and Eskimos?


George James McIlraith: A similar question was asked on April 18, 1947, and a reply was given on April 2A-see House of Commons Debates, page 2357.


VETERANS TAXI OWNERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 11. Did a Mr. Levesque, while employed as an official of D.V.A. accept a position as an official of the veterans taxi owners' association in Montreal ?
2.	If so, what position did he hold?
3.	At what date did he accept this position?
4.	Did members of the veterans taxi owners' association apply to the Department of Veterans Affairs for protection?
5.	What steps have been taken to protect the interests of veterans in Montreal who joined the veterans taxi owners' association?


Mr. TUCKER:: 1. 2 and 3. Mr. Levesque was employed in the Department of Veterans Affairs from June 28, 1945, until March 31, 1947. The department has no authentic record of his acceptance of any' position as an official of the veterans taxi owners' association in Montreal but it has been stated by' deputations who have interviewed officers of the department that Mr. Levesque has acted and still continues to act as chairman or president of the associafion.
4 and 5. The department has no legal right or authority to accede to the request of deputations claiming to represent a group of members of the association that the department intervene in the association's affairs and the department advised a deputation to consult one of the lawyers, members of the Montreal Bar Association, who had expressed their willingness to help veterans on legal matters. The department, feeling concern lest the dispute prejudice the chances of success of an enterprise which was affording a substantial number of veterans a means of reestablishing themselves in civil life, endeavoured unsuccessfully to bring about an understanding between the contending factions.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Did the government assist in the completion of the yards for United Shipyards?
2.	If so, what wras the extent of their assistance ?
3.	How many ten thousand-ton freighters were built in United Shipyards?

Treaties of Peace
4.	What was the total cost of each freighter?
5.	Was any other cost incurred in the construction of these freighters? If so, what costs were incurred, and to whom were the expenditures made?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	How many projectors are on loan from the National Film Board of Canada (a) in Ontario; Cb) in the city of Hamilton, and Wentworth county ?
2.	What regulations govern the loan of these projectors?
3.	How many regional projector operators are in the employ of the national film board?
4.	What salaries do they receive?



IMPORTS OF MOVING PICTURE PROJECTORS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia);
1.	How many 16 mm. projectors have been imported into Canada for each of the years 19*39 to 1946 inclusive?
2.	What is the import duty on component parts for 16 mm. projectors?
3.	What are the orders in council and/or tariff regulations covering importation and sale of mm. projectors in Canada?


Mr. FULTON:: For a copy of the agreement made between the federal district commission and the Ottawa Electric Railway Company in 1929, dealing with the exclusive right to operate motor buses and similar motor vehicles, including sightseeing buses for hire on the driveways of the commission;
Also for a copy of by-law No. 16 of the said commission passed in 1929 concerning the granting of exclusive rights for the operation of motor vehicles for hire;
Also for a copy of any or all orders in council validating or confirming the said agreement and by-law.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION-RED DEER DIVISION DIVERSION PROJECT

Mr. QUELCH:: For a copy of the P.F.R.A. report on the Red Deer diversion project with estimate of cost.


Mr. GARDINER:: The only' report which is available at the moment is one which is perhaps two or three years old. The report which has been recently prepared has been submitted to the consulting engineer at Washington and as far I know has not yet come back. It could not be made available at the present time.


Victor Quelch: That last report is the one to which I have reference. Can the minister not table a copy of it?


James Garfield Gardiner: When it is prepared; I presume it will be tabled in the house when it is ready.
Motion dropped.



TREATIES OF PEACE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the treaties of peace with Italy, 'Roumania, Hungary and Finland, signed at Paris on the 10th February, 4947, and that this house do approve the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that a conference for the conclusion of peace treaties with Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland was held in Paris from July 29 to October 15, 1946. The delegates from Canada were my hon. colleague, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and myself. As Prime Minister and, at the time, Secretary of State for External Affairs, I was chairman of the Canadian delegation. As I was not able to be in Paris throughout the entire meeting of the conference, my colleague later on became chairman of the Canadian delegation. The alternates were: N. A. Robertson, then Undersecretary of State for External Affairs; A. D. P. Heeney, Clerk of the Privy Council; Major General G. P. Vanier, DS.O., M.C., Canadian Ambassador to France; L. D. Wilgress, then Canadian Ambassador to the U.S.S.R.; Lieutenant General Maurice Pope, C.B., M.C., head of the Canadian military mission to the allied control commission, Germany.	The
advisers were C. S. A. Ritchie and J. A. Qhapdelaine, of the Department of External Affairs, and J. A. Gibson, of the Prime Minister's office. Mr. S. F. Rae acted as secretary of the delegation.
On February 10 last the Canadian Ambassador to France, Major General Vanier, on behalf of the Canadian government, signed, in Paris, peace treaties with Italy, Roumania, Hungary and Finland. On the same day the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a statement on the work of the Paris conference, and tabled the texts of the treaties in this house. The statement was supplemented by a report on the proceedings of the conference, prepared by the Minister of National Defence. The report was printed as an annex
Treaties oj Peace

to the Votes and Proceedings of that date. Copies of the peace treaties were subsequently distributed to all members of parliament.
The main purpose of these treaties is to bring to an end formally the state of war existing between Italy, Roumania, Hungary and Finland on the one hand, and the allied and associated powers on the other. The settlements will dispose of many important issues of a political, economic or military character outstanding between the governments of these enemy states and the allies as a result of the war. The formal termination of the state of war which exists between ourselves and the enemy countries is a necessary step in the reestablishment of a peaceful world.
Canada, one of the twenty-one nations invited to participate in .the Paris conference, was given an opportunity to examine and comment on the draft treaties as prepared in the council of foreign ministers. The Canadian delegation played a part in drawing up the conference recommendations which were used to a considerable extent by the council of foreign ministers in preparing the treaties in final form. While an earlier and more effective association of Canada and certain other allies might have resulted in an improvement of these settlements, it is probably fair to say that in the circumstances the treaties represent the best resolution possible of the conflicting interests amongst the major allies.
The entry into force of these treaties is a necessary first stage in the reconstruction of the economic life of Europe. In many cases the restrictions operative in the enemy states under the armistice terms make long-range planning by the governments of these countries difficult. Until the peace treaties are implemented the uncertainties inherent in the armistice regimes will continue.
One of the results of the entry into effect of the treaties will be the withdrawal of occupation forces from the ex-enemy satellite states, subject to the right of the Soviet union to keep sufficient forces in Roumania and Hungary to maintain lines of communication with its occupation zone in Austria.
It is provided in the preambles to these treaties that their conclusion will enable the allied and associated powers to support the application of each of the enemy states concerned for membership in the united nations. If these states eventually become members of the united nations they will be able to participate in common action on international problems through the united nations. Eventual applications for membership from these states
JMr. Mackenzie King.]
will, of course, be judged by the Canadian government on their merits and in the light of existing circumstances.
Because of the advantages which would derive from a termination of the state of war with these states, it appears desirable that parliamentary approval should be given to the treaties at this time.
The approval by the two houses of parliament of the treaties does not imply their immediate ratification by Canada. To this end, two steps must thereafter be taken. First, a submission must be made with the approval of the governor in council to the king, asking for the execution by his majesty of instruments of ratification. Second, the instruments of ratification signed by the king must be deposited as provided for in the treaties.
The final articles of each of the treaties provide that the entry into force of the treaties will depend in the first instance upon the deposit of instruments of ratification by certain of the great powers which are members of the council of foreign ministers. In the case of Italy, these are the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and France. In the case of Hungary and Roumania the deposit of instruments of ratification by the Soviet union, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America is required. The treaty of peace with Finland will come into force when the Soviet, union and United Kingdom have deposited their instruments of ratification. The treaties of peace will not, how'ever, enter into force as far as Canada and the other allied' or associated powers are concerned until their separate instruments of ratification have been deposited.
Although the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and France have now obtained approval, through their respective legislative processes, for the ratification of the various treaties, none of the great powers has as yet taken the final step of depositing its instruments of ratification.
Hon. members will have seen that on June 5 the United States senate approved the Italian treaty by a vote of 79 to 10, and the treaties with Roumania, Bulgaria and Hungary by an unrecorded voice vote.
The texts of the peace treaties make it clear that Canada could not terminate the state of war existing between this country and the respective enemy states by depositing the Canadian instruments of ratification prior to the treaties having been brought into force by the responsible great powers.

Treaties oj Peace
Accordingly, while the government is seeking parliamentary approval for the treaties at this time, it is not anticipated that Canada's instruments of ratification will be deposited' until the great powers, whose ratification is necessary before the treaties can come into effect, have deposited their instruments of ratification.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few observations with regard to the four treaties of peace now before us for approval, first I desire to say to you and to the house that these matters do throw into relief the whole question of our foreign relations as they may affect the continent of Europe and the peace of the world in general. Since the signing of these four treaties of peace on February 10, 1947-and perhaps this might be said with even greater force of the fact that the conference and the discussions generally commenced almost a year ago-much water has gone under the international bridge; and perhaps a brief review of the situation would not be out of place to indicate our present position in relation to the treaties themselves.
While the question of the making of treaties of peace is of great importance as between vanquished and victor, I think it can be said properly and with emphasis that the problem which faced the nations of the world at the Paris conference was not just that of finding some method of reaching agreement between victor and vanquished but rather one of reaching agreement between victor and victor. These considerations bring out more prominently the problem of the competing ideologies which are so prevalent today, and which have focused world attention upon Europe, and particularly upon central and southeastern Europe. Since the meeting of the council of foreign ministers which preceded the Paris conference, and since that conference itself, while the picture perhaps has not changed so much, the developments arising out of the situation there have moved into clearer perspective so far as we in Canada are concerned. I do not think there is much use trying to gloss over with fancy words the issues that lie at the root of the problem of making peace in Europe. I believe most of us realize that the world has moved forward from the idealism, shall I say, which seemed to grip the nations at the first great security conference at San Francisco to a more realistic appreciation of the situation, so that today the blunt phraseology and direct approach on the part of the big powers toward each other show very clearly the issues involved in Europe, upon which these treaties now direct 83166-308
the attention of this country. I believe it would be remiss on the part of Canadians generally, and particularly on the part of this parliament, if we did not take some notice of the situation which exists there.
In the case of the Italian treaty we have a situation which is of major concern to the people of Canada. Here we had a compromise settlement with respect to the great problem of Trieste, a settlement which the Secretary of State of the United States was pleased to report upon to his President and to the American people, in the early days of the conference, in this way:
The greatest struggle was over the Italian treaty, and the greatest issue involved in that treaty was the fate of Trieste and adjacent territory along the western shore of the Istrian peninsula. The American delegation, supported by the French and British, urged that Trieste and adjacent territory which are predominantly Italian, should remain with Italy, and the predominantly Slavic hinterland should go to Yugoslavia.
The position in which every nation now finds itself, so far as approval of the treaty of peace with Italy is concerned, is one attended by a feeling of danger. There is some question whether the present set-up for Italy, as outlined at the Paris conference and for which approval is asked of parliament today, does not leave the Italian people in a defenceless position in the face of what might be known as rigorous ideological aggression in that part of Europe.
We in Canada believe that the democratic way of life is the way which, with due regard to freedom and liberty, we should encourage other nations of the world to follow. Certainly it is the desire of this country and of the Canadian people that the people of Italy should be encouraged in every possible way to see that democracy as we understand it shall have a chance to take root in that country, to grow and to develop, so that under a democratic system of government Italy, as was envisaged this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), may once more take its place as a peace-loving nation within the framework of the united nations organization.
The difficulty in the compromise treaty with Italy-and it is a difficulty of which I believe the people of Canada ought to be made aware -is that while to a great extent, and quite properly, Italy has been stripped of her warmaking potentials, nevertheless by virtue of this treaty of peace we have left her almost unarmed and unprotected. We have taken away from her the port of Trieste-and I am not specifically objecting to that at this moment, having in mind the necessity for

Treaties oj Peace

compromise. Alongside her we have left what statistics would seem to indicate as a standing Yugoslavian army numbering somewhere around 500,000 men. The danger is further aggravated by the fact that some $360 million is to come from the people of Italy in the payment of reparations. A large part of that money will go to Yugoslavia, to Soviet Russia and to the satellite states which seem to have such a close alignment with marxian policies.
Those of us in the House of Commons who are interested in external affairs would be remiss in our duty were we not to point out to the house and to the people generally the dangers inherent in the settlement of the Italian peace. I take personal encouragement from the Prime Minister's remarks of a few moments ago, which I believe were to some extent a repetition of what was said a few days ago in the house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). Both right hon. gentlemen have stated that these treaties will not necessarily mean that Canada will rush in with great haste in an attempt to put its imprimatur upon what may readily be regarded as a matter of grave consequence to the peace of Europe and the welfare of our own people in general.
I am not taking that position of opposing the approval of these treaties. I do not see how we can very well avoid giving approval, because Canada's word has already been given. Having in mind, however the fact that so many changes have taken place in the meantime, there seems to be some additional argument as to why we should not have moved more quickly than we did. Certainly we should not have moved more quickly than we have moved in trying to put any part of Europe in either a political, economic or financial straitjacket. Those of us who have had the opportunity, even in a minor capacity, of seeing the economic disaster and the financial and physical destruction in certain countries of Europe must realize that many years will have passed before those people will have the opportunity, from the standpoint of their economy, actually to get back on their feet. Anyone who remembers the great piles of rubble, the vast devastation, almost unbelievable, unless one sees it, will realize the truth of what I am saying. One must contrast the physical and other conditions of Europe with our own difficulties. We realize that, great as are our own problems in connection with reconstruction and building, in Europe today they have not even begun in many places to clear up the rubble, let alone to lay foundations, let alone to finish building, let alone to begin again to do business. That, in simple language, is
[Mx. Graydon.]
just about the position in which Europe is placed today. As to a peace settlement in Europe I have always felt that we must be most careful not too soon to put any part of Europe into either an economic or a political straitjacket. Europe is in a much different position from any other part of the world. We have seen the changes which have taken place since the Paris peace conference, and we can visualize changes which may develop to affect the views of many people who were at that conference. Having these points in mind I say we ought to go slowly and carefully in giving approval to matters of this kind.
While I am not sure that I subscribe to it, there is a school of thought which holds that the four peace treaties-actually there were five, but we consider only the four, owing to the fact that from the technical point of view Bulgaria was not at war with us-and the whole quesiton of Europe's rehabilitation and reconstruction, economically and politically, ought to have been dealt with as one major problem. It is felt by some that we should have said to Russia: You have certain problems and certain designs; you have certain policies you think should be applied in Europe; let us see what you want in Europe, and we will place beside it what we think is necessary there. It is considered that those major issues should have been the subject of one decision; that we ought not to have grappled only with the comparatively easy tasks related to the smaller nations such as Hungary and Finland, but that we should have dealt with the whole broad picture, including Germany, Austria and the other nations. In other words it is considered that an attempt should have been made to deal with the whole problem of Europe as on one political, economic and financial basis.
As I have said, that is the view put forward by some practical men who have studied the position in Europe. I am not sure that I subscribe to it. It is possible that after careful consideration the big five powers decided it was best to deal first *with these minor matters, in the hope that by dealing with matters which would cause the least friction and division they might reach a formula with the aid of which they could deal with the larger problems ahead.
While this whole question has arisen with respect to the problem in Europe, we are now asked in parliament to deal with Hungary. Those of us who have watched the developments in Hungary in recent times will realize the changed situation or at least the major developments which have occurred in that

Treaties oj Peace
strife-torn country of eastern Europe. There is a changed government there which has led to suspicion on the part of the western powers, particularly one of the great western democracies which has protested vehemently and violently as to the motives and sources underlying the powers which seem to have called for that change of government. The Hungary of February 10, 1947, is in many respects a different Hungary from the Hungary of the present day in connection with which we are asked to approve this treaty. This only bears out some of the arguments which have been brought forward by people in other parts of the world and which I think are at least worthy of consideration by this house.
I am not going to deal at length with these matters because after all they should have been dealt with at an earlier stage when we could have discussed the whole question of our foreign relations in Europe. When Canada went to the peace conference a good many people thought that we were going on an equal footing with the other nations attending that conference. As I understand it, Canada actually was never asked to make a decision with respect to these peace treaties at the Paris conference. Under the procedure which was set up and which was subsequently followed, she was permitted to make recommendations along with a great number of other countries. But those recommendations were limited as to extent and as to the grounds upon which they were made. They were further limited, may I say, by there being no guarantee whatsoever that the council of foreign ministers would do more than consider the recommendations which had been made by Canada or which had been agreed to by the powers in general. In a sense we were acting only as a sort of general adviser with respect to the thing without being even in the position of real advisers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Commentator would be a good word.


Gordon Graydon: I do not always find the Prime Minister's language and my own coinciding, but I think I can take that word from the Prime Minister because that is about what we were finally reduced to. It was just a question of being a commentator upon the proceedings of the conference. Many bitter things were said at that time with respect to the conference, and perhaps not without special grounds. In another debate earlier this session I had occasion to make mention of this one particular point, and since it is germane to the subject which is now before us, perhaps I could repeat a 83166-3081
sentence or so. Having in mind the fact that the press from all over the world was represented generously at the conference, journalists of twenty-seven countries took an official poll of the Paris peace conference when it had come to an end. Three questions were asked in the poll: First, did the press men regard the conference as a success; second, did they regard it as a failure, or, third, did they regard it as a farce. Of those journalists, thirty-one replied that they considered it had been a success; 56 stated that it had been a failure, and 33 said that they believed it had been a farce. The proportion of criticism as against approval was therefore more than two to one. The great Winston Churchill, commenting upon the conference, said that he regarded it as bad diplomacy but perhaps it could be considered as valuable education for the future.
Apparently Canada has found that there was some good education in it as well as a number of good lessons to be gained. After we had gone through the experience of the Paris conference, where our voice was just about an international whisper, as far as I can gather-there was not much more allowed to us than that-we took a stand in connection with the Moscow conference which dealt with the German and Austrian treaties. I was one, and I think the house was almost a unit in taking this view, who supported Canada's position with respect to greater and fuller participation in that great conference at Moscow. We did not get very far with our proposals and suggestions, but on the other hand those who were at Moscow did not seem to get very far either in the development, of the business which lay "at their door at that time- As I said in a previous debate- I want to repeat it now because of its relevancy to the subject-it seems to me that Canada ought to have raised a greater and more powerful voice at Paris instead of waiting until afterward to raise the voice that was finally raised in January of this year. Having had the embarrassing experience, along with some other nations, of not being granted an equal voice in connection with the treaty making in Paris, I think we ought to have taken a stand which would have been more effective and would have carried more weight than anything done at a later time.
So fas as Canada's part in the peace conference at Paris was concerned, our policy, as was stated by the Prime Minister in one of his addresses, was to assist in the revival of European political democracy. With that statement I think Canadians generally will
Treaties of Peace

be in agreement. I am not so sure that we followed the line that this country ought to have followed in connection with the Paris conference. I say that with some diffidence, because it seems to me that we departed and retreated so far as the Paris conference was concerned from our multiple party system of delegations in external affairs matters. It might be that that case was not on all fours with some of the meetings to which this country has been invited from time to time, but it did have the effect of the government being the only ones in full possession of the facts relating to the whole problem of the peace treaties and to what went on over there. Everything is not always on record in connection with international conferences. There are questions of background, there are the other vital problems which face the delegates from time to time. These are important factors in any international conclave. As the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence were the only members of the house who were there, I think the government might well have seen to it that these treaties were referred to the standing committee on external affairs so that detailed consideration might have been given to their provisions. I do not believe we are taking the proper stand in connection with these matters (by simply having a resolution brought before the house concerning treaties as to the background of which the government itself is the only one who has any inside knowledge. As I understand it, a resolution such as this goes through only one stage. It does not provide opportunity for examination of the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence, who were there. It leaves this and other parties on this side of the house in the position of having to take it or leave it.
I suggest to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in view of the problems which this matter raises in connection with our foreign relations, if there ever was a time when the standing committee on external affairs ought to be given an opportunity of doing a first class and comprehensive job it is on peace treaties. It is not only a matter of the technical approval of these treaties. This house has never had enough debating opportunities on the whole problem of Canada's policy on foreign relations. In this parliament we cannot hope to keep abreast of the obligations we are assuming in the international field.
As the Prime Minister indicated in one of his earlier addresses this session, we were at seventeen world conferences in 1939, and
[Mr. Graydou.l
Canada was officially represented at ninety-eight last year. If one looks over the whole field of our development of external affairs he will see that it is hopelessly out of joint, shall I say, when compared with the length of time that is provided and the opportunities given parliament for a full and comprehensive discussion of our foreign policy. It is not enough, as I say, in this particular case, simply to refer to this as a technical matter of the approval of treaties. This brings into the spotlight the whole problem of our foreign relations in Europe. If there is anything more important to parliament and to the Canadian people than our foreign relations in Europe, I should like to know what it is; because the whole question of peace or war, and the security of our homes and of our people, are hound up in seeing to it that the peace of Europe is firmly and properly established. When these peace treaties come back from the external affairs committee, where I hope the government will send them, this house should have an opportunity, on a motion for concurrence in the report, to have a full, detailed and lengthy debate, even at this stage of the session, because after all, time can be taken off some other less important things. The house is entitled to know the government's policy and to, have it fully discussed and laid bare to the people of Canada. I do not think this house should prorogue until such time as the foreign relations of Canada are fully and properly debated on the floor of the house.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydom) in the suggestion that these treaties should have been referred to the committee on external affairs. Not that the committee could change them, any more than this house can; but we could get some information in regard to them and understand their implications better and the conditions with which we are confronted in Europe, so that we could decide whaJt we should do. The ratification of these treaties by parliament will, I understand, bring to an end hostilities between ourselves and the European countries concerned, and we must all welcome that. For some time I have been firmly of the opinion that the war will not be ended for us, nor will the danger of another war be over, until we have rehabilitated the countries that were devastated economically by war, so that they can again take their normal place in word affairs. Hon. members who have been privileged to visit Europe in the last few years knows of the devastation that has taken place in these countries. It was not only destruction of material things. It was more than that; it was an upheaval

Treaties oj Peace
that destroyed their normal way of life, and that is perhaps more difficult to restore than their economic stability. Therefore I hope that this government and this parliament will do everything possible in an economic way to assist the countries of Europe to regain their feet. Any expense we may incur in doing that should be considered as a war expense, because until these countries are economically reestablished, peace is never safe.
I suppose the treaties represent the best that could be done under the circumstances in which the peace conference was held, with all the differences, ideological and others, between parties who were at one time allies and had taken part in framing these treaties.
In conclusion may I say that I am sorry the government did not refer the treaties to the committee on external affairs, where we could have at least examined the Minister of National Defence, and some of the officials who took part in the peace conference. I doubt whether it is not too late in this session for that to be done this year, but I hope the government will take note of it and that they will not let an opportunity of this kind pass another time.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Westaskiwin):: I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon). member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). I think there is a great deal in what he says, but in the meantime I should like to ask the minister a question, if he will answer it. The treaty with Hungary was signed on February 10, 1947. I should like to know what difference, if any, has been brought about in that treaty by the recent coup d'etat of the communists in Hungary. Does the treaty still hold, or does that abrogate it?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Perhaps I might
have the consent of the house to venture an answer to the hon. member's question, though it would not be according to the ordinary standing orders. In my view the fact that someone else may now be in control of the executive branch of government in Hungary would not affect the validity of the treaty, any more than if my hon. friend one day became Secretary of State for External Affairs would it affect the validity of treaties entered into by Canada.


Gordon Graydon: That is entirely different.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	As to depositing
immediately letters of ratification signed by His Majesty, that is a matter that, will still have to be considered, and Canada would presumably not take an isolaied stand in that
respect. Canada presumably would be acting after consultation with other nations parties to the treaty.


Norman Jaques: I understood that President Truman was to take steps, or it was reported ir. the press that he would take steps, to deal with the new government of Hungary.
I wondered whether that would extend to the treaty that was signed last February, and if not, why not. What I would like to see in the committee on external affairs is this, and I have advocated it from the formation of the committee. I would like the committee to have the privilege of calling witnesses so that we can hear the evidence on both sides of this question. Then we should be in a position to make up our own mind and act accordingly. As it is, the treaties are signed and agreements are made and then we are asked to confirm, to sign on the dotted line, when the deal is closed. That, does not seem to me to be very useful for us, and it is almost a waste of time. At any rate it is no more than a matter of form. There are many international questions that are bound to come up in the future, and I suggest that the committee have the advantage of hearing witnesses so that we can get the evidence on both sides of these questions. Then, as I say, we should as responsible members of parliament take the responsibility of forming our own opinion and acting accordingly.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: I am always anxious to see a subject well examined. Here the great powers have met over a period of time and have drafted these peace treaties. There is no question about, it that they had to compromise and draft, peace treaties which could be agreed upon by all the great powers. I do not think anything is gained by reexamination or quibbling or questioning. We Should play our part and support their efforts to bring about world order and peace as soon as possible,, and when we have that we shall have the foundation laid for trade and all the things on which permanent peace is built.


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: As the member of the delegation who following the departure of the Prime Minister on August 25, 1946, until October 15, 1946, had the honour of leading the Canadian delegation in Paris, it would perhaps be proper if I said a few words before the motion is put. It is thoroughly understood that the purpose of the conference was not to draft treaties of peace.
Canada declared war on Italy on June 10, 1940, and on Roumania, Hungary and Finland
Treaties of Peace

on December 7, 1941, in consequence of states of war having been brought about by those countries. The purpose of this resolution is to authorize approval of the treaties of peace which have been prepared to end the state of war which existed between the twenty-one allied governments and four of the satellites of Germany. The treaties represent the work of the council of foreign ministers at the Paris conference over a period of some eighteen months. These treaties, as finally drafted by the council of foreign ministers, were put before the house on February 10, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a brief statement. At that time the report by myself on the work of the Canadian delegation at the Paris conference was tabled and printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings. The treaties of peace have therefore been before this house and the Canadian people for some four months, and that has given an ample opportunity to hon. members and others to examine the treaties and see what they contain.
The Paris conference itself stemmed from the Potsdam conference which was held in July 1944. At that conference the heads of the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States and the U.S.S.R. issued a protocol on August 2, 1945 providing for the establishment of a council of foreign ministers composed of representatives of their three governments, as well as of France and China. The council was charged with the task of drawing up treaties of peace with five of the .satellites of Germany in order that these draft treaties might be submitted to the members of the united nations who had taken a substantial part in the war against these five countries. This work of preparation was to be done by the representatives of those powers which had accepted the surrender of the respective enemy countries. For the purpose of participating in the drafting, France was considered as a signatory to the terms of surrender for Italy.
In all international agreements, as in all agreements, someone, at some stage, has to .set in motion the process of putting words on paper to represent the agreement; the work of drafting has to be begun somewhere. In this case it was begun by the council of [DOT]foreign ministers of the powers I have mentioned. They met at London for the first time on September 11, 1945 and a series of meetings were held which terminated on "October 2. The first draft of the Italian treaty was prepared by the representative of the United Kingdom, and it was tabled at this meeting; but little progress was made at the meeting because of failure to reach agreement on the procedure to be followed. This diffi-
(Mr. Claxton.l
culty was overcome when the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet union met at Moscow between the 10th and the 24th December, 1945. At thht conference it was agreed that the terms of the peace treaty with Italy should be drafted by the foreign ministers of the powers I have mentioned, and that the deputies of the ministers should immediately set about the work of drafting. It was agreed that they would resume their work in London. It was also decided that when the drafts had been completed the council of foreign ministers would convene a conference of specified members of the united nations which had actively waged war with substantial military forces against European enemy states, for the purpose of considering the draft treaties. Following this, those of the great powers signatory to the respective armistice terms would draw up the final -text of the treaties which would come into force immediately after ratification by the big four.
From January to April, 1946, the deputies of the foreign ministers worked in London on the preparation of t)he five draft treaties. A special commission was sent out to study the problem of the frontier between Italy and Yugoslavia. On April 25, the council of foreign ministers met in Paris to resume negotiations on the five peace treaties. At the first meeting it was agreed that France should participate in the discussions of all the treaties and not merely of that with Italy. From May 16 to June 15 the council of ministers met. They agreed on settlement of the Soviet claim to Italian reparations, the amount being fixed at $100,000,000, and on the principle of creating the free territory of Trieste. The French proposal, known as the French line, was accepted in regard to the Italian-Yugoslav frontier. On July 5, the council of foreign ministers issued an invitation to the other sixteen nations to attend the conference at Paris. The conference began on July 29 and met continuously until October 15.
In convening the conference, the council of foreign ministers had agreed between themselves to support the clauses in the draft treaties on which they had already reached agreement. The rules of procedure drawn up by the council and put before the conference for its consideration provided for recommendations for changes in the draft treaties being made by the conference by a two-thirds majority. At the very outset, this proposal with regard to the necessity for a two-thirds majority to make a recommendation resulted in a debate which at times became heated and undoubtedly adversely

Treaties oj Peace
affected the atmosphere of the conference. The view taken by the Canadian delegation as put forward by the Prime Minister was that we would not take an active part in the discussion of these rules of procedure. It seemed to us that we should get on with the work of the conference. The point was put time and again that in order to arrive at a treaty of peace it was necessary to have agreement. Peace could not be made by either votes or vetoes.
On a number of points of major importance the big four had not been able to reach agreement prior to the conference. Consequently on these points there was very active debate at all stages of the conference between representatives of the big four as well as all the other members of the conference. Some three hundred recommendations for changes in the peace treaties were put forward by representatives of the twenty-one nations. Those were considered in various commissions, and then the reports of the commissions were considered in the conference as a whole. In the final plenary sessions there were no less than 243 votes on these recommendations, which resulted in sixty recommendations for changes in the drafts being carried/ by a two-thirds majority and fifty-two by a simple majority.
Following the adjournment of the conference on October 15, the council of foreign ministers met at New York to draft the final texts. In their discussions they gave weight to the recommendations carried by a two-thirde majority, and the substance of a good number of these recommendations was incorporated into the final treaties. The treaties themselves have been signed by all twenty-one nations and by the five enemy states. So far as is known, none of the allied states or the ex-enemy states concerned have to date deposited ratifications, although in the United Kingdom a bill has been adopted to provide for approval of the treaties. It is believed that a number of the countries are ready with the constitutional steps necessary to effect ratification. The Paris conference was useful in that it gave all representatives of the twenty-one nations an opportunity to make themselves heard, to have the points debated, to secure information, and then to state where they stood in respect of all the points in issue. I believe this was an innovation in the methods of making peace; and in so far as it gave all the participating nations a voice, it was an improvement on previous peace-making procedure. Further, when the discussion had ended and the votes had been taken, the council of foreign ministers meeting at New York was able to reach agreement on every point that was in issue. Compromises were
worked out and for the most part the recommendations made at Paris were given effect to by the council of foreign ministers. %hereas before the Paris conference there were a great number of important points in respect of which the council of foreign ministers had been unable to secure agreement, following the discussions and expressions of opinion at the conference they were able within the next two months to arrive at agreement and to complete drafts of the treaties which are now before the house. So that it is quite impossible to say that the Paris conference did not accomplish anything. In the first place it was an improvement on treaty-making procedure, in this very important respect, that it gave the nations taking part in the war a chance to make their voices heard. In the second place it gave them a chance to indicate where they stood. In the third place it gave all five exenemy countries an opportunity to make their representations before the conference and before all its commissions. Similarly, opportunities were given to other interested nations. In that sense the conference was a democratic organ, proceeding, as far as the recommendations were concerned, on the basis of debate, discussion and vote following the debate.
The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) referred to a straw vote taken by some journalists. I think the number of journalist votes he gave would total some 120. Nobody knows how many journalists were at the conference, but the best estimate I heard was two thousand. So that 120 represent a fairly small proportion of the two thousand journalists who were attending the conference.


Gordon Graydon: The others may have abstained from voting.


Brooke Claxton: They may have. They may not have had the opportunity. There may have been some principle of selection. We do not know. But one journalist, who had great experience in these matters, when he asked if he regarded the conference as a success, stated that it was a success but it was a bad success- a succes triste. That represented a wide measure of opinion. The reason for that qualification was that at the conference there was brought out more sharply than ever before existence of a conflict of view between on the one hand the Soviet union and the five states which usually voted with it in such matters, and on the other practically every other nation represented there. The cleavages between these two were brought forcibly into the open, to indicate not only to the conference but to the people of the world the difficulties and the awful dangers implicit in this kind of cleavage
Treaties of Peace

through the whole machinery of international cooperation.
Hon. members may appreciate something of the size of the task of a conference of this kind when I mention it was estimated that in attendance at the conference there were some six thousand people, of whom about two thousand were delegates and their advisers, secretaries, messengers and so on; about two thousand were journalists, radio reporters, cameramen and the like, and about two thousand were members of the secretariat, almost entirely supplied by the government of France. The conference met at the Luxemburg palace, in the senate chamber, and proceeded speedily to hear speeches of a general character from the representatives of all the nations present, and then to deal with questions of procedure in a committee on procedure. When that committee reported back to the plenary conference its report was adopted after a number of votes and considerable debate. Ten commissions were created. One of them was the general commission which was to have been the steering commission, but it never met. The nine active commissions were the five territorial commissions dealing with the treaties with each country; the economic commission on the treaty with Italy; the economic commission on the treaty with the other Balkan countries; the military commission, and the legal and drafting commission, of which I had the honour of being president. The commissions met over a long period. Generally speaking they met every day from ten in the morning until one-thirty, from three-thirty until seven or eight in the evening, and frequently again from nine o'clock on. One commission met continuously from nine o'clock one evening until six-thirty the following morning, but that record was speedily beaten by the economic commission on the treaty of peace with Italy which met continuously, without interruption or adjournment, for a period of twenty-eight and a half hours.
The business of peace making, as I think hon. members will recognize from reading the records of the previous Paris conference, in 1919, or any other peace conference, is exceedingly arduous, requiring long hours and the hard work of large numbers of people. The Canadian delegation was not one of the largest by any manner of means. Where I think the Yugoslav delegation had a membership totalling something like three hundred, the Canadian delegation never totalled more than approximately thirty. Of all those present I believe the Canadian delegation was the most bilingual of all the delegations present at the conference. When the active work of
IMr. Claxton.3
the conference was well under wav, and for a very considerable period of the conference, every member of the Canadian delegation could understand and make himself understood in both French and English. The delegation also was fortunate in having as one, of its leading members our ambassador to Moscow, who speaks and understands Russian. As leader of the delegation at the end I should like to say how great a privilege it was to serve with such a devoted group of people, and I want to express thanks here, as I have done privately to them, for their very loyal work for Canada throughout the whole period. I do not believe any national delegation was better served by its advisers and members than was the Canadian delegation; nor do I think any of them worked harder or did more to try and ensure that the treaties of peace when finally drafted would be as good as they could be.
The conference had one unusual feature, in that instead of the steering being done by the general committee or a steering committee consisting of representatives of the conference, it was done by what was called the secretariat, which consisted of eight members meeting under the chairmanship of the secretary general. This was a new device at international conferences, and in the view of most delegations I believe it was one which should not be followed at future conferences if it can be avoided, because it departs from the principle of democratic control of the conference being effected by members of the conference as a whole. While this secretariat, as it was called, dealt largely with matters of procedure, sometimes those matters did affect the work of the conference in major particulars.
The hon. member for Peel said he did not think we followed the line we should have followed and I believe that remark was tied in with his following sentence, relating to the composition of the Canadian delegation not being represented by members of the various groups in parliament. That was a matter to be decided by the government, and in view of the fact that under our system it had to take responsibility before this house and before the country for what was done the government felt that course should be followed in connection with the execution of a treaty of this kind. The hon. member also suggested that the Canadian delegation should have raised a greater and more powerful voice at Paris. I suppose there is always room for remarks of that kind, but it would be interesting to know in what particulars the Canadian delegation erred. I would be very glad to go over with my hon. friend the 253 votes at the final session of the conference and the

Treaties oj Peace
thousands of votes of which we have record in the commissions, to see in what respect the Canadian delegation should have voted differently or spoken differently. I believe the line laid down by our Prime Minister for the conduct of the Canadian delegation, in his opening speech at the conference and in his oral instructions to the delegation, was one which met with the widespread approval of the Canadian people. At Paris it proved to be a sensible, reasonable and constructive line, and I think most of the delegations there recognized that the part played by our delegation had been helpful throughout and was designed, as the Prime Minister intended it to be and as Canadians would like it to be, to do everything possible to bring about the greatest possible measure of agreement on the best possible peace terms at the earliest possible date.
Our experience at Paris leads me to make some further remarks of a more general character. In the first place the Paris conference threw emphasis on the fact that we now have diplomacy by conference as a major agency of international cooperation. The vital importance of the matters discussed has increasingly resulted in negotiations being handled and decisions made by top-level spokesmen of each country meeting face to face at conferences, rather than to follow the older method of using- our diplomatic representatives in foreign countries. This has been brought about partly because of the greatly increased complexity, importance and interdependence of the questions which have to be discussed; and it results in part from more rapid means of communication and transportation.
The development however has placed a heavy burden on countries like Canada which have not had a large Department of External Affairs. The fact that, as the Prime Minister said, we had to attend some ninety-eight conferences in 1946 indicates the heavy load which must be carried by members of the government, and by the officials, advisers and staffs of the Department of External Affairs, and other departments concerned. Certainly my experience, having attended three major conferences in 1946, as well as attending to the other business with which I was entrusted, led me to believe that these conferences and this method of doing business expose people in public life to a continuous burden of overwork and overstrain which I do not think has been known before. But we cannot escape from this burden. The suggestion sometimes made in the house and elsewhere that we could stop going to conferences cannot be seriously regarded. Canada has worldwide interests. That has been shown
by her participation in two wars, and the fact that we suffered from the worldwide depression. We cannot escape from our responsibilities, and should also be ready to take advantage of our opportunities to make any contribution we can to international cooperation.
Having attended a great number of these conferences, and having seen the work that is done, my belief is that hon. members would be astonished if they knew the actual amount of drafting of international instruments done by our representatives, an amount out of all proportion either to the size of the country or the size of our delegations.
Another point which the Paris conference threw into greater prominence was the emergence of two or three super-great powers as a dominant fact of international cooperation affecting peace and security to a greater degree than any similar development has ever before affected peace, security and the opportunities for a good life.
In the third place the Paris conference likewise threw into sharper contrast than ever before the consistently opposing views of the east and west, of the Slav countries and the rest of the world. I have already referred to that, and it is evident to hon. members.
Further anyone who has been exposed to the necessity of conducting international affairs in the kind of atmosphere developed by these conferences must be conscious of the need for new techniques of international cooperation. It becomes increasingly important when there are differences of opinion, and when there are wide differences of ideologies and language, that nations taking part at international conferences, as well as the conferences themselves, should be particularly correct in -all their procedure, and that the rules of procedure should be worked out with much greater care than seems to have been done in respect of international conferences in the past.
Our experience at Paris was that the rules under which we worked could have been improved greatly. I ventured to bring this point out in my final speech at the closing plenary session. It was the only suggestion of its kind that was made; but I am glad to say that speaking privately many of the representatives at Paris agreed with this suggestion and felt that procedure had become of the utmost importance in arriving at workable machinery on which to find agreement
Our experience at the Paris conference was that its success and work was affected to a considerable extent by the discussions at the
Treaties oj Peace

start with respect to procedure, which might have been obviated haxi draft rules of procedure been circulated in advance to the nations coming to the conference, so that they could exchange their views, and then in camera before the conference began, arrive at common agreement with respect to the rules of procedure.
There was another feature at Paris which led to a good deal of discussion among the delegates, and that was as to how far peace negotiations could go when everything was done in public. The Paris conference, I believe, was the first major international conference that which not only plenary sessions but also the meetings of all the commissions were held in public. As hon. members will appreciate, this resulted in a number of speeches being made, not for the purpose of reaching agreement but for home consumption, for the purpose of dealing with one section or another of public opinion throughout the world. The view generally held by most delegations at the conference was that plenary sessions should be held in public, meetings of commissions, and certainly of subcommissions, should be held in private so as to facilitate the close discussion on points of drafting and the like.
These suggestions were discussed with the representatives of numerous delegations at Paris. I believe they met with a wide measure of support, and our hope is that if and when there are future conferences of this kind, they will be considered.
As I said, the peace conferences now before the house have resulted from some eighteen months of work. I am sure every nation worked for months before that on the preparation of their documents, maps and books of instruction, and our belief is that they represent the highest possible measure of agreement.
The hon. member for Peel has spoken about a desire that Italy should not be put into an economic straitjacket; our view was that everything possible should be done to enable Italy to take her place among the nations of the world so that she could become a contributor to the world's prosperity, and not a consumer of assistance from other nations. That was the view taken by the Canadian delegation throughout the conference. I might establish that by reading to the house a passage from a s/hort speech delivered by Mr. L. D. Wilgress, our representative on the economic commission for Italy, which he delivered before that commission on September 2, 1946:
The Soviet delegate made the point earlier in our discussions that the reparations provisions of the peace treaty will provide for Italian factories and Italian workmen. With this object 
we are in full agreement. But it is precisely to help Italy to provide work for Italian factories and Italian workmen that we wish to see Italy recover as rapidly as possible her export trade with as many foreign markets as possible. This will provide the means whereby the raw materials essential to the Italian economy can be obtained. The need for raw materials has not been overlooked and is covered by the provisions set forth in paragraph 4 of article 64. But, it is desirable that the economy of Italy should not be made too much dependent upon her commercial relations with any one country. This would run counter to the fourth principle of the Atlantic charter to which I have already referred and to which most of the countries represented here subscribed in the united nations declaration of January .1, 1942. By this fourth principle, the united nations committed themselves "to further the enjoyment by all states, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity."
That was the view taken by the Canadian delegation, and that was the view put forward by other like-minded nations.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: It would be enlightening to me to have the minister's idea of what was meant by permitting access, on equal terms to all nations, to trade and raw materials. Did that mean the application internationally of the most favoured nation clause?


Brooke Claxton: My hon. friend is as familiar with the terms of the Atlantic charter as I am. It has been the subject of a great deal of comment and exposition, and is now no doubt being actively discussed by the international trade organization meeting at Geneva. I do not believe I would help the house in any way by giving my view on that point at this time.


John Horne Blackmore: I was seeking the
general view of the people at the conference.


Brooke Claxton: My hon. friend will find that Mr. Wilgress, our representative, was referring in his speech to this article of the charter of the ten united nations as declaring the principle on which he thought the conference should deal in a general way in arriving at the economic terms of the treaty with Italy. There was nothing in that particular part of the debate which had to do with the most favoured nation clause; that came up in connection with another article. The draft treaty of peace with Italy provides that Italy and the allied countries will give each other most favoured nation treatment for a period of eighteen months after the coming into force of the treaty. We made an effort to have that extended to three years, but in the final result that was not agreed to.

Treaties of Peace
While these treaties do not represent everything that the Italian people and other nations would like to see, they are generally fair, just, reasonable and workable if there is a spirit to make them work. When one considers the amount of damage caused to the lives and fortunes of many people by the five countries concerned, the terms have been regarded as being even generous. In any event they are the best that could be obtained, and it is hoped that this house will see fit to authorize the government to approve them.


Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) said that the treaties had been before the house for some four months, so that hon. members could Study them. But we have had only one side of the case. The treaties contain only the different articles; they do not explain why those articles were put in. I believe that is why the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) suggested that the treaties should have gone before the standing committee on external affairs. I agree with the hon. member, because I am also a member of that committee.
The first few lines on page 4 of the treaty with Italy seem to indicate that the united nations wish to treat Italy very fairly, but I feel that the terms of this treaty with Italy are unjust in some particulars. That is only my personal opinion, but on reading the terms of the treaty I feel that if we had had a chance to study this in committee, if the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) had been a witness there, he might have been able to change my views.
The way I figure it out is that the conditions of this treaty are such that Italy will not be able to expand her own resources and carry out in a business way as which perhaps she would like to do. This treaty cuts into the frontiers of Italy; it deals with customs, railways, the control of water power and many other things. In trying to carry out the terms of this treaty I feel that the united nations should, and I am quite sure they will, treat Italy with all fairness.
While Italy was our enemy during the first years of the war, later she saw the light and to some, extent helped to turn the tide in the favour of the allies. We have thousands of people in Canada of Italian parentage. Those whom I know are good citizens. They own thousands and thousands of dollars' worth of property, and without doubt are helping to make Canada a better nation. Steps should be taken to see to it that these terms are carried out as fairly as possible.
In. future hon. members should have a chance to discuss treaties in the committee on
external affairs before they are brought to the house, or even after they are presented in the form of a resolution. I feel that Italy should be given every possible encouragement by Canada to rebuild what she lost during the last few years of the war, and I hope the united nations will see that she has that opportunity.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River):	Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a word, more particularly with reference to the treaty with Hungary. I do not wish to repeat tihe things that have been said already by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and others, with much of which I agree. It is somewhat regrettable to me that in the efforts to build peace treaties with these countries it was found necessary to agree to the transfer of territory, for no other reason perhaps than to give to the receiving country what is known as a strategic frontier. I am afraid that the Paris conference must have agreed to some of these transfers, more as a means of appeasement of Russia than anything else. I can quite understand the difficulties they faced in drafting these treaties and coming to an agreement with countries having such widely varied approaches. Perhaps it would have been necessary, had we taken a very strong stand, to fight Russia now; but whether that was so or not I am afraid that in agreeing to the transfer of territory we have sown the seeds for future war and given occasion for bitterness in the minds of people which over the years may cause a deterioration in relationships so that war will become inevitable. May we hope, nay, may we fervently pray, that that will not be the case. I refer more particularly, Mr. Speaker, to the Hungarian treaty. I notice that three villages on the south Shore of the Danube, together with their cadastral territory-which I understand to mean units of agricultural lands around the villages that are set up as units for taxation purposes; I am not going to attempt to pronounce the names-were ceded by the treaty to Czechoslovakia. I understand that the reason given by those who claimed that the territory should Czechoslovakia was that it would be a strategical frontier rectification. We heard much of that during the time of the peace conference. The Czechoslovakians protested vigorously that they were peaceful minded; that they had always been so. In the light, of that, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for ms to understand why they needed a strategic frontier. If they did need it, and if they were able to show during the time of the conference that they were entitled to it, I wonder why it was that they were not asked
t0
purely
Treaties oj Peace

to cede back to Hungary territories that were taken from -that country by the treaty of Trianon in 1920? So far as I can find out, no attempt was made to have Czechoslovakia cede back that territory which was taken away from Hungary by the treaty of Trianon. For over a thousand years Slovakia was a part of Hungary. During the time of the deliberations at the conference we heard a great deal of the mistreatment of the Slovaks by the Hungarians during that period. I seriously doubt whether these claims were well founded.
It is a matter of history that the Slovaks during the whole period were allowed to continue the use of their own language. It is a matter of history, too, that the Hungarians never molested the Slovaks in any way. They were allowed to live their own lives without molestation. If in spite of the treatment which the Slovaks had received at the hands of the Hungarians, they want to break away, of course that is all right; I suppose we have to wish them good luck, but it does seem to me that if they want to break away from Hungary now they should not be allowed to take a fairly sizeable piece of territory with them, particularly a piece of territory in which substantial groups of pure Hungarians have been rooted for centuries and in which they and their families have carried on agricultural pursuits in peace. By this treaty a slice of territory, where these Hungarians have lived in compact units, is to be taken away. The Hungarians, I understand, who have been there for so long, are being uprooted from their ancestral homes and are being sent to Sudetenland, particularly to work in the industries which have been established in that country. These Hungarians have always been agriculturists, not industrialists. They will not be happy under the new arrangements. Surely the conference should have had in mind the happiness of these people and their ancestral rights.
I have a good many Hungarian friends in this country, but not in my present constituency. I do not think there are many in Pe%?e River, but I represented many Hungarian people in the Alberta legislature for quite a number of years, and I got to know them, their history and their problems. I have been told by eye witnesses who have been in the old country within recent months that in parts of the territory which according to this treaty are to be ceded to Czechoslovakia, changes are taking place so that the idea can be spread abroad that they were not always Hungarian. The Czechoslovak authorities are demolishing and defacing gravestones that h ive been there for hundreds of years in an

effort to bolster their claim that the territory was not always pure Hungarian. Keeping in mind, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Hungarians are neither Germanic nor Slavic, but a distinct race, this becomes a very serious matter. It is a serious thing to deface the evidences; the people in a given area have lived there for hundreds of years.
I claim that one of the important principles to be observed- in the making of peace treaties is that no country should be impoverished by transfer of territory so that it is in danger of losing its identity; that no transfer of territory should be allowed which would be a cause for festering sores in the minds of the people for many years,, which festering sores will eventually break out and lead to another war. In agreeing to the cession of these territories to Slovakia, apparently for strategic purposes, we are contributing to the impoverishment of a country which could for many years to come be a source of important trade to the trading nations. I hope we are not lending our hand to an unwise transfer of territory which will result in the impoverishment of Hungary.
There is one further matter. Hungarians, as a distinct race, neither Germanic nor Slavic, have always been a good balancing unit in Europe and we should insist that conditions be laid down so they might continue to be a balancing unit. On the other hand the Czechoslovaks, to whom the territory is being ceded, will always side with Russia because they are Slavic people. That, it seems to me, is a serious thing in the treaty with Hungary. I am disappointed at the transfer of territory provision, and I hope that when the minister replies he may have some information to give that will show that it just could not be avoided. I suggest that we are not justified in agreeing to this transfer of territory unless it is absolutely necessary in the interests of peace to do so. That is all I shall say at this time.


Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I rise to make one or two brief comments only, suggested by the speech of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's remark that we are mere commentators, a remark which I think we might expand by saying that we are commentators on commentators, I suggest that one must not take oneself too seriously at this moment. Indeed, so far as approving the resolution is concerned, I think it is the common sense thing to do. When we reach the committee stage there are one or two questions which I should like to put for the purpose of eliciting some information.

Treaties oj Peace


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no committee stage.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I will put these questions at the end of my remarks. The chief point I wish to make is to refer to the dearth, during my short parliamentary experience, of any opportunity to discuss foreign affairs. One wants to be fair, and I imagine that between the wars there were very genuine difficulties, genuine political difficulties about the existence of which we are all aware, that made people on both sides of the house, I suppose, wish to avoid the subject. But I think it was lamentable because it meant that the Canadian people were left in a kind of irresponsibility to some extent. They did not know enough of what was going on, and perhaps that was one reason why the people who did try earnestly to arouse public opinion met with the reception which was given them. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) was one of those who tried to arouse public opinion through the medium of the league of nations society, and who failed lamentably. We can remember the names of some of them-Sir Robert Borden, Hon. N. W. Rowell, Sir Robert Falconer, Sir George Foster.	Did those gentlemen get
thanks or admiration for their efforts? No. On the whole, they were laughed at. People said "We are only fighting animals, and we must fight again." Well, we did fight again.
The reason I suggest very earnestly that we should have debates in this country on foreign affairs, and debates that amount to something, is that in my view public opinion needs to be constantly stirred up. It ought not to be necessary, but it does need to be stirred up, and it should be stirred up so that we shall have ever present to our minds the formidable, indeed the devastating international problems which now face us. and so that we shall not slip into the attitude of mind, into which there is a danger of our falling, of being on the one hand more or less forgetful, or on the other hand, and that is just as bad, fatalistic and acquiescent.
I want to add a word as to the history, in my short parliamentary experience, of debates in tills house on foreign affairs, which debates I take it would naturally come when the estimates of the Secretary of State for External Affairs are before the committee. That is my understanding. I remember very well my first session in the House of Commons. We had been expecting the foreign affairs estimates, but they did not come until the second last day of the session, a day which I remember quite well because it was the Prime Minister's birthday. We joined in a dinner in the House
of Commons-Dutch treat-at which we did honour to the Prime Minister, and when we came down here into the chamber, to our great surprise we found him ready with his foreign affairs estimates. I had often been told of the Prime Minister's skill in timing, and that was an excellent instance of timing, because you cannot really go after a man in anything like hostile fashion after you have been at a dinner in his honour, and a very pleasant dinner it was too.
In the second session it was even worse.
I remember quite well, as I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs will remember, the 31st day of August last. It was the last day of the session, and there was in the house a remnant of members who had not yet gone home to pursue their businesses or their pleasures. It came to Saturday, August 31, and the estimates for the Department of External Affairs were brought down that day. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, kindly but persuasively and firmly, pointed out to us that unless we wanted to stay over for several days more, which no one very much wanted to do at that time, we should have to shorten the debate drastically, and of course it was shortened drastically. If I remember rightly, the hon. member for Peel, who has devoted a great deal of time and thought to these matters, was barely able to get half an hour in which to express his views. There were others who felt themselves in similar difficulties. Now, at this session, we are approaching the end of our labours, and it looks to me very much as though we might be in the same position again. I would therefore appeal to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs to see to it that the same thing shall not happen again.
In my opinion it is one of the duties of parliament to try to keep these affairs before the public so as to have them understood. I realize that governments have to govern; I realize that steps have to be taken to that end. I realize that they cannot debate everything they are going to do in parliament. I know all that, and I wish to take a common sense view of it. At the same time, however, I suggest that there ought to be time to discuss the principles that underlie the actions which governments have to take, so that when action has to be taken it is not something which parliament has never had a chance to consider, and we are not left with a situation such as exists now, perhaps without anyone intending it, in which parliament is treated like a lot of little children playing in the sand. We really have no right except to come and be told what has been done. We have never,
Treaties oj Peace

except incidentally and accidentally, debated the principles involved.
Having said that, I should like to ask two questions. One of them comes under article XXIII of the treaty with Finland. Under that article it is stated that the Soviet union is abating a very considerable amount of its claim for reparations against Finland and is settling on the sum of $300 million. It would be of interest, if the figure were available, to indicate how much of a concession that is supposed to represent. Another question I wish to ask has reference to article XXX, section 1, subsection 1, which speaks of Finland's giving the unconditional most-favoured-nation treaty to all members of the united nations. Subsection 2 qualifies that to some extent, and I imagine reasonably, by declaring that these undertakings by Finland shall be understood to be subject to the exceptions customarily included in commercial treaties concluded by Finland before the wrar. It would be interesting if we could be informed in a general way just what is the situation under that clause, and to what extent trade with Finland is being facilitated or is progressing. Those are two questions I should like to have answered.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Is the house ready for the question? If the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell), who has just taken his seat, has asked two questions. One relates to the position of trade with Finland at the present time. I understand that the hon. gentleman wishes to know the extent of that trade and how certain matters are operating under the clause to which he refers. That is a question which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) would be best qualified to answer, and I suggest to my hon. friend that he put the question on the order paper so that he may be given such information as it is possible to give, and which can be given only after consultation with the department. May I ask the hon. gentleman what the other question was?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The extent of the concession made in the treaty with Finland.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That, I am sorry to say, I am not in a position to answer, and I do not know of anyone who is. It is one of those questions which it is legitimate to ask, but which I do not think can be 
satisfactorily answered by any of the parties concerned.
The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) made a. special appeal to myself regarding the desirability of referring these treaties to the committee on external affairs. I do not take exception to any treaty being referred to the committee on external affairs; indeed I think it is an advisable course to follow. But I would ask my hon. friend, since the treaties have been before the house for four months, why he did not make the suggestion some time ago. Had he made that suggestion some time ago, I wmuld have been the first to agree to it. I may say to my hon. friend that, as his leader will recall, as well as the hon. member who is acting for the leader of the C.C.F., and the leader of the Social Credit party, at the meeting recently with the leaders of the different parties I asked the opposition leaders to be kind enough to let me know what matters they would like to have brought forward so that they might be debated at once and not left to the end of the session. There were one or two matters which it was suggested should be brought forward without further delay. My recollection is that the old age pensions bill and the bill of the Minister of Labour were mentioned. I agreed that they would be brought forward within the next day or two, and they were brought forward at that time. I have been waiting for further suggestions. If this matter had been mentioned as being one which hon. members opposite were interested in having considered by a committee I would have been the first to say: We will arrange for it tomorrow. That would have been a very simple matter.
May I say that I would be agreeable to referring the treaties referred to in the resolution to the committee now, if there were any possibility in the world of the committee making any recommendation other than that which is set forth in the resolution now before the house. I think it is most desirable that hon. members should fully appreciate just what the resolution means. The resolution is to make it possible to put an end to a state of war which exists between this country and Italy, Finland, Roumania and Hungary. Is there an hon. member of this house who wishes to have a state of war continued between Canada and those countries? That is the whole point.


Gordon Graydon: It goes much farther than that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In what, way?


Gordon Graydon: Because the full peace treaties are to be approved. It is not just a question of the termination of war.

Treaties of Peace


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the only way in which the state of war can be ended.


Gordon Graydon: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend may have his views; but I submit that, when you have gone through the process of peacemaking and arrived at the stage where the several nations involved have signed treaties, unless you are going to reverse everything which has been done or upset everything, which has been done and start all over again, the only choice left to you is to approve the treaties as they stand. From what has fallen from the lips of hon. members opposite, my hon. friend included, I should say there is not one member of this house who would wish to defeat the resolution approving these treaties. They may not like what is in the treaties. I myself was one of those who spoke most strongly against the way in which these treaties were brought into being. After Canada had taken the important part she had taken in the war for freedom. I protected that she had not been given a chance even to have a word with respect to these all-important treaties until they were placed before the conference in a more or less complete form by the council of foreign ministers, which was the body which had been agreed to by the great powers as the one which should take up the work of settlement at the outset. All of us in this house, I think, have already expressed ourselves very strongly; I think I might go so far as to say we have resented that these arrangements should have been made in the way they were. But I have always taken the view that if when the arrangements were made we had all known the circumstances under which they were made, perhaps none of us would have subsequently sought to alter the situation. No one will ever know what Mr. Churchill and President Roosevelt and others who were associated with them in some of the conferences had to consider as to what it was wisest to do at a particular moment. I am sure that some of the things they did, they did because of stern necessity and for no other reason; and some of the things which we have had to accept would never have been thought of for a moment and would have been resisted to the limit had it not been for the fact that everything considered, and with the war raging, what was done seemed to be the best course to be taken at the time.
Like the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, I have tried to act in a reasonable way. I have tried to look at this thing in a realistic light and ask myself the question whether it will serve any good purpose to try, at this particular time, to find fault with arrangements
which were made during the time of the war, and with regard to proceedings over which we had no control whatever. I will say that, if there was a possibility of anything being done by the external affairs committee which would cause this house to change its view in the slightest particular in regard to what is in this resolution, I would be quite prepared to say now that it is not too late, although we are near the end of the session, to refer these treaties to the committee. But I know there is not. I know' that all that might be discussed at the committee would not cause the committee to suggest one alteration in what is in the resolution before the house at the present time. In these circumstances I think it would be unwise to refer these particular treaties to the committee.
My hon. friend made one other point which I think has a good deal to it. He says that a discussion of these treaties would enable hon. members to learn a little more about the state of Europe at the present time and the difficulties which have developed since the treaties were signed, and might cause the house to consider with greater care whether later on these treaties should be ratified and the ratifications deposited. May I say to my hon. friend that I understand the committee on external affairs are to have a secret session in which they hope to discuss, and to get information upon, conditions in Europe at the present time which will give to the committee as full information as can be given by those who are informed in the Department of External Affairs. That information will be much fuller than could be given here, for the simple reason that there are some things in connection with the international situation at the present time which can be discussed privately, but which it would not serve the interests of the world at large to discuss publicly at the moment. With that opportunity made available, I think hon. members will be able to get such information at least as they would be searching for under this particular resolution, at least under reference of these particular treaties to a committee.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask one question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: Has it actually been decided that there is to be a secret session of the external affairs committee? If so, this is the first definite intimation I have had of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have been so informed, and I thought credibly informed.


Gordon Graydon: I had heard it mentioned, but I had not known that it was decided.
4S36
Treaties of Peace


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am giving my hon. friend this assurance on such authority as I have and which I take to be wholly reliable. I think my hon. friend may count on it. At any rate, if it has not been decided on, I see no reason why such a meeting could not be arranged even now. My colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs says he thinks the meeting is tomorrow. He would perhaps be in a better position than I to be definite on that point.
However, my point is as to the wisdom of having discussion by the committee on external affairs of matters relating to the methods of bringing into being treaties of peace and the various questions that may arise in relation to procedure, in regard to terms and conditions and information generally. If this were the only chance there were for that kind of useful discussion, then I certainly would suggest to the house at once that we allow these treaties to go before the committee. But I think there will be plenty of other and much better chances. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has mentioned the opportunity there is on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. Those estimates have not yet been discussed. They will be discussed, and the opportunity will be given then for discussing certain of the matters which he and other members have in mind. I do not think there has been anything intentional in delaying the discussion of external affairs until the end of the session.
My hon. friend referred to the birthday party. If he will allow me to say so, I do not think it could have been my birthday party because my birthday comes in December and this was in August.	,


Mr. FLEMING:: That was in December of 1945; the first session of this parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I apologize; for the moment I had quite forgotten that birthday party.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It was the only one of the Prime Minister's I had ever attended, so I remember it well.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my hon. friend for his courtesy in attending that particular party, and I hope we may meet at other such parties in the future. However, what I did wish to say was that I do not think there has been anything intentional in delaying a discussion of these matters of international concern until the end of the session. I would point out that, from week to week, some question comes up which, in one way or another, is related to external affairs, and as these different matters arise they are discussed in the house. That has

been so this session, and it has been true at other sessions. As far as I am aware there has not been any desire at all to hold back the estimates of this particular department. As I say, I asked the leaders of all the parties, when we had our meeting a couple of weeks ago trying to settle a plan for the business of the house for the remainder of the session, to be good enough to let me know what they wished to have brought forward, in estimates or anything else. I particularly remember that I used the word "estimates" and that I said: Tell us the items, and we will see that they are brought on at once. I hope that is enough to say on this particular point.
I must not conclude without saying how pleased I am that there is unanimity of view with regard to the wisdom of approving these treaties. Undoubtedly there is no question at the present time so serious as that of the reconstruction of Europe, and this will be one of the steps towards reconstruction. Let hon. members remember that, at the present time, there is an armistice, not only between all the countries named and Canada but between these countries and all the other associated and allied nations, and that, under the armistice, certain restrictions are imposed upon all these countries. Those restrictions are of a military character, of a political character and of a commercial character; and it is impossible for some of these all-important matters to be settled, and the economic reorganization of Europe to be effected, until these armistice restrictions are out of the way. Surely we are helping advance the cause of peace when we enact treaties of peace which will end a state of war and let us continue our discussions with other nations on the basis of peace.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the constitution of the international refugee organization, signed at Flushing Meadows, New York, on December 46, 1946, and that this house do approve the same.
He said: The house will be interested to know that nineteen states have now signed the constitution of the international refugee organization. Since I tabled the constitution in this house on April 30, the governments of

International Refugee Organization
Australia, Iceland, Belgium, Bolivia, the Argentine and Panama have signed the constitution in addition to the thirteen states which had signed prior to that date. Perhaps it might be well to place on record the list of those states who had signed at that time, in order to have the nineteen that have signed up to the present. The thirteen states which had signed prior to April 30 were: Canada, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, China, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Liberia, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand and the Philippine Republic. Hon. members will remember that under the terms of the constitution it was not to come into effect until signed by fifteen states representing seventy-five per cent of the contributions allocated. The total contributions of these nineteen states to the operational budget would amount to 77-13 per cent. Therefore, if at least fifteen of these states whose total contributions are seventy-five per cent of the operational budget proceed to ratification, the constitution of the international refugee organization will, under the terms of article 18 thereof, enter into force. However, up to the present day only six of those nineteen states have deposited their instruments of ratification. They are the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, China, Guatemala and Iceland, and the total assessment of these six states is only 19-51 per cent of the operational budget. But the United States is one of the governments which has signed the constitution; and the senate and house of representatives have voted in favour of a bill authorizing United States participation in the organization, which bill now only awaits the presidential signature. The United States contribution is 45-75 per cent, and that of Canada, 3-5 per cent, so I think there is every reason to expect that within a matter of days the minimum of fifteen ratifying states and seventy-five per cent of the operational budget will have been covered.
The preparatory commission of the international refugee organization is now meeting at Lausanne, and recently decided to undertake executive functions beginning tomorrow, July 1. In view of the end of UNRRA'S displaced persons' activities on June 30, it is essential that the IRO should be equipped to take over its work as soon as possible after July 1. The preparatory commission will have very limited funds and will be able to function only on a purely temporary basis pending the coming into force of the constitution of the organization. For this reason it seems to be of importance that ratification of the
constitution of the international refugee organization be effected as rapidly as possible.
The constitution itself has been fully discussed in the standing committee on external affairs, and I do not wish to take up the time of the house by referring again to the functions the organization is designed to perform. There are some points, however, it may be of some advantage to mention again at. this stage. The proposed budget of the international refugee organization is divided into two sections, administrative and operational. For the first financial year the provisional budget calls for the sum of 84,800,000, UR. funds, for the administrative expenses and $151,060,500.	U.S. funds, for	operational
expenses. Canada's assessment is 3-2 per cent of the administrative expenses, or $153,600, and 3-5 per cent, or $5,287,117, for operational expenses, a total of $5,440,717. Similar scales of contribution for the United States are, respectively, 38-89 per cent for administrative and 45-75 per cent for operational expenses. For the United Kingdom they are 11-48 per cent for administrative and 14-75 per cent for operational. The total United States contribution thus would amount to approximately $70,000,000, as against the figure of $5,440,000 for Canada. In addition to the assessment for administrative and operational expenses of the IRO, there is provision in its constitution for the raising of a sum of $5,000,000 by voluntary contributions from member states for expenses incurred in connection with schemes which may be undertaken by it for the large scale resettlement of refugees, as distinct from their resettlement as individuals or as family units. As contributions to this fund of $5 million will be on a voluntary basis, there is, of course, no scale of contributions. Mr. Jean Desy, Canadian ambassador to Brazil, has been acting as our representative at the meetings of the preparatory commission and has informed us that the next meeting of the full preparatory commission is scheduled to begin in Lausanne on July 15. At that meeting it is hoped that a sufficient number of ratifications to the constitution will have been received to make it possible for the organization itself to come into existence and to assume its executive functions.
In view of this, it would be encouragement to others to have it known as early as possible that Canada has ratified the constitution. For nearly eighteen months this problem of refugees has been fully discussed with the united nations. Canadian representatives have consistently taken the position that this great humanitarian problem can be dealt with only on a broad international basis. It is
[Stage Direction]
International Refugee Organization
not only at the present time a serious hardship for those who are in the displaced persons camps but a serious burden to the occupying powers to provide for them and to maintain life in those camps.
I believe the people of this country wholeheartedly endorse the view that it is an international responsibility to which all of us should make some contribution. The constitution of the international refugee organization cannot be said to be a perfect document. It represents the efforts of fifty-five nations to find agreement -on a controversial political issue. Certainly there are clauses in the constitution which the Canadian government did not welcome and which our representatives unsuccessfully opposed in the committees and in the general assembly itself. Yet we have supported it because we believe it was the best compromise that could be achieved, and that if that one were not accepted and ratified there would not be any. If the united nations is to accomplish the job for which it was designed we, of course, have to recognize that the spirit of compromise is frequently called upon and forced to pretty extreme positions. But it was like the chanter of the united nations itself, that one had to be taken or we would not have had any at all. Thus the constitution of the international refugee organization, after long consideration, had to be accepted, or there would have been none. We felt that, as it was, it was a valuable international attempt to solve a problem which was an international responsibility. I hope, therefore, that the house will give its approval to the ratification of the constitution.
^ Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):	Mr. Speaker, before the resolution carries, I should like to identify this party in support of it. This constitution has had the advantage of having been before the committee on external affairs. While it was before that committee, officials of the department expressed their opinions freely and generously with respect to such information as members of the committee required from time to time. For that reason I believe there need not be in the house any great division of opinion with respect to having this constitution approved as quickly a£ possible.
It is particularly important that Canada should not be hesitant in a humanitarian problem of this kind. Important foundations for our future policy were laid at San Francisco, the first recent international conference in which this country participated. I believe people in Canada aocept with some degree of pride the fact that in that portion of the charter of the united nations which deals with cultural and economic cooperation, per-(Mr. St. Laurent.]
haps more words were placed by Canadian delegates that by those of any other country in the world.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Or several other
countries combined.
Gordon Graydon: Yes, or several together. That is one of the features which would indicate the humanitarian trend taken by public opinion in Canada. It indicates, too, that Canada has been prepared in this field to place human values above property values, and to play its proper part in trying to do something for those needing help in other parts of the world.
In the constitution which has been placed in the hands of hon. members, I have noted with special interest the contributions therein set out. I believe 'the matter to which I shall now direct my attention, namely that of the percentage of contributions, was not discussed in the committee on external affairs, although similar discussion may have taken place in connection with it in another branch of the work of the department.
One point which will puzzle most Canadian people will arise in connection with these contributions. I am not for one moment suggesting that our contribution is too large, because I believe a suggestion of that kind would receive scant support. I believe, however, that there is at least a wide field for discussion of the contributions assessed against some of the so-called big powers.
The schedule showing administrative expenses shows that Canada would accept 3-20 per cent; France, 6 per cent; the United Kingdom, 11-8 per cent; the United States, 39-89 per cent and China, 6 per cent. Then I come to a big power which has a good deal to say and has made its mark across various countries of the world, sometimes very conspicuously.
I refer to the soviet socialist republics, which apparently desire to indicate that the communist way of life is a great and very successful way. But it would not appear that it is so successful, if one were to judge from these percentages. If my memory serves me correctly, the percentages set out in this schedule are along the same lines as those made to the general united nations organization by these nations. That being so, it would seem to me that there must be some significance in the fact that Russia is assessed only 6-3 per cent, or not quite double Canada's assessment with only 12,000,000 of population,
I am not one who wishes to raise unnecessary questions because, after all, there may be sound reasons why the budget is made up in this way. I am not for one moment suggesting that there is any criticism to be attached to Canada, to any of our delegates or

International Refugee Organization
to the government in connection with the present arrangement. I think, however, it does show one or two things. After all, as regards the system that has been held out to us so often as being a great system of government, if that is any indication of the success of that system with a country of 12.000,000 of population like Canada as opposed to a nation with a population of something like 150,000,000, when you take off some of the other republics, perhaps our system when it gets down to dollars and cents as a measure of success- and sometimes that is not to be disregarded as a measure-does show that this country has something to be thankful for. I believe that is an indication at least that some of the so-called big powers, when it comes down to making contributions to the united nations, do not compare too well with some of the so-called middle powers, including our own country. I only wanted to draw that to the attention of parliament and to the attention of the country at this particular time.
May I close my remarks with a word of caution. I have not the slightest criticism to offer at the moment in connection with this constitution, because I realize the urgency of the matter. It is now two years since Germany collapsed, and many people in these displaced persons camps have been leading a most unfortunate existence, an existence which only those who have seen their condition can appreciate. I should not like to see the united nations follow the practice which, I am afraid, too many nations are following, that of getting tied up too tightly in red tape. It may be difficult for Canada to say very much; all we can do is to raise our voice for reform in that regard.
I hope that this international refugee organization will not turn out to be just another nice looking organization on paper with a lot of fine speeches surrounding it and everybody getting worked up into great evangelistic fervour over the question of what is to be done for refugees and displaced persons. What must be done is for the nations to get together to try to solve this problem. Some nations will have to take more of these refugees than others. I do not think we can allow this constitution merely to stand without something being done, and being done in a hurry. I hope that this constitution with its many "ifs" and "whereases" will be better than some of the constitutions that have been passed.
That leads me to this one concluding remark. The united nations will have to take inventory in connection with these matters. The specialized agencies, of which this is one, are multiplying day by day. I have no doubt that many members of the government feel
as I do, that we must see that we do not overlap in connection with these various activities. Here we have an international refugee organization being set up. It is to be a brand new organization with all the powers and controls and legal language and the like usually found in such an organization. Only last week it was announced that we were to make a contribution toward a post-UNRRA programme. Then we have in Paris the meeting of the Big Four which are trying to arrange for the economic rehabilitation and reconstruction of Europe. Then there is the international trade organization which is meshed into all this.
The economic and social council was set up to coordinate the work of these various organizations, commissions and so on, but this task may be almost too much even for that council. The public must be getting confused because of the many organizations that are being set up within the united nations. We must do something in connection with that. Canada perhaps is in an awkward position; but some day, if my prophecy is correct, there will be a day of reckoning with respect to these huge organizations of the united nations. As I say, an inventory will have to be taken to see that we are not becoming top-heavy in our international relations.
This was brought up in the committee on external affairs, and last fall the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) made a spectacular speech before the united nations in New York when he brought up the question of the control and supervision over the expenditures by these bodies. That was an excellent idea, because a considerable amount of unanimity had been demonstrated in the external affairs committee in this regard, so much so that the motion for concurrence in the report was adopted by the whole house. I was glad to see that the minister expressed our views in New York on that occasion.
For some reason or another the international field is beginning to get like the domestic field in a lot of nations. We are just building up one thing on top of another, and every time we build up we are faced with another financial obligation for the country or the people in general. I only wanted to sound that note of warning; I was not speaking in criticism of this organization whose work must be carried out in a hurry. If there ate any faults in this constitution we shall have to let them go in the general belief that some action will be taken in connection with this matter in a practical way. But I just wanted these suggested reforms not to be lost sight of by the government or by parliament or by the people. As I say, there is

International Labour Organization
this top-heavy trend which, I am afraid, may interfere with the popularity of the united nations or might even undermine that organization which richly merits and deserves full support. That support may be forfeited if they do not keep within practical limits in connection with their constitutions, their general agencies and the organizations that are set up in the future.


Mr. F. B. JAENICKE (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, since I am the only member of my group present in the house who was a member of the committee on external affairs, I think I should say just a few words on behalf of my party. With most of what the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) has said, I agree. I think Canada is playing a noble and important part in connection with the humanitarian aspects of the world situation at the present time. I wish also to endorse what the hon. member for Peel said with regard to the part which the Canadian delegates have played in drafting the constitution of the international refugee organization with which we are now dealing. It was another of those instances which have made the Canadian delegates famous in the united nations as fair dealers. I noticed this fact with much pride when I paid a visit for a few days last April to Flushing Meadows and Lake Success.
I may say that we discussed the constitution before the house very fully in committee. With respect to the criticism, if I may call it such, of the hon. member for Peel with regard to the apparent discrimination in the assessment of the different nations, I may say that we also discussed that, and the committee came to the conclusion that the division had been made on a fairly just and equitable basis, because, after all, if we consider some of these countries which do not contribute as much as or very little more than Canada we must realize that we have had no material damage in our country, while countries like Russia and China suffered considerably during the war in material damage.


Gordon Graydon: What about Great Britain?


Mr. MITCHELL:: What about Great Britain?	.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Her investment, production, economy, et cetera, are taken into consideration. We had that fully explained by the officials who came before us and by some of our members who were there when the assessments were made. I also think that at some time we might have to consider the question of enlarging the definition of a displaced person as it appears in this constitution. It depends upon the basis of the peace treaty. I venture
IMr. Graydon.]
to say that at some time we might have to consider those people who have been sent out of Czechoslovakia, sent out of those parts of Germany which are to be attached to Poland. Unless the German economy is set up in such a way that these people will find employment, we might have to include some of them within the definition of displaced persons.
However, as I say, we discussed the matter fully in committee and there we endorsed the constitution which is now before the house, and we shall do so at the present time.
Motion (Mr. St. Laurent) agreed to.



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION


Humphrey Mitchell: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the instrument adopted at Montreal on October 9, 1946, for the amendment of the constitution of the international labour organization, and that this house do approve the same.
He said:	Consequent on the dissolution of
the league of nations and the entry of the international labour organization into official relationship with the united nations, it became urgently necessary to amend the articles of its constitution relating to membership, financing and procedure for future amendments. Therefore an instrument for the amendment of the constitution was adopted at the 1945 (Paris) session of the international labour conference and was subsequently accepted by the necessary majority of the member states, becoming effective on September 26, 1946. Canada's ratification was authorized by order in council P.C. 2914 of July 12, 1946.
At the Montreal session of the international labour conference last fall, the new instrument of amendment now before us wras unanimously adopted and will come into force when ratified by two-thirds of the member countries including five of the eight members of chief industrial importance represented on the governing body of the ILO, of which Canada is one.
This instrument is designed to remodel the organization in the light of the experience gained in over a quarter of a century and to reequip it to discharge its responsibilities with greater efficiency.
The most important of the proposed amendments are designed to encourage wider implementing of the minimum labour standards embodied in conventions or suggested: in recommendations adopted at the various ses-

Inquiries of the Ministry
sions of the general conference of the member states of the organization. Canada, like other federal states, has been faced up to the present with constitutional difficulties in giving effect to the provisions of many of these proposals, which come within provincial jurisdiction. One of these amendments, article 19(7), is therefore of particular interest to Canada. It requires the federal government to arrange for periodic consultations between, the federal and provincial authorities with a view to promoting coordinated action to give effect to the provisions of such proposals. Another obligation is that fuller reports will be made to the international labour office as to the action taken or proposed to be taken by both the federal and the provincial governments on all these proposals.
Prior to the Montreal conference, the views of the provinces had been sought by the government on the proposed constitutional changes applying to federal states, and several of the provinces were represented at the conference by their ministers of labour or by their deputies.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act by providing a new and extended definition of civil servant and civil service; changing the age of retirement; amending the conditions upon which contributions may be made to the superannuation fund and benefits paid therefrom; and by a comprehensive addition to the aot covering temporary employees in the service.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. P. COTE (Matapedia-Matane):: I should like to direct a question to the leader of the government. How is it that on the eve of our nation's eightieth birthday the government has not yet proceeded to implement the expressed desire of this house to
make July 1 Canada day, as it was intimated on August 12, 1946, by the leader of the government as recorded on page 4707 of Hansard:
The hon. member will have to trust that the house, the country and the government will consider-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member knows the rules of the house. If he wishes to put a question it will have to be brief and to the point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I should answer my hon. friend's question as to why the government in its arrangement of its work this session has not given precedence to the bill which my hon. friend introduced last session and which at that time received the support of this house. I would say to him that he has been here throughout this entire session. I think he knows as well as all hon. members that we have had a number of very important measures which have taken up a great deal of the time of the house. The first couple of months, if I recall rightly, were taken up in consideration of measures in regard to the retention of certain controls. Since then, other important measures have been brought forward, including the budget and resolutions based thereon, and we have not yet completed consideration of such measures as the Old Age Pensions Act, and matters respecting labour. My hon. friend has heard this afternoon the strongest protest from the other side of the house that we have not given the attention to international affairs that we should, which is one of the most important things in the world today. I can only say to my hon. friend his bill has not been lost sight of; that it is just one of these things that will have to come forward in due course, just when, I am sorry I am not in a position to say.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Was the brief or the report made by Mr. G. C. W. Browne, commissioner of the radio division, in answer to Canadian Daily Newspapers Association and Canadian private broadcasters, seen by or submitted to the minister before presentation to the committee or delivery to the press?


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: I do not know what my hon. friend is referring to; but answering his ques-
Inquiries of the Ministry

tion directly, I would say that, the brief was not sent to me, nor was it handed to me, nor have I had anything^ to do with it, because that particular part of radio, or any part of radio, as a matter of fact, does not come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport has absolutely nothing to do with the operation or the administration of radio.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think that answers the question. An official, the commissioner of radio, gave a statement. The answer illustrates the uncertainty when there are Three Tinkerers of Wellington street looking after radio.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman
knows quite well that the matter of radio administration does not come under the Minister of Transport.


Gordon Graydon: It is about time it came under one department.


Lionel Chevrier: That may be, but I am answering the question asked by the hon. gentleman and I am giving him the accurate answer.



BEEF CATTLE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Horne Blackmore: I wish to direct two questions to the Minister of Agriculture. (1) Will the Minister of Agriculture tell the house whether or not the meat packers are at present refusing to buy beef from Alberta beef feeders? (2) If the meat packers are found refusing to handle beef from beef feeders, will the minister tell the house whether or not he will assist beef feeders now finishing beef in Alberta feed lots by some such measure as temporarily lifting the ceiling on beef or temporarily lifting the embargo on beef going into the United States?


James Horace King: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he put the question on the order paper.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, this is too urgent to wait for the order paper. I have asked these questions and I want a reply.


James Horace King: The hon. member knows that, under the rules, when a question is asked before the orders of the day are called it must be brief and of urgency.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, the questions I have asked possess those characteristics, and I should like to get an answer.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-RECOMMENDATION FOR BREEDING PURPOSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): Mr. Speaker, this is the question, a copy of which I sent to you asking for your permission to ask it. A farmer from King's county, Prince Edward Island, who is raising good hogs, states as follows:
We were pleased that you mentioned in the House of Commons about our excellent type of Yorks-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: I have no objection to the hon. member putting the question, but I would ask him not to make a statement.


Mr. McLURE:: The second part of the statement was a nice compliment to the Minister of Agriculture, because the1 writer added:
-and very pleased that hon. Minister Gardiner praised them so highly.
My question is this. Will the Minister of Agriculture recommend, to the hog breeders' associations, Prince Edward Island Yorkshire hogs for breeding purposes?
Right Hon. J. G. GARDIlNER (Minister of Agriculture): I said the other night that they were among the best in Canada, and that should be a good recommendation.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That was the reason I asked this question, because this farmer, as I have stated, said he was greatly pleased with the remarks of the minister.



STATUTORY HOLIDAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Owing to representations from the Peterborough businessmen's association, labour and industry, I would ask him this question: Would it not be more beneficial to everyone concerned if all state holidays, with the exception of religious holidays, such as Good Friday, Christmas and New Year's, were made automatically to fall on Mondays, instead of in the middle of the week?


Right. Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: I would have to give a good deal of thought before attempting to-answer that- question. It is one that is debatable. There are two sides to the question. T^at is all I can say at the moment.

Inquiries of the Ministry



MOVEMENT FROM LAKEHEAD TO MONTREAL- SHIPS AWAITING CARGOES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Last week the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) asked a question with reference to the amount of grain in the port of Montreal and whether it was adequate to supply cargoes for ships that were awaiting delivery. The information I have is that the railways are performing an excellent service in connection with the movement of grain. I am sure my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, will confirm this when I say that the request was made by the Canadian wheat board that we move 1,126 cars of wheat and grain daily and the railways have far exceeded that. The average for June was 1,360 cars. Grain is moving as fast as it can to lakehead ports. There are other points involved and I do not wish to go into them, but my hon. friend inquired about the movement, and from the point of view of the railways it is certainly well taken care of.


Mr. HAZEN:: I understood that there were twenty-three ships which were held up at the time I asked my question.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. There are at the present time some ships waiting to load wheat at St. Lawrence ports, but the United Kingdom government have been kept fully informed as to available supplies and they understand that, if ships were provided over and above the available wheat supplies they would be delayed in loading. All I can say is that sufficient wheat is being made available to meet all commitments, and the schedule as suggested by the wheat board is being fully lived up to.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: On Monday, June 23, the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) asked this question on the orders of the day:
(Translation):
Is there any truth in the report that some forty Canadian National Railways employees appointed to track maintenance in the Lower St. Lawrence district, namely at Rimouski, Sayabec, Mont Joli and surrounding parts, were dismissed for having refused to work on the feast of Corpus Christi?
Canadian National Railways inform me that on Saturday, June 7, an extra crew of eight men, consisting of five crew men and three section men, refused to work Saturday afternoon and were dismissed. Corpus Christi was celebrated on Sunday, June 8. The men were not. forced to work on Sunday and were dismissed because they refused to work on Saturday afternoon. They have since submitted a petition to the superintendent and three section men as well as three extra crew men have resumed their duties.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I ask this question at the urgent request of some members of our party, and I should be glad if the Prime Minister would answer it. We should like to know at this stage of the session whether it is the intention of the government to introduce any other legislation than that which is now on the older paper, and, second, whether there are any items of legislation on the order paper which the government may feel disposed not to proceed with this session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have been trying to
have each of my colleagues advise me whether he has anything further which he wishes to bring forward. I understand that, of what it is intended to bring forward, everything has already been mentioned, in the statement I made to the house some time ago. There are one or two measures I mentioned at the time that have not, up to the moment, been introduced, but apart from that I am not aware of anything t'he government intends to bring forward unless some emergency arises that cannot be foreseen at the moment.
As regards the other question, whether t.he government will wish to drop any of the measures, I would say at the present -time that we should like to proceed with all of which notice has been given, but what progress we shall make will depend on the progress that is made from day to day. I should not like to say at the moment -that there are any that will be dropped.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps my right hon. friend will indicate tomorrow Whether or not he does find that any other legislation will be introduced. I have asked the question because it would meet the convenience of members generally to have the information.
United, Nations



RATIONING IN BRITAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of a statement made in the British House of Commons today by Hugh Dalton, chancellor of the exchequer, to the effect that Britain must meet a severe shortage of dollars by slashing her dollar import of newsprint, tobacco, gasoline and some items of food which might include basic rations. Has the Department of Trade and Commerce been advised whether or not this ration will affect certain of our exports to Britain?


Hon. J. A. MacRINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The answer is no.


Gordon Graydon: You mean you have
not the information, or is it "no" to the question?



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 272, to provide for privileges and immunities in respect of the united nations and related international organizations-Mr. St. Laurent- Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Shall section 1 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Mr. BLACIvMORE: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. Let us not have a runaway on this matter.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that a threat?


John Horne Blackmore: It is a request for the privileges of a member of parliament to be recognized. It is high time that the Speaker and various other people began to recognize that members in this house have rights. I should like to make a comment or two with respect to this bill before it goes very far in committee, although I do not desire to delay the committee overmuch on the matter. I have already said that I believe the bill is not a good one and that it should not be passed until we know a good deal more about its implications. Will the minister tell the committee whether or not the passage of this bill commits Canada more fully to the united nations than she would be committed if she did not pass it?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Perhaps the hon. member will allow section 1 to pass and then put his question on section 2, because section 2 provides for the accession of Canada to the agreement, and I think that is what the hon. member has in mind. His question would be quite relevant to section 2, whereas it might be difficult to make it relevant to section 1, which is just the short title. Is that agreeable to the hon. member?


John Horne Blackmore: I have no desire to be uncooperative, but the minister told the house he would be quite willing to permit us to ask a good many questions and to give us considerable latitude in committee on this bill. If he is quite willing that such latitude be granted on section 2, that will be quite satisfactory to me. I should like to ask him several questions and to make some comments.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I should not like the hon. member to understand me as granting anything. I told him that, under section 2, I thought practically the whole matter could be gone into as of right, because it is relevant to section 2. That is my construction of it; but, of course, like the hon. member himself. I am bound by the rules of the house. I cannot change the rules. I think the question my hon. friend asks and any question along that line will be perfectly relevant to section 2.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister will
remember that on June 6 we asked pointedly if we could have considerable latitude.


William Henry Golding: Order. Section 1 simply deals with the short title. Shall the section carry?


John Horne Blackmore: Before section 1 carries, Mr. Chairman, I should like to have you tell us whether or not you are going to grant qs, under section 2, that latitude which we were promised on June 6. There was a specific promise made then.


William Henry Golding: Order.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think the hon. member is mistaken. I made no promise to grant any latitude. After the matter had been disposed of and had been referred to the committee, I went to the hon. member and told him that, on my construction of the rules, when we got to section 2 of the bill all these matters would be relevant, because section 2 provides that the governor in council may authorize the accession of Canada to the convention on the privileges and immunities of the united nations. I told the hon. member that I thought it would be quite relevant for

United Nations
him then to discuss whether we should implement the undertaking we had made in the charter.


John Horne Blackmore: What I have reference to is not what the minister said to me after the house had closed that day, but rather to what was specifically stated at page 3892 of Hansard. That was my only concern. I have no desire to be uncooperative, but I want the privilege of asking some questions.


William Henry Golding: Order. I think if we follow these sections, as we are supposed to in discussing a bill, and deal with the sections as they are, we shall get on better. As I have repeated on so many occasions, every speech in committee must be relevant to the section under discussion. This section 1 is simply on the short title, "This act may be cited as The Privileges and Immunities (United Nations) Act." That is all that is in that section. Shall it carry?


John Horne Blackmore: There is just one point about it. After having been in this house for a long time, the Chairman knows very well that on section 1 of a bill a wide range of latitude is usually permitted in the asking of questions.	[DOT]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is not according to the rules. May section 1 stand? I think the hon. member will get everything he wants on the appropriate section. I do not think we should persist in the statement which is being made from time to time, that on section 1 of a bill in committee wide latitude is granted. There cannot be anything granted. I would be perfectly prepared to have section 1 stand. I think he will find that everything he wants to do will be perfectly relevant to section 2 or the other sections of the bill. We can come back to section 1 then, if he has not had satisfaction.


John Horne Blackmore: That meets with my complete approval.


William Henry Golding: There is something more 'to it than that. I think it is about time that members of the house realized that there is no rule which provides for general discussion on the first section of a bill. There is no rule which provides for a discussion on the principle of a bill when it is sent to committee. The principle of the bill is discussed and decided on second reading. If hon. members will look up the rules, they themselves will find that is so. As I said before, I have been in this house for a good number of years and have sat on both sides of it. To my knowledge, every chairman who has presided here has taken exactly the 83166-309
same position as the one I am taking now and have taken from time to time. There is no authority for any chairman to take any other position. I will simply put this question to hon. members: Under what rule can there be general discussion, for instance, on this first section which deals only with the short title? I say that this house could speed up the business by simply observing the rules, which the Chairman is bound to draw to the attention of hon. members, and deal with the sections one by one, as they come up.


Mr. STIRLING:: This is somewhat in the nature of a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would draw your attention to the fact that, although what you have stated with regard to there not being a rule which permits general discussion on section 1, may be correct, it has been the custom which has grown up in this house over many years, and of which the party now in power, made considerable use when in opposition. I could cite a good many instances to that effect. If it is a matter of convenience to the house; if it is something which will not unduly delay the passage of the measure, I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it would be a wise thing to take some note of this precedent which has grown up.


William Henry Golding: No. I quite agree with my hon. friend that when the Liberals sat on the opposition side of the house, they took the same position as some hon. members are now taking; but in every case the Chairman had to rule that it was not in order, that members must deal with the sections under consideration. That is standing order 58. I do not need to quote it again. Every speech must be relevant to the section under discussion. We are considering section 1, the short title. I repeat, the Chair is placed in an awkward position by having to draw the attention of hon. members to the rules, which I believe will help promote the business of the house. Then I am confronted with some idea that section 1 gives unlimited ground to cover everything. That is not so, and all the rules are against it; but we need not waste time in debating that point.


John Horne Blackmore: It is agreed that section 1 shall stand, is it not?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Stand.


William Henry Golding: If that is the wish of the committee; but there is no good purpose served by doing that. We will put it up to the committee. Shall section 1 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stand.

United, Nations


William Henry Golding: I am going
to ask for the yeas and nays on this.


John Horne Blackmore: It is impossible to carry a section unless everyone agrees.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Horne Blackmore: That is the usual understanding, and when no one has anything more to say the section carries.


William Henry Golding: Shall section 1 carry?


John Horne Blackmore: The minister said it was agreed that section 1 should stand. If you do not desire to destroy the rules of. this house utterly, Mr. Chairman, you had better let the section stand and move along; otherwise it will be impossible to conduct the affairs of this house.


William Henry Golding: If it is the
wish of the committee that section I should stand, that is satisfactory to me.
Section stands.
On section 2-Accession to convention by governor in council.


John Horne Blackmore: I want to ask the minister on this section the question I asked a few moments ago. I should like to know whether or not the passage of this bill will commit Canada more securely to the united nations organization than is the case at the present time, before the bill passes.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, Mr. Chairman. I would say Canada is no more firmly ' committed than before the passing of this bill, because Canada has already undertaken that the united nations should have the immunities required to carry out the purposes for which the organization was formed. Less than an hour ago the house unanimously gave its approval to the international refugee organization, which in article 13 states:
The organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its members such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its objectives.
2. (a) The organization shall enjoy in the *territory of each of its members such privileges and immunities as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fuffilment of its objectives.
This is a statute to provide that the governor in council may authorize the accession of Canada to the document which was drawn up, to set out in detail the immunity and privileges deemed to be necessary to permit the united nations and associated organs to carry out the purposes for which they have been formed. So it does not seem to me that we are com-
LThe Deputy Chairman.]
mitting Canada any more than Canada is committed at the present time. Article 105 of the charter of the united nations, to which Canada is committed, states:
1. The organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its members such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes.
Paragraph 3 provides:
3. The general assembly may make recommendations with a view to determining the details of the applications of paragraphs ll and 2 of this article or may propose conventions to the members of the united nations for this purpose.
The general assembly proposed a convention, and that is the convention annexed to Bill No. 272. The purpose of the bill is to authorize Canada to accede to the convention. If Canada does so, with such reservations as are made, then we shall have a precise determination of what are the immunities and privileges regarded as necessary to enable the organization to fulfil its purpose. If we do not accede to the convention we still have the obligation in general terms, but we have not the details set out in the convention. Therefore I say we do not commit Canada any further. We dot the i's and cross the t's in the undertaking which we have already given, and which we gave again in connection with an associated organization this very afternoon when we approved the constitution of the international refugee organization.
Mr. DIEFENBAIvER: Personally I cannot see that the application of the united nations to Canada would be any greater by the adoption of this bill than has been the case heretofore. What it actually does, as I see it, is to carry into effect, into the world of the united nations, the immunities that ordinarily follow diplomats. If I read the history of diplomatic immunity correctly, however, the tendency in the last twenty years has been to restrict those immunities as far as possible. I did some reading on the matter, and found that the first general law on immunity, as far as Great Britain is concerned, goes back to the reign of Queen Anne. The Russian ambassador in England having been arrested, strong objection was taken by the Russian government, which resulted in the passing of the diplomatic privileges act of 1708, providing for diplomatic immunities which have been continued since that time. But on a reading of the Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences of 1932, one conclusion stands out. In view of the increasing number of the staff of the secretariats connected with the then league of nations, the tendency was to restrict diplomatic immunities in general as far as possible.

United Nations
One can understand that, having regard to what took place in Ottawa less than two years ago, as revealed by Mr. Gouzenko. Persons enjoying diplomatic immunity by reason of their position actually enjoyed immunity from prosecution, which enabled them to carry on their work of seeking to undermine the state to which they had been accredited. However I rose for the purpose of finding out just how this will apply in one individual case, that of Mr. John Grierson. I am not going to place upon Hansard anything that will cause harm to anyone, but Mr. Grierson's position was this. He endeavoured to enter the United States and was denied a visa. He was granted a 29-day visitor's permit, which he utilized from time to time. Why the United States authorities refused to grant him a visa I am not going to say, but they took that stand; and information has been given to me as to the reason that visa was refused.
Then, Mr. Grierson went abroad and received an appointment from the British government to the Paris conference as technical adviser on film matters to the British delegation. By reason of that position he received certain immunities from the Canadian government. I rise to ask the minister this question: If tire bill in its present form is passed, will Mr. Grierson now be able to enter the United States, regardless of the wishes of the United States, and whether or not he receives a visa from the authorities of the United States?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The question is: Would Mr. Grierson be allowed to enter the United States if the United States adhered to this convention?


John George Diefenbaker: And Canada passes it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: And regardless of the wishes of their immigration authorities with respect to the visa. I did not understand from the statement made by the hon. member that Mr. Grierson had ever become an official of the united nations. This will apply only to officials of the united nations or to officials of agencies in relation with the united nations, and would not apply to one who was accompanying the British delegation as an adviser, as I understood the hon. member to say. I understood him to say that that was the position Mr. Grierson occupied and that he had gone to France.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been no adviser on film matters.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know of any organization which has to do with films and which has become a related organization with the united nations.
83166-309J


John George Diefenbaker: Does he not today hold a position in the united nations?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Perhaps he does; I do not know. If he were an officer of the united nations organization and the United States congress had authorized the accession of the United States to this convention, he would then be admitted without the ordinary immigration visa being required.


John George Diefenbaker: Has any question been raised in this connection? Has the minister any correspondence regarding Mr. Grierson in this regard?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; and the question the hon. member submits is not one that would concern us at all. It would concern the entry of Mr. Grierson into the United States. That would be something wholly within the concern of the United States authorities. I do not see how we can be concerned in any way, and I know of no correspondence in connection with the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, as technical correspondence with the minister's department regarding Mr. Grierson's right to enter the United States?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Well, I shall inquire; none has been brought to my attention. There has been nothing brought to my attention. There was a question which arose some time ago about Mr. Grierson, and at that time there was nothing. Nothing has been brought to my attention since.


John Horne Blackmore: Supposing this same Mr. Grierson with the record he has established, should be appointed to the united nations and should come to Canada, Canada would be utterly unable to keep him out or control him while here; is that right?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think Canada would probably be unable to prevent Mr. Grierson, as a British subject, from coming here, unless our immigration authorities took the position that he was likely to become a public charge.


John George Diefenbaker: There are other reasons under the law.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is the state of our immigration law. Citizens of the United Kingdom, of the other dominions, of Newfoundland and of the United States have always been free to come here, unless our immigration authorities took the position that they were likely to become public charges. I know of no other reason. Of course we can deport a man who has come here if he makes himself objectionable in the manner described in the Immigration Act. There is a provision in that act which prevents the admission of
United Nations

those who advocate the overthrow by violence of constituted authority. But I do not know that anything of that kind has ever been asserted against Mr. Grierson.


John George Diefenbaker: Now, just to carry this a step further: Mr. Grierson is appointed by the Canadian government to one of the administrative positions within the ambit of this measure.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Oh, no.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, supposing he were?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That supposition will have to suppose a government other than the one in office.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, for a long time h,e certainly was in the favour of this government. Why does the minister say that? Has there been some reason for a change?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Grierson is not today, and there has never been any contemplation of appointing him to one of the functions of the united nations. The question has never arisen.


John George Diefenbaker: Let us take a hypothetical case. One A, who is not wanted in the United States, and to whom United States authorities have refused to grant a visa, is appointed by Canada to one of the positions either in the united nations or one of its agencies. Would such a person then be allowed to enter the United States, regardless of the wish of the authorities of that country?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to evade the question. I shall answer the question as if all the premises contained in the question could be realized. I would say yes, that he could get in. But the hon. member is making a mistake. Members of the united nations do not make appointments of the officers. I't is the united nations organization itself that makes the appointments. A question was submitted by, I believe, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin about a Mr. Ryan who was supposed to be in the employ of the united nations, and I inquired. The members do not even recommend the appointments. They are made by the secretariat on its own responsibility.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for the explanation. I am interested in the statement he made a minute ago, that one thing which would never happen was that Mr. Grierson would get an appointment from this government, because-


Brooke Claxton: He did not say that.


John George Diefenbaker: -I recall that at the Paris conference Mr. Grierson was nominated to be director or executive secretary, and at that conference Mr. Grierson had the support, among others, of the Canadian and Australian delegations. I suggest that to the minister by way of answer to what the minister said.


Brooke Claxton: You are not answering anything, because the minister did not say what you said he said.


John George Diefenbaker: After all, the minister can speak with just as much authority as can my hon. friend.


Brooke Claxton: Yes.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The record will
speak for us all, and the record will show that I was denying that that was an appointment to be made, because the matter had never come up and there had never been any suggestion that it was going to be done.


Mr. MacNICOL:: When or if any representatives of the united nations are admitted under these regulations, do they have to conform to the laws of Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	They have to conform to the laws of Canada with respect to the ordinary conduct of persons passing through Canada. They would be in the same situation as diplomatic personnel.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A Belgian consul picked
me up in Brussels when I wanted to go to Vimy Ridge and he drove along at about seventy-five miles per hour. I told him that I thought he was going over the speed limit, and he said, "Do you not see the consular flag on the front of my car? There are no laws relating to speed that apply.'' I should like to know if any of these officials who are driving motor oars through Canada will be subject to our speed regulations.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The question has
arisen with respect to diplomatic personnel, and representations are usually made to the head of the mission if anything contrary to good conduct occurs. So far we have had no trouble, because the heads of missions are usually careful to see that their personnel do not offend the citizens of the country to which they are accredited. I should not like to give a legal opinion as to what would happen if we took the matter to court, but that is the practical way in which it is worked and that practice has given satisfaction.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of
National Defence rushed in so fast a moment ago and displayed a rather unusual interest in this subject. Since he has chosen to say

United Nations
what the other minister intended to say, I should like to ask him if, after Mr. Grierson retired from the film board and attempted to get a visa to the United States, he tried to get Mr. Grierson that visa?


Brooke Claxton: The suggestion implied
in my hon. friend's remarks is most improper to the discussion here, but I am quite ready to answer him now and say at once, no. I must say that I think these remarks about somebody who is not here to defend himself and who has a distinguished record of service in three countries of the commonwealth are most unfair. I know nothing of anything that could be said or insinuated or charged against him in any field of activity. What I intervened to say was not to say what the minister intended to say, but to suggest to my hon. friend that he had not said what my hon. friend said he had said.


Gordon Graydon: We have an increasing number of people who will come under these broad privileges and immunities. I want to follow up what I said in a previous debate today, and I think what I say now will tie in or dovetail with the remarks I made then. We have increased month by month the organizations and related agencies of the united nations to a point where, if the accelerated pace is maintained and we continue to grant these immunities and privileges, we may find ourselves at a point far beyond where we thought we would go when the San Francisco charter was signed.
That is no reason for Canada welshing on her obligations in any way so far as the charter of the united nations is concerned. I have no desire this afternoon to oppose this particular bill on that ground, but I think the public ought to know and the government ought to be warned that there is a limit to the distance this country will go in support of this line of reasoning. If we increase our related agencies to the extent where it now looks as if they are to be increased, the Visiting Forces Act which concerned hon. members a short time ago will not be anything compared with the immunities and privileges given under this particular piece of legislation.
As I say, Canada has no intention of reneging on her international obligations. This country could not afford to do that. But I think my argument in an earlier debate today is supported. I said then that we had to call a halt at some time to the trend of increasing international organizations. I do not suppose the minister has any idea of how many people a nation could send into this country for perfectly lawful purposes. I do not suppose there
is any way whereby the government could stop a country which might be outwardly friendly, but inwardly something else, from sending in a great body of people who would enjoy immunities and privileges not enjoyed by loyal Canadian citizens.
Our citizens will stand for a certain amount of this, but there has to be a halt at some time. If we establish in this country immunities and privileges for a great number of people; if the average citizen of Canada sees that these people enjoy special rights in our courts and in other respects, they will say, and they will say it pretty quickly, "Why should I enjoy lesser privileges than the people who belong to another country?" As I say, we cannot be small or picayune about this thing, and I am not raising it for that reason at all. I think the minister and the government are perhaps as much concerned about it as we are over here. I am sure they would not want a situation to arise which would look ridiculous in the eyes of the Canadian citizens. They will want to know what this parliament has been doing behind their backs and why it has attempted to put this class of people in a more preferred category than loyal Canadian citizens.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I thank the hon. member for the warning. This applies to the united nations, and the immunity granted is granted only to officers of the united nations exercising functions here or travelling to and from the place of meeting. That would not allow any nation to send substantial numbers into this countiy on any other pretext than travelling frofn one point to another in the country in order to get to the place of meeting. The matter might have a much more serious aspect if the headquarters were in Canada instead of in the United States of America. The immunities with respect to the specialized agencies will apply only to those to which Canada belongs.


Gordon Graydon: She belongs to them all.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: She belongs to those in which membership has been authorized by the houses of parliament.


Gordon Graydon: She belongs to them all really.
Mr. ST. LALTRENT: She belongs to these which have been established; she will belong to the IRO as soon as that is completed; she belongs to the ILO, and there are others in process of formation.


John Horne Blackmore: knd UNESCO?
United Nations

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I shall be coining before the house in a short time with a matter concerning UNESCO, and I shall be glad to have my hon. friend's views upon it. I am sure that he will wish them to be placed on Hansard. The hon. member realizes what the situation is. The general undertaking has been made. It is being made precise in this convention, and it will apply to such specialized agencies as the houses of parliament authorize Canada to belong to. The hon. member says that means them all. It does at the present time mean all those that are functioning, and we shall, I think, go on; I hope we shall go on for a long time believing in the international organizations.


John Horne Blackmore: That is what will happen.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I hope we shall continue for a long time to believe in them. I hope they will be such that we can afford to believe in them; but when it comes to the point where we come to the conclusion that they are more costly than beneficial the houses of parliament will then express that opinion, and whatever government is in office will have to act accordingly.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at seven o'clock.


William Henry Golding: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were dealing with clause 2. Shall the clause carry?


John Horne Blackmore: When the committee rose we were giving some attention to the various widely ramifying branches of consideration into which this united nations subject might lead us through the passing of this bill to grant immunities. I think the hon. member for Peel gave the committee some sobering thoughts when he expressed the ideas I understood him to convey, that when the united nations organization was accepted at San Francisco in 1945 no one had the slightest idea how far it would branch out. Every member of this house who voted for the united nations organization in December, 1945, is, I believe, in the same position.
I believe it is the right of the Canadian people in the country generally who read Hansard to know something of the scope which this bill takes in. The newspapers are saying nothing about it; the radio is saying nothing about it, as far as I can make out; the people just do not know what is involved. I

should like to devote a few moments to the consideration of some of the things into which this bill can lead us with respect to men who have immunities similar to the one which the hon. member for Davenport referred to this afternoon. A man might be able to break the traffic rules with immunity and impunity.
In the first place, we are granting immunities to all the specialized agencies of the united nations organization. I think everyone will agree with that. The minister referred to several of these before he took his seat at six o'clock. May I list the ones he gave us on June 6 when discussing the matter. First of all, there was the international labour organization. Then there was FAO and UNESCO and the international "civil aviation organization, the international telecommunication union, the universal postal union and the world health organization. The minister was not quite sure whether he could accept the Bretton Woods proposals as coming under these united nations agencies.
I think it is fitting that we should give some attention to the possibility of Bretton Woods being one of these agencies. I do not wish to detain the committee, but there are matters concerning which the people have a right to be informed. The minister suggested on June 6 that the international trade organization would be one of the specialized agencies in all probability. Then there is the refugee organization to which we have just agreed today. There are probably others.
No one in the house, the minister least of all, would suggest that there might not be other specialized agencies. I might say, by the way, that the Bretton Woods agreements I regard as one of the most dangerous of these specialized agencies, and with regard to the Bretton Woods proposal, I think the members of the committee will be interested in a speech which was sent by President Roosevelt to the United States congress on February 12, 1945.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Perhaps the hon. member will permit me to say this. I think he knows I am not trying to prevent him from making his points, but the specialized agencies are dealt with in the following section, section 3. That is the one under which the monetary fund or the international bank can be brought into the scope of the convention.


John Horne Blackmore: I thank the minister. I shall be happy to discuss it then.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If it suited the con. venience of the hon. member, section 2 might be passed and section 3 called. That deals with the specialized agencies.

United Nations


John Horne Blackmore: I shall be happy to cooperate with the minister in that respect. May I mention two other general headings with which I wish to deal, and the minister can tell me under which section I can discuss them. One is the special organs and the other is staffs?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The staff of the organs?


John Horne Blackmore: It is not specified, but in article 101 mention is made of staffs which can be appointed by the secretary general, and I should like to discuss that question. Under what section shall I do so?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Section 2 applies to the united nations and the officers of the united nations, and section 3 says that the same privileges can be extended to specialized agencies or their staffs, so that if the hon. member wished to speak of the officers of the united nations it would be under section 2, and the officers of the specialized agencies would be under section 3.


John Horne Blackmore: Then I had better deal with the staffs of the organs because, if I read aright, they are a part of the united nations.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Perhaps the Chairman would allow us to deal with sections 2 and 3 together.


William Henry Golding: It is in order to deal with sections 2 and 3 if the committee so desires.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That would make it quite in order.


John Horne Blackmore: That will please me. My object is just to get the facts before the people so that they will know beforehand where this is taking us. Shall I go on with the specialized agencies?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Then I will read this excerpt from President Roosevelt's message to congress in 1945, which indicated quite clearly the importance which he attached to Bretton Woods and his idea as to whether the united nations organization could function effectively at all without Bretton Woods. Before I read it, may I just draw this fact to the attention of hon. members and the people out in the country. When our representatives went to San Francisco they had the recommendations of two conferences to work upon. Those two conferences were the Dumbarton Oaks conference and the Bretton Woods conference. Of course, of those two, Bretton Woods constitutes one-half; so that
to suggest that Bretton Woods would not become a specialized agency of the united nations would perhaps indicate a little bit of carelessness in thinking. Having said that, may I read the statement which President Roosevelt made in his message to congress. It is as follows:
International political relations will be friendly and constructive, however, only if solutions are found to the difficult economic problems we face today. The corner-stone for international economic cooperation is the Bretton Woods proposals for an international monetary fund and an international bank for reconstruction and development.
I could refer to three or four other quotations from prominent United States statesmen of those days which, I believe,, would establish beyond any question that Bretton Woods is designed to become one of the specialized agencies. Hon. members and the people out in the country will recognize that this is a long list of specialized agencies, and some of these specialized agencies have wide ramifications of their own. Take UNESCO, for example. That is one of the most nebulous and most generally indefinite organizations before us today. Nobody knows what the scope of the activities of UNESCO ultimately will be, or what influence it will be able to wield upon the very children who are in their cradles and growing up today; who will set the programme which it is going to teach, and what control we shall have over that programme. There are, a great many other specialized agencies which are capable of development. Take the international trade organization. I almost tremble when I think of the possibility of that organization when it is fully developed, because of the things I know concerning the objectives of the men who are working to build up that trade organization, particularly people in the United States administration. There are all those specialized agencies. Just to indicate how wide is the interpretation of these immunities in regard to specialized agencies, may I read a little passage from the Canadian Bretton Woods Agreement Act of 1945? It may be argued that Bretton Woods is not yet one of the specialized agencies, but I will venture to say that it will be. So that this little quotation of a few lines has particular significance in this discussion. Hon. members will notice that in article IX, section 8, of the Bretton Woods Agreement Act passed in this house in 1945, the following words appear:
Immunities and privileges of officers and employees.
All governors, executive directors, alternates, officers and employees of the fund
United Nations

(i)	shall be immune from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the fund waives this immunity.
It may be said that is only "in their official capacity", but I will wager that it will be utterly impossible for anyone to demarcate exactly what will constitute acts in their official capacity. The section continues:
(ii)	not being local nationals, shall be granted the same immunities from immigration restrictions, alien registration requirements and national service obligations and the same facilities as regards exchange restrictions as are accorded by members to the representatives, officials, and employees of comparable rank of other members;
(iii)	shall be granted the same treatment in respect of travelling facilities as is accorded by members to representatives, officials and employees of comparable rank of other members.
I feel that I should say one thing with respect to what the minister urged a few minutes before six o'clock; and it was a wise and fitting remark which he made. He said that where any man today enjoying immunities commits an offence, representations are made to the nation which he represents and of course they deal with him. That is a thing which could be expected from a nation. But let us bear in mind that, in the case of these gentlemen, we are dealing, not with people who represent nations, but rather with the people who represent international organizations; and their bosses, shall we say, or their employers, will not be anywhere nearly so circumspect or punctilious about the disciplining of their officials and employees. Consequently we shall not have available to us the means which we now employ to bring the representatives of nations into conformity with our laws and practices.
So much for the specialized agencies. May I now turn for a minute or two to another class of people who are to be granted immunities under this act. A few minutes ago I referred to organs. May I now read from the united nations charter in respect of these organs. At page 76 of the booklet which I have in my hand, "Report on the United Nations Conference on International Organization," in chapter III of the charter, article 7, we read regarding organs:
There are established as the principal organs of the united nations: a general assembly, a security council, an economic and social council, a trusteeship council, an international court of justice, and a secretariat.
That is a rather large order. Clause 2 goes on:
Such subsidiary organs as may be found necessary may be established in accordance with the present charter.
There you have room for a very wide development beyond what we already have.

Surely this thing is a serious matter; it is far more serious than is the granting of immunities to the representatives of the nations of the world.
May I now turn to another aspect of the question, namely, the staffs. May I read again from the united nations charter, page 114 of the booklet on the charter that I have. Hon. members and the people out in the country will see another wide range of possibility. According to article 101:
1. The staff shall be appointed by the secretary general under regulations established by the general assembly;
Over which we have no control. Paragraph 2 of article 101 reads as follows:
Appropriate staffs shall be permanently assigned to the economic and social council, the trusteeship council, and, as required, to other organs of the united nations. These staffs shall form a part of the secretariat.
3. The paramount consideration in the employment of the staff and in the determination of the conditions of service shall be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity. Due regard shall be paid to the importance of recruiting the staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible.
Inasmuch as the hon. member for Lake Centre raised the question of John Grierson this afternoon, I think it would be well for us to apply our thinking to this gentleman for a minute or two. Probably the reputation he has established is such that no one in Canada would be glad to know that this man was on one of the staffs or was on one of the special organs or one of the specialized] agencies, with freedom to come and go in Canada as he saw fit. Yet, according to the wording I have read, it is a distinct possibility that this gentleman would be so selected by the secretary-general, for example, over whom no nation has control. And I think it fitting that I should read something about that secretary-general, just briefly, to show what wide powers he has and what powers he has for mischief in case he should choose to use them. It may be argued that he will not use his powers for mischief. It can be argued that a lion will not use its teeth and claws for damage, or that a serpent will not use its sting, but the wise person takes great precautions in such matters.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A serpent does not have a sting.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, sometimes serpents have power to squeeze people to death, like the giant pythons. May I read just this word concerning the secretary general, and I am now quoting from article 97 of chapter XV of the charter of the united nations:
The secretariat shall comprise a secretary general and such staff as the organization may

United Nations
require. The secretary general shall be appointed by the general assembly upon the recommendation of the security council. He shall be the chief administrative officer of the organization.
I should say a person would not be speaking extravagantly if he said the secretary general, if he happened to be the right man, could become the super-dictator of the world; and it would be simply impossible to do anything about the matter. Now I read article 98:
The secretary general shall act in that capacity in all meetings of the general assembly, of the security council, of the economic and social council, and of the trusteeship council, and shall perform such other functions as are entrusted to him by these organs. The secretary general shall make an annual report to the general assembly on the work of the organization.
Nothing very serious there, but I go on to the next article:
The secretary general may bring to the attention of the security council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.
If I were free, if the Chairman would consider it in order, I could comment on those words in a way which I believe would make the ordinary person in this country seriously concerned. Now I quote article 100:
In the performance of their duties the secretary genera] and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the organization.
We feel happy about that, because we say no nation is going to control this secretary general.
They shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their position as international officials responsible only to the organization.
2. Each member of the united nations undertakes to respect the exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the secretary general and the staff and not to seek to influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities.
Already I think hon. members will have wondered this. Suppose some international organization such as communism, or certain other great international organizations which all hon. members can think of but which I shall not name on the floor of this house, gained access to this secretary general. Suppose they did the dictating or the advising of the staff in accordance with their desires, and enjoyed all the immunities which are to be granted to these gentlemen in this country. Why, Mr. Chairman, the situation is appalling. It almost reminds one of the coming of a flight of locusts. These people will be everywhere. There will be hordes of them. They will be in our restaurants; they will be in our trains; they will be in our post offices-


Mr. CROLL:: They will be in our hair.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, they will be in our hair. They will be in a position to listen to practically everything said in this country, a situation which will simply render freedom of speech almost an impossibility if the right people are in charge in the united nations organization. As I said the other day, the ordinary citizen of this nation will walk in fear and dread of the most hideous bureaucracy the mind of man has ever conceived; and this bill provides for the immunity of all these representatives so that they can perform at liberty, without fear of any kind of check this country could possibly exercise over them.
I think I have said enough on this matter at least to arouse anxiety. I would say, let us go forward with the greatest of circumspection. We can do harm the seriousness of which we may not dream. Just before six o'clock it was said by the minister that if we found these people were beginning to get out of hand-these were not the words he used- and were overstepping their bounds, we would have to do something about the matter. Well, Mr. Chairman, ordinarily if you want to kill a snake the best time to do so is when it is in the egg stage, not when it is fully grown. I dare venture to suggest that when this terrible bureaucracy which has been pictured in the passages I have read is once thoroughly fixed, with its tentacles in every single phase of our lives, economic, social, political and everything else, it will be a matter of impossibility for this house ever to pass a regulation in any way curtailing these gentlemen. No government would dare bring in such a regulation. We have seen that sort of thing already with respect to the united nations and Bretton Woods. All the government had to do was simply bring in those measures and the members of this house just fell like ten-pins. Let any ordinary member reflect on the attitude that was taken by members of this house, except for the Social Credit group, in the fall of 1945, when we were discussing the united nations organization and the Bretton Woods agreement. Would the members of the house tolerate any intelligent discussion of the matter at all? Not a word. Any question of the motives? Not a word. Would they permit me even to speak, as they are indulgently doing now? No, sir; there was a chorus going on; and hon. members who were here can remember that a whole body of men on the Liberal side were literally deriding every word I uttered. Why? Just because the members of the house had accepted this thing; because there had been a widespread, highly paid, skilfully worked up

United Nations

propaganda going on in this country for three solid years to condition the country into readiness to accept the united nations organization and all its works, whatever it meant; and the Bretton Woods agreement, whatever it meant.
Already hon. members have found that the united nations organization is a disappointment. As a means of preventing war, as far as we can see today, as we approach the possibility of another calamity, it has no power at all; bnt in these dreadful aspects of it, these secret, hidden things as hinted in this bill, it has 100 per cent strength. They are right here in this measure we are passing. They will go on developing, whether the united nations ever does any good in preventing war. That is a very serious matter.
Then I think I should spend just a moment or two on the Bretton Woods agreement; I believe I shall still be in order. Has that agreement done anything in the world to improve the economic conditions of the world up to the present time? Not a thing.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: It will.


John Horne Blackmore: Oh, yes; absolute implicit faith on the part of the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is what we need in this parliament.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall be glad, to debate the matter with the minister in great detail. I shall be pleased to show him and this parliament that it is utterly impossible for the Bretton Woods agreement to do anything genuinely effective to improve conditions among men, and one of the best evidences of that is to be found: in an article which recently appeared in Toronto Saturday Night, which stated that the loan granted to France was as I remember it only, about a quarter of what France had asked for. And the poor, useless loan, when it is granted to France, will be worth about as much as a sixth wheel on an automobile as far as rehabilitating that country is concerned. The Bretton Woods organization is simply not built upon a pattern which will permit it to do anything genuinely effective in rehabilitating the world; and hon. members will see that in the course of a few years. I will say no more at the present time on the matter at this stage, except to urge once more that we must examine this whole united, nations and Bretton Woods situation with the utmost caution. I would urge the government not to bring before the house any more bills giving any more strength whatsoever to these two organizations until they prove their worth by

yielding fruits which show their worth. They certainly have not done anything yet to justify confidence in them.
The other day the Prime Minister gave a speech in which he pointed out the great value of the united nations. The main burden of his remarks was that the united nations has managed to keep Norway, Denmark and. other northern countries with us. We could have kept them with us through the British commonwealth just as well as we can through the united nations.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh.


John Horne Blackmore: There is no "oh" about it. I will wager you that the British commonwealth of nations twenty-five years ago had far more prestige, far more power, and a far greater record of worth-while achievement in this world than the united nations will ever have.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh.


John Horne Blackmore: And. I am putting, my words on Hansard, so that people who question the wisdom of what I am saying will be able to check. I have no anxiety about having to withdraw any of it.
Having said that, I will refrain from speaking further at the present time.


Norman Jaques: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
associate myself with the remarks just made by the hon. member for Lethbridge. If I am in order I should like to say a few words with respect to one of the official agencies of the united nations, known as UNESCO.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Mr. Chairman, I
do not think we should allow this to go on. I told the hon. member for Lethbridge that I would have a measure before the house dealing specifically with UNESCO. I know these two hon. members are quite sincere in their views about everything connected with the united nations. They are fearful that they might not have another opportunity to speak. But there will be another opportunity to deal with UNESCO. I did not want to interrupt the hon. member for Lethbridge when he was speaking, because his remarks about UNESCO seemed to be incidental to the main purpose of his argument. But I do say to the hon. member for Wetaski-win that there will be an opportunity to discuss UNESCO. UNESCO has not yet become a related agency. This house has authorized Canada to become a member of UNESCO, and I shall have a matter to bring before the house in connection with which UNESCO may be considered. But in this measure there is no specific reference to

United Nations
UNESCO, and I would ask the hon. member to wait until that matter is raised before he proceeds with this subject.


Norman Jaques: I have no wish to go against the will of the committee or the wishes of the minister, so long as we do not discuss UNESCO after we have given our approval of it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I can assure the hon. member that nothing is being done here which wall prejudice what he may have to say against UNESCO. Nothing is being done in the bill which will deprive him of any rights he may have for that discussion. I assure him there will be another opportunity.


Norman Jaques: I thank the minister, and
I shall say no more about UNESCO at the present time.
Mention has been made of John Grierson. I mentioned this gentleman's name a few weeks ago in the committee on external affairs. I said my information was that, on leaving Canada, he had been refused admission to the United States. I was contradicted, and my information was described as rubbish. I have since learned that what I had been told was perfectly true. When John Grierson left here, he was not admitted to the United States. He then went to Great Britain and obtained a diplomatic passport, so that they were unable to stop him from entering the United States. That, may I say, is authentic information.
I have collected information with respect to Grierson's activities in this country when he was here, which prove beyond question that he was-I do not say he was a member of the communist party, but a fellow traveller, and was working in the interests of communism. If necessary, I can put on Hansard the notes I have collected. I might mention that in the wartime information board Grierson asked for two officers from the Department of National Defence-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


Norman Jaques: Well, what I am trying
to do is to warn, if I can


William Henry Golding: Order. We
are dealing with sections 2 and 3 together, and I do not think the hon. member is in order to put on record anything about John Grierson. Any speech he makes at this time must be relevant to the two sections.


Mr. KUHL:: You have not heard his point yet.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	I say to the hon.
member that' the estimates for the Depart-83166-310J
ment of External Affairs will be before the committee. Sums are mentioned there for the wartime information board, and if the hon. member has warnings he thinks the department should take into consideration he will no doubt give us those warnings at that time. They will be perfectly in order at that time.


Norman Jaques: I am not doubting the minister's assurance, at all. However, I do have painful memories of the last two occasions when the estimates of the Department of External Affairs were before the house. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario reminded us about that this afternoon. I had the greatest difficulty on August 31 of last year to say anything on the subject at all, because I believe it was in the last half hour of the session. I believe mine was the last speech made in that session. It is not easy to speak against the good will of the whole house. That is the reason I thought I would take this opportunity.
People need to be warned against insidious propaganda from men who masquerade under assumed names. Grierson, of course, used his own name. But may I mention one about whom I was questioned when I was in New York. They were most anxious and curious about one Stanley Ryan, who has a responsible job with the united nations organization. He represented the press in Greece when the united nations was investigating political conditions in that country. According to the Greek government, he gave entirely false and unreliable information to the world. Naturally I thought Stanley Ryan was an Irishman, or at least an Irish-Canadian. But his real name is Doctor Leo Gershon, and he was born in Russia. He entered Canada illegally and was released from immigration detention in November, 1940. The 1940 report I have is that Gershon's status was questionable and also his background, and that he must be regarded as of potential danger if admitted. He was recommended for internment; yet we find this man in a key position in the united nations.
Then I came across a man by the name of Edward Parker, a name which is more English than mine. According to the report I have, Edward Parker is a Russian Hebrew, an employee of the provincial government of Saskatchewan.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: He was.


Norman Jaques: At the time this report was made. When the Winnipeg ballet was in Regina he told them that he could arrange a tour of the Soviet Union because he was
United Nations

in direct communication with the Russian ambassador in Washington. At that time Edward Parker-I do not know his real name 

was a director of adult education in Saskatchewan..
There is another case, and I could go on and fill pages of Hansard with details of these people who are not Canadian, who are not British, who are aliens.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On a point of order, I think the whole discussion is out of order, but the hon. member is not keeping to the facts. The man in question was never director of adult education in Saskatchewan. In view of the fact that it is out of order and the facts stated are not facts, I think, Mr. Chairman, you should rule it as being out of order.


Norman Jaques: My information is that he was.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: He was not.


William Henry Golding: Again I ask the committee.


Norman Jaques: I have no -wish to go against the rules of the house or your rulings, Mr. Chairman, which I have always found to be perfectly fair. Parker was a member of the personnel of the adult education branch in Saskatchewan. I mentioned him simply to warn people to be on their guard in connection with this whole idea of adult education, world culture and science. They are all working one way; they are drifting toward communism, or totalitarianism if you prefer. It is not British; it is not Canadian, and finally it is not Christian.
We are asked to give immunities to these people so that they may have the run of the country. No matter what they say or do, they will be above the law. We should consider carefully before we give our consent to that. My only desire in speaking is to warn, not the members of the house so much, but the people outside, through the pages of Hansard, of this threat to our way of life. In my opinion there is a deliberate plot to destroy and alter our way of life and substitute therefor something which is totally alien to our culture and our nature. It involves the loss of our freedom and sovereignty which we have fought two wars to preserve. Having won the war, are we to lose everything we fought for?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Only one of these agencies, the international civil aviation organization, is located in Canada. The officers of that organization would enjoy these immunities while in Canada, but the others
fMr. Jaques.]
would have these immunities only while travelling across Canada to go to the headquarters of the united nations or to one or other of the specialized agencies. I think the hon. members for Lethbridge and Wetaskiwin may feel assured that it will be only the officers and members of the staff of I.C.A.O., having its headquarters in Montreal, who will be enjoying these immunities at this time. I do not think the dangers pointed out by the hon. members are things that many Canadians will have anything to worry; about.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: The right hon. minister might mention that Russia is not a member of the international civil aviation organization.


Mr. LOW:: Is it not possible that the united nations could and might be sending a mission to Canada, let us say to investigate some situation here? In a case of that kind, would it not be possible for quite a large number of technicians and employees of the united nations to be travelling in Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That would be possible if it were so decided by the majority of the united nations at a meeting of the general assembly. I have lived for sixty-five years in Canada, and I have yet to find anything happening here that I would feel would move a majority of fifty-five nations to want to send a mission to investigate us.


Gordon Graydon: I rise to a question of privilege. The right hon. minister is not being fair to himself when he suggests that age because he does not look nearly that old.


Solon Earl Low: While I want to congratulate the right hon. minister on keeping his youth, I do not think he would keep it very long or at least not much longer if a possibility such as this should arise. General MoNaughton appeared before the external affairs committee and he made the astounding statement that sufficient atom bombs to destroy a city the size of New York could be carried in the back of an ordinary automobile. It is conceivable that a group of technicians coming into Canada, with their cars immune from examination, could bring in dangerous things. Under the terms of this bill we would have no right to search their baggage or to look into the backs of their cars to find out what they had or what they were taking away with them.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member is not suggesting that the united nations are in the business of sending atomic bombs about?


Solon Earl Low: There are certain organizations-


An hon. MEMBER:: It is an exaggeration.


Solon Earl Low: My hon. friend over here is a baby; he has not yet learned to suspect any-

United Nations
thing. He spends most of his time in this house shouting "Order, order." That is about all he knows. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that certain technicians might be retained for certain purposes by one of the specialized agencies or by the united nations, and they could make clandestine contact with emissaries from another nation, similar to the contact that was made just off Long Island during the late war. Transfers of very dangerous things can be made in their baggage. It is that that we want to be on guard against. I think it is only right that we should point out the possibilities, even though they may be extreme ones, if this bill passes.


Angus MacInnis: I wish to say one word in this connection. The arguments of my hon. friends to the left have given me the impression that they have the totalitarian mind which sees a danger in every bush. I think it was Shakespeare who said that "the thief doth fear each bush an officer." These ideas that everybody is a dangerous person or is a potentially dangerous person do not exist outside of the totalitarian state.


Solon Earl Low: That is where they do exist.


Angus MacInnis: That is what I am saying. That is where these suspicions exist. Every person is suspect by every other person, and our hon. friends would have us bring that suspicion into Canada. Let me tell my hon. friends that the United Kingdom has ratified this convention without qualification. It seems to me that if there is any country in the world today where freedom exists it is in the United Kingdom. They are so conscious of the strength of freedom that they are not afraid if they bring somebody into the country he will corrupt them. Nations are not corrupted by bringing in somebody from the outside; they are corrupted from the inside. Canada will always be safe so long as the Canadian people maintain their integrity and their love of freedom. If we are to be destroyed by a few people coming here from the outside it means that we are ready for what these people are bringing us. Take the investigations into the espionage cases. The fault was not that outsiders were spying on the affairs of Canada; the fault was that they found people inside Canada ready to do their work.


Solon Earl Low: Under the direction of those who came.


Angus MacInnis: They would do their work whether these people came from the outside or not. We have this country sufficiently controlled to prevent the dangers that my hon. friends see. Let me say again that, in
the debate they have carried on today they are exhibiting every characteristic of the totalitarian mind.


Norman Jaques: In answer to the statement made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat that we are suspicious of these people, let me say that I well remember when I came back to Canada during the war via New York, I am not exaggerating when I say I covered six pages of foolscap with my fingerprints before I was allowed to enter the United States.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member does not look like a communist.


Norman Jaques: Having had that happen to me, I have a right to point this out. Why should these people be immune? There is only one answer. It is because they are always looking toward the left, and they are fellow travellers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Norman Jaques: It is an amazing thing. It is a passport. I remember when General Chisholm was hoisted into one of the finest jobs in the world the very day after he sneered at everything that we should hold sacred. That is a passport in these days to an international job. 'If hon. members will look at Hansard they will see I said that, having sneered at the spirit of Christmas which we sum up in Santa Claus, Chisholm was given this fine job. I put that on Hansard. If he took a crack at the Passover I wonder what sort of job he would get. He would be out on his ear the next day without any job. If my hon. friends opposite went into a bank to cash a cheque, would they count the change? When they do, are they accusing the bank teller of being a cheat? It should be ordinary common sense and good business.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Norman Jaques: I am only trying to warn the people of the sort of creeping paralysis that is upon us. People seem to have lost their power of thinking as individuals.


Mr. MUTCH:: They have been talked to death.


Norman Jaques: They have been for years subjected to mass propaganda by commentators and columnists. That has gone on day in and day out. People with no responsibility whatsoever have been talking to them. If you were to ask such people as Walter Winchell-


William Henry Golding: Order.
United, Nations


Norman Jaques: These are the people who are educating the world today. They have a monopoly of the press and radio. If I were to try to say anything in rebuttal I would find myself off the air. I suppose that will be out of order. I shall mention it when the estimates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation come up.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister made quite an impression by telling the committee that he has been sixty-five years in Canada and has never seen anything to cause him to worry. He did not spend the sixty-five years in a Canada under the united nations organization with its agencies granted full immunities.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Section 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported on division.
James Horace King: When shall the bill be read1 a third time?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Now.


John Horne Blackmore: Next sitting of the house. I move the adjournment of the debate.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no amendment to the bill.


John Horne Blackmore: Next sitting of the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are entitled to ask for the third reading now, since there is no amendment to the bill.


John Horne Blackmore: I move the adjournment of the debate.


James Horace King: The hon. gentleman cannot move the adjournment of the debate since we are not actually on the third reading. I asked the house whether the bill should be read a third time now.	.


Angus MacInnis: I think the hon. member is within his rights in asking that it be not read a third time now. I think that is a well established rule of the house. While I do not agree with him, I think he has a right which should be respected.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no objection.


James Horace King: When shall the bill be read a third time? Next sitting of the house. [The Deputy Chairman.]



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 26, consideration in committee of Bill No. 339, to amend the Old Age Pensions Act-Mr. Martin-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
William Henry Golding: When the committee rose on the last occasion we were dealing with clause 4. Shall clause 4 carry?


Mr. TUCKER:: I do not intend to detain the committee for any length of time, but I felt I should make a few remarks to indicate my position with regard to this legislation. I felt that the introduction of this interim legislation-it is admittedly only interim legislation-certainly did not merit the violent attack that was made upon the minister. Surely it does improve the position of old age pensioners, and admittedly it is only an interim bill. It was never claimed to be anything else. The minister has stated that the programme which the government proposed to the provinces in 1945-[DOT]


William Henry Golding: I suggest to the hon. member that it is not proper now to make a second-reading speech on this clause. I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the clause itself.


Walter Adam Tucker: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that I am dealing with the clause, because the amount has been attacked, and I am giving reasons why, in my opinion, the attack is groundless.


William Henry Golding: If the hon. member will deal with the clause he will be in order, but if I am right in my idea of what the hon. member was doing, he was starting to make a second-reading speech.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not know how you know wdiat kind of speech I am going to make.
I did not know we had a mind reader in the chair. If you know what kind of speech I am going to make you are a wise man.


Mr. JACKMAN:: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you ask the hon. member to withdraw that remark about the chair.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How often do you not do it?

Old Age Pensions


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Never mind that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: About twice a day.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I suggest that the remark about the Chairman being a mind reader should be withdrawn.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am sure the Chairman will appreciate the hon. gentleman's observations. The amount proposed in this section has been attacked; but, as the minister has said, it is justified on the ground that it is to be part of an integrated and balanced programme and I intend to deal with it from that point of view. I understand that the government has said it still stands by that programme, of which this is only a part, and I shall say a few words about that. Surely in justifying the amount in this section, by pointing out that it is only an interim amount and that the programme of which it is a part still stands, I am in order. The programme which the government laid before the country was one that applied, not only to old people, but to children as well and one that was intended to look after citizens generally and to ensure the security of the breadwinner against acci' dent, unemployment and sickness and to take care of his dependants in case of death or permanent invalidity. I submit that these provisions for the general improvement of the health of our people and the care of our children and our citizens, regardless of age, are of great importance. That is the general programme. The reason for this programme not being proceeded with has been indicated by the minister as being due to the opposition of two of the provinces, which necessitated proceeding with this interim measure.


Mr. BURTON:: Can the hon. member tell us what section he is dealing with?


Walter Adam Tucker: Section 4, as has been announced several times.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Let us see what you are reading from.


Walter Adam Tucker: The government's proposals envisaged this programme and, in order to proceed with it, it was deemed necessary to get the consent of the provinces.


An hon. MEMBER:: We cannot hear over
here.


Walter Adam Tucker: In regard to this programme-


Angus MacInnis: What programme is the
hon. gentleman referring to?


Walter Adam Tucker: I am referring to the
dominion government's programme in relation to the proposals-


William Henry Golding: What is under consideration in clause 4. I would ask the hon. gentleman to deal with that.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am dealing with it.


William Henry Golding: This question of what the provinces do may be all right in a second-reading speech, but the hon. gentleman's remarks must be relevant to the clause.


Gordon Graydon: You are a good mind
reader after all, Mr. Chairman.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am talking about the
amount of pension, which has been attacked, and I propose to deal with that question and to state why I am supporting this particular clause. So far as I am concerned, I welcome the raising of the amount, to which the dominion contributes seventy-five per cent, to the sum of S30 a month. I do not say it is satisfactory as a permanent measure, but only as an interim measure until the whole programme can be brought forward, and as such, it is worthy of support as an interim measure, and only as an interim measure.
May I say I am glad that there should be such interest in what I am saying. I do not recall that when hon. members of the C.C.F. speak I take part in a concerted effort to spoil their speeches by interruptions as has been the case every time I rise to speak. I am not affected by the C.C.F. when they attack me. It shows a definite state of mind on their part. It shows a fear that the things I say will meet with the approval of the people, and I am not surprised at their action.
If I may proceed, I would have preferred a system whereby there would not have been a means test. I would have preferred some such system as that under the family allowances, where the amount would be paid without a means test and in certain cases recovered through the income tax law. For example if a person had dependents and received an income of over $3,000 the whole amount paid could be recovered, and if he had no dependants and received an income of over $2,000 the whole amount could be recovered. But in the first instance there should not be a means test.
I am pleased that the regulations have been liberalized in many other respects which, in deference to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I will not mention. However I should like to say this about the situation in regard to supplementary grants which have been mentioned and which possibly come under this section. I am pleased that provision has been made that, apparently, supplementary grants may be made without in any way affecting
Old Age Pensions

tie right of the old age pensioner to draw the full amount of pension of $30 a month, plus an income of $20 a month of his own, plus any supplementary allowances the provinces may see fit to give. Something has been said about the supplementary allowances paid by my own province and I would say that, as far as I am concerned, I feel that the province I come from should give the same supplementary allowance as is given by any other province in Canada.
There should be mo first and second-class citizens in Canada. As regards certain minimum rights, they Should accrue to citizens in all parts of Canada wherever they live-[DOT] minimum rights as to education, health, social security and so on. That being the case, what if the financially strong provinces are able to provide better rights than other provinces can possibly afford. So far as my attitude is concerned, I think there should be a minimum national standard provided in regard to education, in regard to the security of the people, and in regard to health and certain fundamental rights. If any particular province finds that it cannot meet these minimum standards without having to resort to unduly heavy or unfair taxation, considering ability to pay as compared with other parts of the dominion, that situation should foe met by fiscal need grants. In regard to pensions for the blind, I may say that I am one of those who believed that they should be granted at the age of twenty-one.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That is the next
section.


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, I might deal with that next section now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order'.


Walter Adam Tucker: Surely I might foe permitted to make this observation in order to save my rising on the next section.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are not tired,
are you?


Walter Adam Tucker: I am glad that my hon. friends of the C.C.F. are so afraid I might say anything of that kind that they are sitting watching to see that I do not.


Angus MacInnis: We were watching when you did not vote.


Walter Adam Tucker: However I am not surprised at their attitude, because they attempt to take unto themselves a complete monopoly of being concerned about the welfare of those who are not as well off as themselves.


Angus MacInnis: We at least had the courage to vote.


Walter Adam Tucker: Before the bill respecting pensions for the blind was passed in this house, I made speeches supporting it, and I think I was just as favourable to it as anyone was.


Mr. PROBE:: Why did you not come in and vote the other day?


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Let us be fair about this.


William Henry Golding: Pensions for the blind come under section 5. We are dealing with section 4, amount of dominion contribution and persons pensionable.


Walter Adam Tucker: May I say that I should like to see all the original dominion proposals in regard to old age pensions implemented as soon as possible, including lowering of the age to sixty-five.


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: May I ask a question?


Walter Adam Tucker: I will finish, and then you can ask all the questions you want to ask.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are throwing him
off.


Angus MacInnis: It is hard to read when you are being interrupted.


William Henry Golding: Order, order.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am glad1 hon. members are enjosdng themselves.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would ask hon. members to be kind enough to allow the member who is speaking to make his speech.


Walter Adam Tucker: In regard to this carrying out of the proposals as originally submitted to the provinces, including the contribution of the dominion of fifty per cent of the pensions from sixty-five to sixtv-nine years of age and in regard to the rest of the programme, I suggest that a last request be made to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec-which represent in their own right over half of the people of this dominion-that they agree to those proposals. If it is quite clear that they *will not agree; and since it seems to me to be definite that the people of Canada want the proposals implemented, and, if no agreement of a general nature, which is desirable, is reached I suggest that they be advised before the next session that legislation will be brought down along the lines of the first old age pension legislation whereby any province can adhere separately to those proposals and1 have them go into force there. In this way the wishes of the Dominion of Canada as a whole in regard to health, public investment, social

Old Age Pensions
security and tax reform will be given effect to and the wishes of the provinces which desire to have that programme established will be complied with.
In regard to the suggestion which has been made over and over again, that there is something wrong with provinces making a supplementary grant, I will only say this. If it is definitely understood-and it must be so understood-that if to bring up the old age pension to a proper level provinces have to make a supplementary grant, then it should also be understood that if they cannot, having all things else in mind, make that grant without imposing unfair taxation on their people, they should have the right to come to the central government which has the right of taxing the whole of the people of Canada for a grant based upon fiscal need. So on that basis, since this is an interim bill which was designed to help our old people while we find out just where we stand in regard to the whole programme; since it adds at least 60,000 to the list of those who will get pensions-it will certainly help those, as it will help over 200,000 others who are already drawing pensions by increasing the amount which they can draw-on the definite understanding, so far as I am concerned, that this is an interim measure and that the government still adheres to its original proposals of going ahead and reducing to sixty-five the age at which old age pensioners may draw pensions, and providing that blind pensioners may draw pensions at twenty-one, and in the hope that the suggestion which I have now just thrown out to the government and urged upon them, that, if general agreement cannot be had, those proposals will be made available to each province to accept singly, I support this particular section and this particular proposal.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not taken any part in this discussion from the beginning, and I doubt whether I would have done so if the hon. member for Rosthem had not seen fit to make what I regard as merely a political speech on this particular section. But one thing which we must try to keep clear from-


William Henry Golding: Order. I am going to ask the hon. member to be kind enough-and he is always very kind-to deal with the section under discussion, namely, section 4 which deals with the amount of dominion contribution and persons pensionable.


Walter Adam Tucker: I may say to the hon. member for Lake Centre that he does not make anything but political speeches.


John George Diefenbaker: You see, Mr. Chairman, what happens. In spite of your
ruling of a moment ago, the irrepressible member for Rosthem still persists.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am not any more irrepressible than the hon. member who is speaking.


John George Diefenbaker: At least I deliver my speeches without reading them.


Walter Adam Tucker: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I did not read my speech.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: The suggestion is preposterous.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Whose speech did you read?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, it is suggested that it was not his speech that he read.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is very smart. The hon. member is getting too smart altogether.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to get into an argument on this. The hon. member says that this is only an interim measure and that section 4, which is before the committee, is merely an interim one. There is no suggestion anywhere in this bill, from beginning to end, that it is anything in the nature of an interim measure. This is a permanent measure, but by way of exculpation for the fact that it is unfair, unjust, mediocre and picayune, the explanation is given that it is only an interim one. If it is only an interim one, the minister can turn around and immediately add a section to the effect that this shall only apply until 1947, after which, according to the hon. member for Rosthern, if something is not done, he is going to do something about it.


Walter Adam Tucker: Would it not have been a better measure if it had not been for your friend Drew?


William Henry Golding: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member is just continuing his political remarks.


Walter Adam Tucker: I asked a question. It would be a better measure if your friend Drew had not stood in the way and stopped it.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would again appeal to hon. members to forget Mr. Drew and everyone else and deal with the section before the committee.


Walter Adam Tucker: It would be a better bill if it were not for him.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Drew did something my hon. friends opposite did not expect; he made
Old Age Pensions

provision for the old1 age pensioners in the province of Ontario, after the failure of the government to do so.


Walter Adam Tucker: Would my hon. friend rather have Ontario do that than come into the picture and help out the whole country? Ontario is much richer than Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently some of my hon. friends opposite are playing politics so much with this that they criticize Colonel Drew for having assured a fair deal to the old age pensioners of Ontario. But that is not what we are dealing with.


Walter Adam Tucker: Remember, you represent a Saskatchewan seat.


John George Diefenbaker: As far as Saskatchewan is concerned, my hon. friend has always been long on promises as to what would be done for the old age pensioners; but today in that province, as when the present government came into power, the old age pensioners are not being looked after.


Walter Adam Tucker: Just as well as in Ontario, if not better.


John George Diefenbaker: You see where we get, Mr. Chairman, when my hon. friend endeavours in this house to make the sort of speech he has been making in Saskatchewan for the past three weeks, in order to gain support. If my hon. friend had only waited, perhaps he would not have become so much annoyed. On the other side of the question, hon. gentlemen to my left say the pension is not enough, with which we all agree, and they produce a petition asking for $50 a month.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Payable by the dominion government.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes; my hon. friends over here would pass the buck back to this government.


George Hugh Castleden: We have done more than any other province.


John George Diefenbaker: Now my hon.
friends over here are talking again. They pay $5 less than in British Columbia.


George Hugh Castleden: And medical attention.


John George Diefenbaker: Medical attention is given in British Columbia, too; and they pay approximately $10 less than is now given in Ontario.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Who are getting it in Ontario now?


John George Diefenbaker: The interruptions have been transferred to another side of the house.


George Hugh Castleden: Leave us alone and you will not be be interrupted.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friends over here always preach large amounts, but as far as Saskatchewan is concerned they do not practise large amounts when they have the opportunity to do so. In that connection, sir, I am going to give an example of what has happened in that province, and it comes particularly under this section dealing with the division of responsibility as between the dominion and the provinces. This has to do with a man who was born in 1858, who was one of the great pioneers of our province; at one time a fairly high ranking official of the Hudson's Bay Company. Today, at eighty-nine years of age, this man finds himself unable to carry on.


Humphrey Mitchell: What province?


John George Diefenbaker: I am speaking of Saskatchewan. He endeavoured to obtain an old age pension, and was granted a pension some eighteen years ago. Later, that pension was set aside because he had an income of $694 a year on which to support himself, his wife and three dependents.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A good Scottish name, too.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER.: I am not going to give the name, but at one time his brother was a member of this house. The hon. member for Rosthern knows of the contribution of *this family, because he is often in Prince Albert. Finally, in 1945, 'the regulations having been changed, he made application for an * increased pension. Originally he was cut off because he had some private means, the amount I have already mentioned. This man served his country during the days of the Riel rebellion. He preserved the lives of the people of Prince Albert and Green Lake. He carried the messages between Middleton and the sub-commanders. In August, 1945, he received a letter from the government of Saskatchewan advising him that he may obtain additional pension in the amount of $116 a year, but not until he has repaid the amount he was originally overpaid at the time his first pension was discontinued.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is the dominion
regulation.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, it is a combination of dominion and provincial regulations.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You are not putting the blame on the government of Saskatchewan?

Old Age Pensions


John George Diefenbaker: I do not care who gets the blame; they can share it between themselves, but apparently it is a case of joint responsibility. This man pointed out his service. In his letter he said that he had spent his whole life pioneering in Saskatchewan; that he was a worthy scion of the province; that he was employed throughout the rebellion of 1885, from beginning to end, as scout and volunteer with the government forces against Louis Riel at Duck Lake and Batoche, and in quelling the Indian uprisings at Fort Pitt, Battleford and Green Lake.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: He should be getting a veteran's pension.


John George Diefenbaker: He was not a member of the force.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was he with the transport, do you know?


John George Diefenbaker: No; at that time he was with the Hudson's Bay Company, but he was operating as a volunteer, not under army orders.


George Hugh Castleden: Does the Hudson's Bay Company pay him a pension?


John George Diefenbaker: I mentioned the amount they paid him. He has been told, finally, that if he waits until January 1, 1952, at which time he will be about ninety-three years of age, he will be qualified to receive an old age pension. I bring this matter to the attention of the committee as an example of the difficulties which arise when the dominion and the provinces work under joint regulations. I dislike bringing personal matters before the committee, but I mention this case in the hope that this old gentleman may be given that measure of justice he deserves, so that one of the greatest of our western pioneers shall not be told in his hour of need that we can do nothing to help him. Here may I refer to the letter from the province of Saskatchewan, in which this old gentleman is told that, under the circumstances, he might appeal to the local municipal authorities for social aid. I urge that this old man be given consideration. Today, under the old age pension legislation, there is unfairness and injustice. Cases such as these should be investigated. I could mention others, but I think this is the most outstanding I can bring before the committee.


Angus MacInnis: On Friday evening several hon. members asked the minister if over the week-end he would give consideration to inserting in the bill a section making some
provision for wives of pensioners who are not as yet of age to be entitled to pension in their own right. Has the minister had time to go into this and, before it is passed, will such a section be placed in the bill?


Mr. MARTIN:: Mr. Chairman, consideration has been given to the matter. In support of his argument, the hon. member referred to certain unitary states. The situation has been examined in the light of what federal states including Australia do, and in the light of our conception of what our responsibilities vis-avis the provinces are, and we feel that is a matter for provincial responsibility.


Victor Quelch: The minister said that at the next meeting he would endeavour to place before the committee an approximate budget showing what old age pensioners receiving $30 a month could get by on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I find that the hon. member for Lethbridge has done that.


Victor Quelch: I asked a question, and the minister replied that he would give that information at the next sitting.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I find that the hon. member for Lethbridge has done that.


Victor Quelch: Done what?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has anticipated me, and set down that very thing.


Victor Quelch: Oh, well, that was not a satisfactory budget. That budget was given to prove that an old age pensioner could not live on $30 a month. The kind of budget we want from the minister is to to prove that the old age pensioner can live on $30. Is the minister accepting the figures of the hon. member for Lethbridge?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say that.


Victor Quelch: If he is, then he is accepting the statement that old age pensioners cannot possibly live on $30 a month.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In respect of a man or woman born in Canada, who has lived here until reaching the age of fifty years or more, and then for one cause or another moves to the United States to live with a son or daughter, remains there for a few years and then returns to Canada, what would the position be so far as the receiving of a pension, inasmuch as they would not have been here for twenty years immediately prior?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They would be all right, under the new bill.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have not been able to obtain a copy of the regulations. Will they have that provision in them?
Old Age Pensions


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is in the bill itself, section 8(1) (a) (ii).


Angus MacInnis: Paragraph (c) makes provision for the income a pensioner may have over and above the pension. How will this income be computed, taking the propert3r and the income the pensioner may have?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That will come under the regulations. I shall be glad to go into that when we reach section 17 of the regulations.


Angus MacInnis: Shall we be discussing the regulations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, under section 8 of the bill.


Mr. GREEN:: I would ask the minister to make a further explanation as to the adequacy of the figure, as to its representing the amount a person must live on, if he has no other income. It was always my understanding that the pension was designed with the intention that it would be adequate for a person to live on if he had no other resources. The other night, as reported at page 4744 of Hansard, the minister said:
I do not say, and no one says, that $30 a month is enough for a person to live on.
Later on, he said:
An old age pension in this country was never intended to cover the complete cost of living; it is a maintenance grant. That is all it can do.
Mr. Quelch: Never meant for what?
Mr. Martin:	To live completely on. That is
what I am saying.
Mr. Quelch:	What is an individual going to
do who has no other means of livelihood?
Mr. Martin:	That is another matter, and I
say it is one with which I am as much concerned as anyone, and perhaps more than most.
I would ask the minister to explain how a person in that position is supposed to be able to exist. I think we are all agreed that the figure of $30 is not adequate, under present prices, for a person who has absolutely no other income. But apparently the minister has in mind that a person in that position must be looked after in some other way. I would ask the minister to explain that, because to my mind it goes to the root of the whole problem. What I am concerned about, and what I think every other hon. member is concerned about, is that the recipient of an old age pension shall have enough to live on. Without having enough to live on, he is in a hopeless position.
I regret very much that the initiative has been allowed to pass from the dominion to the provinces, and that the provinces are now setting the standard of adequacy. In 1926, when the Old Age Pensions Act was first passed, the dominion took the lead. Again in

1931, when the dominion increased its share from fifty per cent to seventy-five per cent, the dominion took the lead.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is twenty-five per cent and seventy-five per cent.


Howard Charles Green: The dominion paid seventy-five per cent and the province, twenty-five per cent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Then I think the former minister of finance changed that whole picture when, on November 14, 1941, as reported at page 442S of Hansard, he said:
The dominion must, I am convinced, take the position that old age pensions of the non-contributory type now' in effect are primarily a provincial responsibility, the role of the dominion being that of a contributor financially assisting the provinces to discharge this responsibility.
In my opinion the dominion from that time started to hide behind the provinces, and is still doing so. Since then, for a time the standard was set by my own province of British Columbia; now a new standard is being set by Ontario, with the dominion a long way behind.	*
But that is an aside. I regret that the dominion is not setting the standard of what would be an adequate old age pension. Will the minister explain how a person without any other income than the pension is to be able to exist?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend will recall the debate of 1927 and what was a memorable speech by the late Lord Bennett, in which he discussed this whole principle and, I think, made one of the great contributions to that debate. He made the same statement, which was commented on by others on the government side. In all countries, pensions are merely grants toward maintenance.


Howard Charles Green: Toward maintenance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, toward maintenance.
I do not think they could be regarded in any other way than that. I cannot add to my statement any more than I have tried to state. It is a grant toward maintenance. In this country, the federal state, carrying on the practice of other federal states, makes a grant to the provinces. When one considers that we are paying $22.50 out of $30, he will realize the extent of our contribution. And when one considers that we shall be paying $68 million as compared with $17 million currently paid by the provinces I do not think one has reason to say that the federal government has not recognized its responsibility. The purpose of provincial supplements is to meet in part

Old Age Pensions
the problem my hon. friend has so carefully pointed out. The provisions of section 16 (c) of the regulations, which provide that the supplements are not to be considered income, only corroborate what I have said. We feel that, under our constitutional set-up, these cases are a matter for the provinces, pending the agreements that wre can make on the .overall scale of social security as covered by the dominion's proposals to the provinces.


Howard Charles Green: I cannot see much in the last part of the minister's argument, because the government is now receiving all the taxes it would receive if agreements had been made, and it is spending $100 million less than it would have to spend by way of payments to the provinces which have not entered into agreements. Therefore the government has $100 million more than it would have had if all the provinces had come into the agreement. Apparently the position of the dominion government is this. It does not pretend to pay, even with this increased amount, to the old age pension recipient who has no other income, sufficient for him to live on. This is only what the minister calls a maintenance grant, something as assistance toward his maintenance. Is that stating the dominion government's position fairly?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It cannot be any more than that.


Howard Charles Green: Am I stating the dominion government's position fairly?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have increased it to a greater extent than before.


Howard Charles Green: You are not pretending to pay an adequate old age pension?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are paying what we think is a justifiable maintenance grant, which is better financially than that of any other country in the world.


Solon Earl Low: Following, up -what the hon. member for Vancouver South has said regarding the adequacy of the pension to be paid under the new bill, I would respectfully point out to the minister that, at a convention of his own party held last week in Alberta, a resolution in this connection was passed. I received a telegram stating:
Liberal convention held in Edmonton June 24, 1947, endorsed following resolution on old age pensions. Raise the amount to forty dollars per month without means test, lower age to sixty-five for men and sixty for women.
Edward C. Fisher, president of Alberta pensioners society.
Mr. Fisher is the president of the Alberta pensioners' association. For years he was a
prominent Liberal in the province, until the Social Credit government was established, when he supported that government because they were trying! to do something. I want to point out to the minister that even his own party followers in the various provinces do not think the amount named in his bill is in any way adequate. They are asking for a pension of $40 without a means test at sixty-five years for men and sixty years for women.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The same as the proposals we made to the provinces, which still stand as government policy.


Solon Earl Low: Nothing has been said as to when that will be implemented. Surely it is the responsibility of the senior government, with its wide taxation fields and with the Bank of Canada, to lead out and not leave it to the provinces to lead out. It is evident that the national Liberal party is waiting for some of its limbs throughout the country to take the lead and get something done. They have the courage to think.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is it not true that the Social Credit government of Alberta promised to pay a dividend of $25 a month? How long, oh Lord, is it going to be before they pay it?


Solon Earl Low: I will say that they did make that promise, and I will say further that the minister knows full well why they could not keep it. If he and his colleagues had just kept their fingers off we would have been paying it a long while ago and he would not have to be reminded every day of his duty with respect to the aged.


Mr. HATFIELD:: Who is to make up the difference between S30 and what is required? Will it be the province or the municipality? Is it to be paid under the poor act of the municipality?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is up to the province to decide whether they want to shoulder if off on somebody else. There is no limit under this bill, and a province may pay a pension up to $'50 if it wishes.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is it the policy of the government gradually to shift back to the provinces a larger responsibility for the taking care of old age pensioners? At one time it was fiftydifty as between the dominion and the provinces. Then we changed it to a seventy-five per cent contribution by the dominion. Now, under this bill it is being changed, in the case of the western provinces, to a contribution of thirty-five per cent, and in the case of Ontario it will be a contribution of approximately forty per cent when they pay $40 a month. Is it the policy of the government to force the provinces into paying a greater share of old age pensions?
Old Age Pensions


Paul Joseph James Martin: The policy of the government over a long period is contained in the proposals that were made to the provinces in 1945. Those proposals envisaged not only old age pensions, but health insurance, public investment-


Percy Ellis Wright: We are talking about old age pensions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are asking me the policy -and social security; that is the policy of the government.


George Hugh Castleden: When they all sign.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You cannot go ahead and promise things to the people which you never hope to be able to fulfil. I certainly would not be a party nor would this government to that kind of practice. The amount involved in the full programme laid before the provinces will involve an expenditure of $600,000000 a year, which is a lot of money. When we reach an accord with the provinces, on fiscal matters we are prepared to sit down and discuss these broad objectives with the provinces. In the meantime we feel that this government which will be contributing $68,000,000 to old age pensions as compared with approximately current expenditures of $17,000,000 by the provinces is not shirking its responsibility. When we think that the extra $20,000,000 which will be expended by the federal government under this bill is more than all the provinces are paying for old age pensions at the present time, the committee will agree with me that the federal government is meeting its responsibilities.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is quite impossible to follow the minister in his latest excursion of reasoning. He is saying in effect that the proposals of 1945 constitute the government's policy, but somehow or another the minister says they cannot carry them out. They claim they cannot carry them out because only seven of the nine provinces have signed. Why does the minister not tell us that the federal government has every source of revenue right now that it would have if all the provinces signed^ this agreement? Not only that, but there is actually more money available to the dominion today because Ontario and Quebec have not entered into agreements. The dominion has all the sources of revenue and it is not called upon to make grants to those two provinces. Actually the federal government is over $100,000,000 per annum better off today than it would be if Ontario and Quebec signed agreements. Yet the minister has the effrontery to say to the committee that that is why they cannot carry out the proposals of 1945. It does not make sense.


Victor Quelch: I was surprised that the minister should have compared the amount of money being paid by the provinces with the amount being paid by the federal government. The people of the provinces are now paying hundreds of millions of dollars to the federal government in the form of taxation, either direct or indirect. The minister has suggested that the proposal from this side of the house that a pension of $50 a month be paid to our senior citizens is too much.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say that.


Victor Quelch: The minister certainly gave that impression, and then the parliamentary assistant attempted to support that by figures he put on the record.


Mr. MAYHEW:: I did not say it was too much.


Victor Quelch: It is now apparently
becoming realized on that side of the house that $50 would not be too much. Why not withdraw this bill and bring in another one which will provide for the payment of $50 a month to our senior citizens?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I never said anything like that. When I put the nine different propositions on Hansard I did so, in order that anyone who wanted to know what those different propositions would cost could look at the record and see for themselves. In other words, they had an opportunity of using their heads as well as their hearts. What the hon. member is doing at the present time is using his heart and not his head.


Victor Quelch: I think, when the next election comes around, the people will show the minister that they are using their heads. The people of this country expect that once in a while this government will carry out the promises they have made. There is no question that during the war this government time and again guaranteed that, after we had won the war, they would bring in a new social order, and yet they bring down an old age pension bill to give the old age pensioners $30 a month, of which the provinces must pay twenty-five per cent.


An hon. MEMBER:: What country did you come from?


Victor Quelch: I do not suppose the hon. member knows the country I come from.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Solon Earl Low: Just what are they doing in the hon. member's province?


William Ross Macdonald: May I remind the committee that we are considering section 4 of the

Old Age Pensions
bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act. A general discussion on a new social order is hardly in order at this time.


Victor Quelch: I quite agree that apparently it is out of order for this government to bring in a new social order; nevertheless this bill is supposed to be a part of that order. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance placed figures on the record. According to those figures, the cost of providing a pension of S50 a month-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise to a point of order.


Victor Quelch: -without a means test-


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You, sir, have just called the committee's attention to the fact that we are discussing a specific section of the bill. The argument my hon. friend is making is an argument which could be properly, and undoubtedly was, proposed by him on second reading, but I do not think it should be allowed when we are discussing another section. With great respect to you, sir, I ask that this procedure be observed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: According to standing order 58(2).


Victor Quelch: All we are trying to do is to suggest that $30 a month is absolutely insufficient and that we should pay a pension of $50 a month. Surely it is in order to discuss whether or not we can raise $30 a month to $50. That is all I am speaking on at the present time. I was giving figures to show what the actual cost of paying $50 a month would be. Is not that in order? We are on the section dealing with the amount of pension that is to be paid.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, it is not in order.


Victor Quelch: The cost of paying $50 a month at age sixty-five without any means test would be $560,000,000, according to the figures placed on the record by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to be needlessly insistent, but I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, with great respect, that that kind of argument is not relevant to the particular section under discussion. The hon. gentleman says that he does not agree with the figure of $30. He has suggested another figure. The argument as to why it should be more has certainly nothing to do with the argument as to why that figure is in the bill. It has been disposed of by the house, and I would ask you, sir, with great respect, to give accession to what I have said.


Victor Quelch: We are dealing with the section which specifies the amount of pension that is to be paid. The one thing that we can discuss at the present time is certainly the amount of pension to be paid. That is the only thing that is in order, and that is the very thing I am discussing. If I discussed anything else it would be out of order.


Mr. GRANT:: You offer $25 to our $30.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I think the committee would make more progress if members, when they speak, would direct their remarks to the section under consideration. It has been suggested several times in the house to the minister that the amount should be increased to $50. I have not heard any new arguments with respect to that, and I cannot see how further discussion at this time will get us anywhere. I suggest to the hon. member for Acadia that he aliow the section to carry now.


Victor Quelch: If I had been allowed to proceed I would have been through long ago. The minister and the Chairman admit that I have been discussing the question of $50 a month. Apparently that has been in order in the past. All I wanted to do was to show actually what happens when you pay old age pension of $50 a month. The numbers benefiting in 1948 under this legislation would be 933,000; that is, if you take the age of sixty-five. The national net income is around $9 billion. Therefore the programme of paying $50 a month at the age of sixty-five to these 933,000 senior citizens would mean that approximately eight per cent of the population would benefit. It would mean that they would receive approximately six per cent of the total national income. In other words, eight per cent of Canada's population would be receiving six per cent of the national income.


An hon. MEMBER:: How many men?


Victor Quelch: That is the total number of men and women over sixty-five years of age. I do not know how many men or women there would be in that number. I took the figures as placed on Hansard by the parliamentary assistant. In addition to that, they might have some income of their own; but on that basis I think the minister must agree that there would be nothing outlandish in the old age pensioners receiving $50 a month. It would just be giving them their fair share of the national income, and it would mean that all the people of Canada would be contributing annually approximately six per cent of the production of the country to the old age pensioners, and in that way it would definitely be a contributory scheme.
Old Age Pensions

It would be paid out of the national revenue funds to which all the citizens would be annually contributing in the form either of indirect or direct taxation. I just place these figures on record to show that the suggestion is reasonable and that we are not giving these citizens more than their fair share of the national income.
The point I should like to make again is the one I brought up on Thursday night, namely, would the minister not agree that paying an old age pension of $50 a month would greatly help to maintain the national production of this country, because we have been warned that in the very near future it will not be possible to maintain the national income in this country since effective demand will fall off.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon.
gentleman is not in order now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. MILLER:: I wish to make a suggestion to the minister. I am not going to make a speech on it. Tonight there seems to be an obvious spirit of compromise in the committee. I am going to suggest a proposition to the minister. Obviously in the country there is dissatisfaction over the figure of $30 a month; there is dissatisfaction in every party in the house, including the government party. If all parties can get together and agree for the time being that a figure of $35 would be acceptable, would the minister be prepared to amend the bill and insert $35 for the present?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This government feels that it has presented to the house a bill which can stand on its own feet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: For how long?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This bill has resulted in a pension of over $30 in six provinces; in one case, the province of Ontario, S40; in the case of British Columbia, $38.75. I am sure that my hon. friend will find that this bill really should commend itself.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the section carry?


Calvert Charlton Miller: The minister would not agree to an amendment of $35 if all parties were agreeable?


John George Diefenbaker: 
Paul Joseph James Martin: We followed the practice followed in the unemployment insurance and family allowance acts.


John George Diefenbaker: I now come to a provision that strikes me as worthy of consideration. I have in mind the case of a man of sixty-nine years of age with $20,000 worth of land, and he transfers that land to his family without consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When we come to the regulations we shall be dealing with that. It comes under section 8.


John George Diefenbaker: Section 8 is totally inapplicable to the situation I have propounded. It provides that "the governor in council may make regulations not inconsistent with this act for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing may make certain regulations."


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is also dealt with in section 5; old section 9 (1) (a).


John George Diefenbaker: Subsection 1 of section 8 is a substitute for the old section 8, subsection 1. The old section 8, subsection 1, provided that provision shall be made for the payment of a pension to every person who at the date of the proposed commencement of the pension is a British subject, and so on and finally, in (g):
has not made a voluntary assignment or transfer of property for the purpose of qualifying for a pension.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is in section 9, (1) (a), at the bottom of page 3 of the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: First, my hon.
friend pointed to the regulations and now he says that section 9 (1) (a) takes the place of former section 8. It does not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us wait until we get
to the section, I suggest.


John George Diefenbaker: But we are repealing the old section 8 subsection 1, paragraph (g). The note on the opposite page states that the new section deals with paragraphs la), (b) and (g), and the present paragraph (g) provides that any person who makes a voluntary assignment or transfer of property for the purpose of qualifying for a pension shall not receive a pension. If that is deleted, then the governor in council or the administration are placed in a position where they can

Old Age Pensions
allow any person in this country who transfers his property with the intention of getting a pension to have a pension. They cannot prevent him, because it is now provided in section 9 that the pension authority shall defer the payment of pension until such property is reassigned or transferred, or until such time as the value of the interest that the pensioner or spouse had in such property is exhausted. What I want to find out is this. Will the fact that we are repealing this qualifying section 8, paragraph (g), allow some people to transfer their property and thereby make themselves pensionable? If so, it is a dangerous principle.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They then come under
section 9 (1).


John George Diefenbaker: ,As long as the
minister makes it clear that while we repeal that' paragraph, we shall still deny to a person the right to have a pension if he transfers valuable property in order to qualify, I have no objection. Is that clear?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is clear.


John George Diefenbaker: The question arose in my mind whether you were allowing such a person to qualify.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The minister said that this bill should not be considered an adequate old age pension provision but really a contribution toward maintenance. I wonder if he would accept from me a suggestion along these lines. Many of our citizens, perhaps, a larger number than some of us would expect, contribute in excess of ten per cent of their income io benevolent and educational institutions, ten per cent being the present minimum under the Income War Tax Act. From what the minister said, it is obvious that if this amount of $30, even with a supplement in some of the provinces, is not sufficient to allow an elderly person to live, there must be money coming from some other source to keep body and soul together, and it would: be of considerable help if the minister would use his good offices with his colleague the Minister of Finance to see that the ten per cent limitation on gifts to charity and education be increased to fifteen per cent as in the United States. I bring this up because there is an old men's hostel in my own riding, to which one of my constituents told me he was making a fairly generous donation, but that he would have to separate it over two or three years to come under the income tax brackets. If a person is willing to sacrifice a substantial part of his income the government should be willing to do its share in giving up its claim to tax.


Norman Jaques: Does the minister consider that this is the last word in old age pensions? Are we to look forward to receiving no better old age pensions than those indicated in this bill? What conditions will have to be satisfied in order that we may give to old age pensioners a better pension than they are getting under this bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have stated that clearly, and I would call attention to the statement of the Prime Minister on that very plan.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Pensions to blind persons.
Paul Joseph James Martin: We will let that stand.
Section stands.
On section 6-Payable monthly in arrears and during lifetime.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Why payable in arrears? Why not payable as the family allowance payments are made?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The family allowances are paid practically in arrears on the 20tih of the month.


John Oliver Probe: If for any reason the pension is stopped, is there any procedure by which the minister could pass a regulation to postpone the date of the stoppage taking effect? I have in mind the case of a person receiving a pension which is stopped because he has exceeded the means test. He is not warned and the pension is suddenly cut off. Would it be possible-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is covered in section 25 of the regulations under section 8.


John Oliver Probe: Then I will defer the question.


Calvert Charlton Miller: May I ask what the new section 12 of the bill, as amended by section 6, is meant to do? That is with reference to the transfer of permanent residence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend will recall, the existing section 12 dealt with a matter which now no longer requires to be dealt with because all the provinces are participating. The new section 12 deals essentially with the matters which were formerly dealt with under the existing section 13. It provides, as did the former section 13, that where a pensioner moves from one province in which he was granted a pension to another, the province to which he has moved will take on the responsibility of issuing future pension cheques. Of course this section deals only with the question of issuing pension cheques in cases such as the one referred to, and it does not deal with the question of the prov-
Old Age Pensions

ince's responsibility for the provincial share of the pension. That, of course, is dealt with in the new section 13 which follows.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Suppose a person moved from Manitoba to British Columbia. Would this section 12 make British Columbia pay the full rate to the Manitoba pensioner?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Regulations.
John Ritchie MacNicol: These sections have got me all mixed up. We have sections 5, 12, 11 and so forth. I wanted to ask a question upon the matter which has just been inquired about. What effect will the bill have on an immigrant, if I may call him that, coming from Great Britain? Is there any arrangement between Canada and Great Britain with regard to Canada carrying on the old age pension agreement which the immigrants who might be coming in here are living under over there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I suppose I am out of order, but I might ask your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. As I said the other night, a conference on this type of problem with the commonwealth countries began some time ago in Great Britain. That conference reviewed this whole question. The work of that conference -is not over. It will not resume its sittings until the fall, when the question will be up for further consideration.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to hear that because, unless some such arrangement were made, the migration of people from the old land to this country would be seriously interfered with.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There has already been some discussion as to the effect of the existing regulations once this new bill comes into effect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are speaking on section 8 now?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. In several of the answers the minister has given from time to time during the debate, I think he has assumed that, without any further act on the part of the governor in council, the existing regulations would automatically continue in effect even after the enactment of the measure now before the committee. I desire to suggest to him that that is not a prudent assumption to make. I do not intend to weary the committee now with any legal argument on the question, but I wish to submit to the minister as forcefully as I can that so much depends 
upon the regulations that no doubt whatsoever should be left as to the validity of the continued application of the present regulations after this bill comes into effect. The minister has laid great stress upon regulation 16 (c), apart from which, of course, the supplement paid by the province, in view of the admitted inadequacy of the present dominion pension, would be charged against allowable income and deducted from the $600 which is the maximum income allowed) without deduction against the dominion pension. I wish to suggest to the minister that the effect of regulation 16 (c) is so important, so basic, that the committee should have from the minister now the assurance, on behalf of the governor in council, that as soon as this measure comes into effect the regulations, or such part of them as is necessary to carry out the effect I have just indicated, will be re-promulgated and there will be no question left whatever as to the validity and continued effect of the regulations such as 16 (c).


Paul Joseph James Martin: There can be no doubt about that. That is clearly covered in the act itself. All these regulations are made by the dominion and the provinces. The last regulations were promulgated in November and made effective as of May 15. They cannot be changed without the provinces' consent. That is clear according to section 19 (2) of the act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What changes, if any, are contemplated in the regulations? Some days ago the minister intimated that certain changes were in contemplation. If he is going to go to the provinces for some changes, there is no problem at all raised in that respect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The changes contemplated will be 2; (g) would have to go out in 2, and (e). The nationality clause in 8 would have to go out. In section 11, the residence clauses from (a) to (c) would have to go out. Twelve would have to go out. Those are clauses consequent upon the passing of their acts; but they cannot be changed without the provinces agreeing.


Solon Earl Low: I should like to ask the minister with regard to a possible amendment to regulation 17 (a)1, paragraph 5. There has been some question about an award made under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask my hon. friend if he is referring to 17 (a) of the old regulations or the new ones?


Solon Earl Low: Of the old regulations. That will remain in the new ones, will it not? That is the regulation which deals with income; it is 17 (a), subsection 5.

Old Age Pensions


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, it is changed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the same as the one in the new regulations.


Solon Earl Low: Well, whatever it is in the new regulations, I refer to the corresponding one. There has been some question with regard to an award made under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I believe that at one time a judgment was handed down to the effect that such an award made to a pensioner would be added to his income for the purpose of determining whether or not it exceeded $425, or now under the new bill, whether it would exceed $600. Would, the minister consider amending whatever regulation would be effective so that any award made under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act would not be considered as income, because of this argument? The pensioner may have a small piece of land and may spend a quite considerable sum out of his meagre allowance that year in trying to earn his assistance under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Surely the money has been spent, and by no stretch of the imagination can anyone say that the small award which is made under the act would be income for the purpose of determining whether or not it is going above $600.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On that point I can only say that I will note what the hon. member says, and at the next meeting with all the provinces I will raise that matter.


Solon Earl Low: I am quite sure that the minister is interested in seeing that these people get justice, and I will leave it at that.
I have one other point in connection with the regulations. It seems to me that some provision should be made for a deductible allowance from the income of the pensioner on account of a dependent other than his spouse. At the present time the only dependent considered by the act is the spouse. I would' ask the minister to consider such a change, which, I understand, would have to be made in the bill, not in the regulations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That comes under section 5. May we deal with that when we come to the proper section? I will note the point and answer it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay is unavoidably absent. He came to me yesterday afternoon and asked me to present a case he had in mind if this section came up. My memory is that a gentleman in his constituency-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wrote the hon. gentleman.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He has given the minister the information?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is there anything on Hansard about it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; he spoke to me about it privately, and I wrote him.-


John Ritchie MacNicol: I think it should be on Hansard as well; it will only take a minute. A gentleman in his riding lived in Canada until he was perhaps sixty years of age; then for some reason or another he went to live with his son in Massachusetts. That son finally died, and at the age of seventy-one the old gentleman came back to Canada. The hon. member wanted to know just what position that old man would be in and how long he would have to be here before he could apply for a pension.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He can qualify under the bill.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Immediately?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; he has lived here all his life except for that period.


Percy Ellis Wright: I wanted to bring up a question on one regulation. At the present time a man may have property to the value of $2,500, which on his death may be left to his heirs without any attachment against it as far as old age pensions are concerned. On the other hand, if a man has, say $2,000 in cash, the department insist that it be amortized, or they assume that a pension has been bought with it, and. they calculate that $2,000 in with the old age pension, so that before the man dies the whole amount has disappeared. Why should a man with $2,000 in cash not be able to retain it and be in the same position as the man with $2,000 in property?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under the new regulations we do not take away that money; we just declare it to have an annuity value as at seventy years of age, which in that instance would be approximately $119.


Percy Ellis Wright: But for all practical purposes it is used up, as far as his pension is concerned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We put a valuation on property as well.


Percy Ellis Wright: No, you do not, though there is a very small amount deducted as a result of the man owning property; something like $60 a year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A fair rental value. Formerly it was a percentage of the assessed value, which the provinces and the dominion felt to be an unfair imposition.


Percy Ellis Wright: I know in the operation of the Old Age Pensions Act in Saskatchewan the
Old Age Pensions

value placed on a home is approximately $60 a year, but if a man has $2,000 invested in an annuity the value is considered to be approximately twice that. It seems to me. that both men should be in an equal position. I know of cases where men have had a quarter section of land. When they come under the old age pension they feel they cannot operate that land any longer. They want to sell it and invest the. money in a small home in town; immediately they sell the property, according to the regulations as they stood, the money they receive is considered to have been invested in a pension, and they do not have an opportunity to buy the home. It seems to me that they should be given that opportunity without the department considering it necessary for them to invest in an annuity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They can buy a home with that money, and if they do, a fair rental value is determined, or the province administering the act does so.


Angus MacInnis: I believe we are now discussing. section 8 of the bill, which is the section under which, the regulations are made. In my opinion the regulations are extremely important, because they determine what the value of the pension shall be. I should like to ask the minister how much cash a pensioner may have without affecting his pension.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A single person could have over $2,000 without affecting, his pension at all.


Angus MacInnis: Without its having any effect on. his pension?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Angus MacInnis: And it would not be taken into consideration in deciding what amount of old age pension he would get?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In that case it would not affect his pension at all; he would be $2 over.


Angus MacInnis: Is the home of the pensioner taken into consideration in deciding his pension?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. Under the old regulations they used to take five per cent of the assessed value. As my hon. friend knows, assessments vary in different communities, and it was felt that this had worked injustices. So it was changed; and instead of five per cent of the assessed value being taken, what is taken now is a fair rental value of the property after all expenses, maintenance, taxes and so on, are deducted. I can give a pretty good example from an actual case I have before me. The property is assessed for $2,240. Taking ten per cent of the assessed value-it may not be that much or it may be
fMr. Wright.1
higher, depending upon the community, but that is a fair standard which is being used by the provinces-that would be $224. In that case the taxes were $119.20; the insurance $12; the water rates were $12.21 and the depreciation would be about $44.80 at two per cent, which would make a total of $18821. If you deduct those expenses from the percentage of the assessed value you would have a balance of S35.79 which is charged as income from the real property used as a home. Under the old regulations, in all probability the pensioner would have been charged five per cent of the assessed value, which in this case would be $112. So that the amount charged as rent would be reduced by the difference between $112 and $35.79, or by $76.21.


Angus MacInnis: How does that fit in
with subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of section 17 of the regulations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is an example of
how it operates.


Angus MacInnis: I cannot see it in just
the way the minister gave it. I may be a little dense, but this is what it says:
(i) The pension authority shall, in the case of real property that is used exclusively as a residence or shelter by the pensioner, consider as income an amount that, in the opinion of the pension authority, is fairly equivalent to the amount that the pensioner might reasonably be expected to pay for rent . . .
If the rent of such a building would be perhaps $20 a month, would this mean that $20 would be deducted from the pension?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Less all the expenses.


Angus MacInnis: Well, it is not quite so
clear in regard to expenses:
. . . the pension authority may in its discretion deduct all or any part of the cost of maintaining such property, other than any payment of principal on any mortgage or agreement for sale thereon . . .
It seems to me that this regulation is drawn very loosely, and that unless it is better drawn there will be all kinds of room for chiseling boards to cut down the amount of the pension.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will do my best to see that when we meet again


Angus MacInnis: Well, when I see this bill I am doubtful of the minister's "best." It does not fill me with confidence. When someone asked about the amount of cash or liquid assets a pensioner may have the minister said that it was $2,000. Where can I find that in the regulations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Section 17(b) (i). That is the income based on an annuity calculated

Old Age Pensions
at the age of seventy years, instead of calculating at the actual age of the person. In other words, in respect of a man eighty years of age the annuity is not calculated at the age of eighty but rather at the age of seventy.


Angus MacInnis: I do not read that into this section. If a certain amount of cash is allowed, why not state definitely in the regulations that the pensioner may have that amount of cash without any deduction from his pension? Speaking here on Friday evening, the minister said on several occasions that Canada now under this bill has the most generous means test in the world.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Angus MacInnis: 
John Ritchie MacNicol: That is $2,500.


Angus MacInnis: 
Paul Joseph James Martin: They may have $10,000 in Canada between them.


Angus MacInnis: Would the minister show me that in the regulations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 
Howard Charles Green: But they could have a home there, could they not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They could have a home here, too.


Howard Charles Green: But if they have they would come under different regulations and the rental value would be deducted from the pension.
Old Age Pensions


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is $1,610.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to refer to the regulations. Does a self-contained domestic establishment, which is described as a dwelling house, apartment, or other place of residence, include a single room?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would a room where the applicant had a stove, furniture and bed be a self-contained establishment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Then, regulation 5 (2) states:
(2) Where an application has been so approved and a pension is being paid, the pension authority shall, each year during the lifetime of the pensioner, cause an investigation to be made into the circumstances of the pensioner and the use to which the pension is being put to determine whether such pensioner continues to be eligible for pension and the amount thereof.
It has been my experience, and I am sure, one which has been shared by other hon. member's, that many elderly people in Canada hesitate before applying for pension. They object to people prying into their meagre affairs. Has any discussion been held with the provinces to see whether, after a pensioner has been declared eligible, the annual inquiries could be dispensed with?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That provision was inserted at the request of most of the provinces, which felt that the pensioners in their own interests should be visited once a year. There were cases where pensioners did not know the law, and so on. They did not know the income limits and, because no one came to them, they were being discriminated against. In some provinces that was a regular practice, and this was intended to be in their interest as well as to assist in the proper administration of the act. I may say that Saskatchewan took a strong view on this matter.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Section 15 of the regulations reads:
15 (1) If an applicant, while resident in Canada, has temporarily absented himself therefrom for the purpose of engaging in
(g) missionary work with any religious group or organization in Canada which supports missionaries abroad
and, at the termination of such employment, be returned to Canada, he shall be presumed to have continued to reside in Canada during such absence, if, during the period thereof, he had in Canada a permanent place of abode to which, whenever he was absent therefrom, he had the intention of returning, or he maintained in Canada, a self-contained domestic establishment. 
I imagine that most missionaries with their meagre incomes are unable to maintain a permanent place of abode in Canada. Would the minister explain why this appears?


Paul Joseph James Martin: A family home would cover that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think that should be redrafted, because many missionaries have no family home and yet they regard Canada as their residence. The minister should consider some different wording.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot change it; it has to be changed with all the provinces. I think there is something in what the hon. member says, and at the next meeting I will see that that is gone into.


Solon Earl Low: In the course of the debate that has taken place on this bill, a good many things have been said about the regulations and many things have been said about the responsibility for the regulations as they appear appended to the act. It has been said, I think by the minister himself, that the provinces are responsible jointly with the dominion for the regulations. I think it would be wise to have established just exactly where the responsibility does lie. Is it the responsibility of the federal government to lay down these regulations, and do they in fact lay them down? Are they accepted by the provinces after they have been laid down by the dominion, or is it the practice to call in the provinces and have them sit around the table jointly with the dominion authorities to make the regulations? I should like the minister to take some care and place that matter exactly on the record.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There can be no doubt about that, because the act is quite clear. My hon. friend will appreciate my reasons for saying that, because he was once a member of the interprovincial old age pensions board and, I think, a most useful member of that board. He will remember the provisions of section 19(2) of the act which state:
No regulation by reference to which any agreement with a province has been made shall be altered except with the consent of such province or in accordance with the provisions of the regulations to which it has agreed.
We cannot make those regulations alone; we make them sitting down with the representatives of all the provinces. We have two representatives at the meeting, and the provinces combined have eighteen representatives. Those meetings are generally attended by responsible ministers and often by deputy ministers. At the meeting in November last,

Old Age Pensions
when these regulations were drawn up, Alberta was represented by the chairman of the old age pensions board and Mr. Blackie; Ontario was represented by the minister of welfare, his deputy, Mr. Heise and also Mr. Green, chairman of the old age pensions commission; Saskatchewan was represented by Hon. O. W. Valleau and Mr. J. S. White; Quebec was represented by Hon. Mr. Sauve and J. R. Forest; all the provinces were represented, and no regulation can be made without the sanction of a majority of those attending the conference pursuant to section 19 (2) of the act.


Solon Earl Low: It is true that in 1937 I did sit on that interprovincial board, but I do not think the minister has stated the case at all clearly or at ail correctly. I refer him to the amended section 19(1) which will read:
The governor in council may make regulations not inconsistent with this act, for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing may make regulations providing for . . .
Then in the act follows a long list of paragraphs from (a) down to (u). In connection with those matters, the governor in council may make regulations without reference to anyone. Paragraph (r) reads-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not inconsistent with this act, and section 19(2) is part of the act.


Solon Earl Low: I am taking that into consideration. Paragraph (r) reads:
(r) the constitution and powers of an international board to interpret and recommend alterations in the regulations.
That interprovincial board has no other power than the power to interpret, the power to come to unity with respect to interpretation for administrative purposes. While it is sitting, it may make recommendations with respect to alterations, but no other powers are granted to that board and no other powers have ever been asked by that board. For that reason, I say that notwithstanding what is in section 19(2) which reads:
No regulation by reference to which any agreement with a province has been made shall be altered except with the consent of such province or in accordance with the provisions of the regulations to which it has agreed.
As I say, notwithstanding that, the responsibility for these regulations rests squarely upon this government and upon no other body. All the interprovincial board can do is to interpret and make recommendations for alterations and nothing else. I submit that that is the situation and, no matter how anyone may try to twist subsection 2, he cannot make that subsection read any other way.


Howard Charles Green: I am informed that where an applicant for old age pension has a life insurance policy, the surrender value of that policy is taken into account in determining his income. Is that the case?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Only if he himself can realize on it.


Howard Charles Green: In most cases the person holding insurance can do that. It seems unfair that an applicant who has taken out a policy for the protection of his widow should be faced with a provision that the surrender value of that policy must be taken into account. Why is that done? There is nothing in the regulations here that provides for that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If it were made out to his widow he could not retract it.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think the minister is right. It certainly could be surrendered. Is it a fact that if the policy is payable to the widow the surrender value is not taken into account? I am informed that it is, that they do not consider whether it is payable to the widow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is only taken into
account when it is a policy which he himself can cash and from which he benefits.


Howard Charles Green: He could cash the other with the consent of his beneficiary. Would the minister look that up and find out what is the practice?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have given the practice, but I will look it up again.


Howard Charles Green: Under the Veterans Allowances Act, which is similar legislation, an applicant veteran is allowed to have a home up to the value of S4.000 without its being considered in his application for allowance. Why are we handling old age pensions in a different way? Why do we not allow these people to have their homes free, without having the pension reduced accordingly? It seems to me that would be one way of encouraging a person to buy a home and pay for it. Why have we gone back in the other direction under the old age pension regulations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What we have been trying to avoid is the creating of too great a preference between an old age pensioner with a home and one who has not one. What we have done in these regulations is to try to make it fairer by giving a fair rental value to the property rather than, as under the old regulations, fixing the rental value on the basis of five per cent of the assessed value of the property.
4S76
Old Age Pensions


Howard Charles Green: There is no doubt that it is an improvement but I do suggest it would be wiser to allow them to have a home up to the value of $4,000 without taking it into consideration at all.


Calvert Charlton Miller: On that question of insurance, just before I came here I was working on a proposition such as that indicated by the hon. member for Vancouver South. An old chap had a life insurance policy. It is one of the kind on which you have to pay until you die to win. The premium was $87 a year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who was the beneficiary?


Calvert Charlton Miller: The widow. In spite of that, the cash surrender value of the policy was included in the amount of his assets upon which the annuity table was written.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The regulations do not authorize that. I wish the hon. member would give me that particular case.


Calvert Charlton Miller: I have already written to Winnipeg and asked them to give me the details.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will you speak to me about that?


Calvert Charlton Miller: I shall be glad to. I have another point. What happens to a small estate, such as a $2,000 house which an old age pensioner may own at his death? Do they allow that as an exemption on his estate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: W'e are prepared to waive our rights if we can get an agreement with the provinces on that.


Calvert Charlton Miller: At the moment it is subject to a lien, is it not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In some provinces. We sent a letter out to the provinces some time ago on this very point, through the deputy Minister of Finance, offering to do that very thing.


Calvert Charlton Miller: Under what section of the regulations is that provided?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If we can get an agreement with the provinces we propose to incorporate that in the actual agreement which would have to be signed pursuant to this act.


John Oliver Probe: I have had a question for the minister for some time now. The question is this: This happens quite frequently. For some reason, either through ignorance or otherwise, an old age pensioner gets an income which causes him to be cut off from tMr. Martin.]
further pension payments for a period of time, for six months or a year and a half. Apparently the practice has been to cut him off without warning. In practically all cases this causes a considerable hardship, because, if he received an income which makes him no longer pensionable, he is suspended in all probability and then he is destitute. Will the minister give some consideration to giving him a couple of months' notice that he is about to be cut off, so that he can get his affairs in order or make some alternative arrangement during that period in which he is penalized?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under section 24 (2) the
payments are distributed.


John Oliver Probe: Have they been in the past?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, that is new.


Angus MacInnis: Can we not give the pensioner some better deal than that without increasing the payment of money involved; indeed, I think reducing it? This evening the minister said that the pension was not supposed to be a living income. If the pensioner could for a time find some employment that would bring him an income, is there any reason why he should not notify the pension board, and then he would be cut off the pension while he was working and as soon as his work was finished his pension would be restored?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not see why it could not be done.


Angus MacInnis: I have another question. I suppose it stems from the difficulty I experience in reading legal language.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What section?


Angus MacInnis: Section 17 (b) (ii), of the regulations which reads as follows:
Where the pensioner is living with a spouse, consider as income in respect of each spouse, the amount ot annuity purchasable with the proceeds of the personal property of each spouse respectively . . .
I am wondering what is meant by "each spouse" where at the beginning he was living with only one.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That means husband and wife. The word "spouse" under the general interpretation section means either one. I used to have that difficulty.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In connection with section 21 of the regulations, I notice the following:
Every pension shall commence on the first day of the month following the month in which

Old Age Pensions
the application is approved; provided that where such approval is given after the last day of the month in which the application was received by the pension authority . . .
A little later on, provision is made if through no fault of the pensioner there has been an unnecessary delay in completing the form. The section goes on:
. . . The pension authority may, in its discretion, declare that such approval shall be effective as of an earlier date which shall, in no case, be prior to the first day of the month following the month in which the application was received . . .
I wonder whether it would be reasonable
to have it mandatory, so that if the fault was not the fault of the pensioner the payments would start from the time that the pensioner reached the required age. Has the minister given consideration to going farther and striking out the words "in its discretion".


Paul Joseph James Martin: We can consider that. We cannot change these regulations without sitting down with the provinces. I will note what the hon. member has said.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In connection with section 28 of the regulations, I wonder whether the minister has any further information. The section reads:
The amount recovered by a pension authority from a pensioner or from the estate of a deceased pensioner in respect of any pension shall be distributed among the province granting the pension, the dominion and any other province...
Has the minister a statement on the last correspondence with the provinces with respect to the proposals made to the provinces regarding the recovery of these amounts?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have the minutes of the whole conference.
Mr. NICHOLSON; How long are you going to insist on considering these as really predeath loans with attempts to recover these small amounts?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We waive our rights on estates under 82,000 and are prepared to incorporate that in the agreements we have with the provinces.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That does not appear in these regulations?
Mr. MARTIN; It is a matter of agreement.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am considerably confused with regard to who is responsible for these regulations. The minister has said that the provinces and the dominion are jointly responsible in the making of these regulations. The hon. member for Peace River has certainly stated a different proposition. I believe that he as a member of the board which made 83166-311
these regulations in 1937 or 1938, should know something about them. Are these regulations presented to the provinces as an accomplished fact when they come here, or can any province offer changes? We will say that in the regulations as they are drawn up and presented to the provinces when they come here to discuss them, the amount of property which a pensioner may have is set at 82,000. One of the provinces may think that is not enough and may think it should be $3,000. The majority of the people in the conference vote 83,000. The dominion does not want it raised. The majority want it raised. Then the regulations will call for 83,000. Am I to understand that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We cannot go against the act which is as clear as anything can possibly be. The provinces come here with representatives numbering eighteen. We have two representatives. They and we sit around and discuss the matter. The last time they met for four days discussing these regulations and there was, I may say, nothing but accord on most points. As a result of discussion, a compromise was effected. But it is a conference of nine provincial governments and the federal government, each being a government, each having its view as to what should be done; and there is no question that whatever may be tried by anyone-and I am not suggesting that anything has been tried by any particular group- they are clearly governed by the law itself, behind which no one can go.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Can the minister give the committee any enlightenment as to whether the $10 which the province of Ontario is giving will be included in the maximum allowable income, or is it in addition to the 8600 for a single person?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was not able to answer the hon. gentleman's question in that regard the other night, as to whether Ontario would increase it by way of a pension or a supplement.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: You do not know any more now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, but it is under section 16 (c) if it is a supplement.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: In that case, taking th. best interpretation that can be put upon it, namely, that the 810 supplement will be allowed in addition to the S600 maximum income for single people and SI,080 for married people, I would point out to the committee just how this works out and why it is that I am very much against the means test and hope that at the earliest opportunity it can be abolished. As it stands now, if a person is

Old Age Pensions

allowed an outside income of $240, which, added to the $360 dominion pension, makes $600, an amount of $20.90 a year saved by the individual from the age of thirty until the age of seventy would accumulate a sum sufficient, under the government annuities branch, to produce the amount of $240.
I claim that $21 a year is not a large amount to save, and yet there is no incentive whatsoever for a single person to save beyond $21 a year unless he can save more than $50 a year, which would bring him into the brackets of over $600 a year through the purchase of an annuity with these annual savings; or in the case of a married couple, putting the best interpretation on the Ontario addition of $10 a month, .they are now allowed $360 of independent income beyond their dominion government pension, and to accumulate that amount of money between the ages of thirty and seventy would require an annual saving of $31.44 or, in round figures, $31. There is no use in saving beyond that amount a year unless they can save more than $94, $94 being sufficient to buy them an income of $1,080 if saved over a period of forty years.
So that you have that large area for a married couple, saving between $31 a year and $94 a year, which practically embraces about seventy-five or eighty-five per cent of our whole population, and there is no use in people saving beyond $31 a year unless they can save more than $94 a year. That to my mind, as I am sure it will appeal to the minds of all hon. members, is an extraordinary situation and one which should be rectified at the first opportunity. I saw nothing substantial in this bill which goes toward that rectification. When you have a means test such as we have had, old people who might be able to earn a reasonable amount of outside income by serving as handy men or watchmen or doing work of that kind, are prevented from engaging in these useful pursuits, because anything they earn merely reduces what they otherwise would have through government old age pension.
I suggest that great consideration be given to the point I have made, that it is inadvisable for married people to save beyond $31 a year unless they can save more than $94. That amount may not sound like a large sum to many members here; but when it is realized that the average citizen cannot purchase his own home, even a humble home, a saving of nearly $109 a year is a very substantial amount, because they find great difficulty in making ends meet without providing for their own old age, as I am sure the minister will

admit, since that is the sum and substance of the matter that is before us.
So that when we put. this halter on savings, this premium on thriftlessness, it works against all our people. I would point out to the minister that many companies throughout the country are today putting into force a company pension or retirement plan, and very few of them can hope to give their employees more than $1,080 a year, which is what the dominion pension, plus outside income of $360, would allow. In fact, if that pension amounts to $300 or $400 or $500 at the end of the working term it will be quite an achievement in view of what has gone on in the past and what has been possible.
I believe that if the government does not do something to eliminate, the means test, particularly in the lower brackets, it will work to the disadvantage of men who would otherwise receive some recognition from the companies for which they work. I would ask him to give the matter even fuller consideration than he has so far given, because I can imagine nothing that works against the principle of self-help, which we should encourage in our people, so much as the operation of the arrangements which are now being put on the statute books. I would ask the minister to do something about this at the earliest opportunity, if not tonight, because the further away he postpones the opportunity which should be given to people to provide for their own old age, the more trouble he is heaping up for himself in the years to come. If he would make it possible for people to become reasonably self-sufficient; if he would give them an incentive instead of taking it away from them, his labours in the future would be lightened. I hope the time will come before long when we shall have a compulsory contributory old age pension plan for our old people.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend said the same thing in the budget debate'-[DOT]


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That was another principle altogether. The government does not understand its business, if I may say so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He also said it to me privately and perhaps it was there that he said it, but I thought he said it in the budget. I have noted with great care what he has said, but I would point out that we are dealing with a different class of people, people who, throughout their lives, have not had enough money to put into an annuity.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I cannot conscientiously advise a person who has enough money to save beyond $31-that is, speaking of married

Old Age Pensions
couples-unless that person can save beyond S94, because you make it foolish for them to do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to a contributory scheme, 1 said in my opening statement what m3' views were, that while in a federal state, with great physical expanses, difficulties are presented in the realization of a contributory scheme; nevertheless, in spite of difficulties as compared with unitary states and smaller communities, I believe there can be no question that that is the direction toward which, not only for old age pensions, but for all social insurances, we must head. That is the direction we ought to bear in mind. There are difficulties, constitutional and otherwise, but these difficulties will, I believe, have to be met some day, and perhaps sooner than many of us think.


William Ross Macdonald: I would remind the committee that we are considering section 8, which deals with the regulations, and the discussion of the means test on this clause is not strictly in order. I think the committee should see that all discussion is strictly relevant.


Edward George McCullough: The
hon. member for Melfort expressed some concern regarding the manner in which the regulations are made and who will make them. I, too, feel somewhat concerned about this. In the first place, the provinces contribute toward the payment of old age pensions, and I think we should have a clear statement from the minister as to just who makes those regulations. I think he is just skating around answering the question when he states that the provinces sit down in consultation with the federal government and then come to some sort of compromise. In a hypothetical case such as that given by the hon. member for Melfort, will the minister state whether or not, in the case of the provinces agreeing to certain regulations-that is, where you have a majority deciding on certain regulations- the federal government would agree to them? My second question is with regard to old age pensioners having a home having a sale value of perhaps S3,000. Suppose they were living in Saskatchewan and wanted to move to British Columbia, and they sold that property. What would be the regulations governing that situation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: With regard to the first question, I cannot add anything to what I have said. With regard to the second question, I call the hon. member's attention to regulation 18 (4).
83166-311J


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have two short questions to ask, and I shall be brief. I believe, when the bill was introduced, or at some stage before the house, I called to the minister's attention the case of an old lady whom I know quite well. She was on old age pension and was compelled later to sell her house. She bought a smaller one. She was not compelled to sign papers providing that, in the event of her death, her little estate would lose that property. Is there now some regulation which does not compel a pensioner to sign away her property rights?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no regulation now which compels them to sign away property.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This is in Ontario. I am under the impression that there must be some regulation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is in some provinces.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That may apply in
Ontario. I was interested in what the hon. member for Rosedale said about penalizing thrift. I know of another case, that of an old couple who live in a rented house. I know them very well. They are both perhaps seventy-five years of age. A death had occurred in the family, that of the brother of the wife, the female pensioner. It took every dollar they had accumulated to pay the funeral expenses. Then the old lady took in a couple of boarders and the old gentleman went out to work for an institution. They were both on old age pension. To their surprise, somebody came and ascertained that one was keeping two boarders and the other was working out, and they were both penalized to the extent, I believe, of something over $11 a month each. Penalizing an old couple, both up around seventy-five years of age, was, in my judgment, a severe attack on thrift.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have now raised the
income limit, inclusive of pension, from $850 to $1,080.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then they would be
quite safe.


Mr. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: Now that we are dealing with section 8 on the regulations, there is a matter in which I am somewhat interested. The hon. member for Mackenzie read from the regulations a few minutes ago; I do not happen to have a copy before me-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that on section 8?


James Herbert Matthews: Yes. I think it is generally understood that the period varies between the time the application is made and when the pension is granted.
Old Age Pensions

Sometimes this period may run into several months. What I should like to know is this. Is the pension paid as from the date of application or only from the date of the granting of the pension?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would refer the hon.
member to regulation 21:
(1) Every pension shall commence on the first day of the month following the month in which the application is approved; provided that where such approval is given after the last day of the month in which the application was received by the pension authority and delay in approval has resulted from circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, the pension authority may, in its discretion, declare that such approval shall be effective as of an earlier date which shall, in no case, be prior to the first day of the month following the month in which the application was received by the pension authority . . .


James Herbert Matthews: That is the very point I am interested in. I have known of cases where this period has extended over a good many months. It seems to me that if the pension authorities wish to do any chiseling, they have a good opportunity there to keep stalling people off month after month. It is my suggestion that the pension should be retroactive from the date of application.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend will
compare the regulation I have just read with the old regulation, he will see that we have tried to meet that problem.


James Herbert Matthews: That is where I think these people need more consideration. If a person is pensionable at the age of seventy but does not apply for pension before he has reached the age of seventy, he should not have to wait for six, eight or ten months; he was just as pensionable when he reached the age of seventy as he was ten months later. The pension should be payable from the date of application.


Charles Edward Johnston: I wish to say a word on this section. I spoke the other day in regard to the making of regulations. The hon. member for Peace River carefully outlined to the house the method which was used when the provinces and dominion met; he pointed out clearly that the regulations are already made and laid before them and they can then discuss procedure as to administration. The act is quite clear; and although the minister has said that when the regulations are made-and I think I am using his own words-the provinces along with the federal authorities make the regulations. That is not according to the act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is an important point. I have stated the position often, and what I

have said is the case. Where does my hon. friend get the authority for the statement he has made? I can only repeat that the act is clear in the matter. We cannot do that. This is a matter of joint arrangement with the provinces, and I am happy to say that the last meeting; the only one of which I have any knowledge, was a harmonious one and lasted for four days. The parties met on the questions and1 decided upon regulations which they believed to be in the best interests of the administration of this act. If my hon. friend does not believe that, all right; I cannot say anything stronger than what I have said. But that is clearly the case, and I think he knows me well enough to accept that.


Charles Edward Johnston: I suggest to the minister that section 19 (i) should read in this fashion, "The governor in council, together with the provinces, may make regulations." If those words are added, it will definitely imply what the minister has said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. Somebody has to pass the regulations. Then they have to become law. The provinces meet with the dominion, as they did last November for four days; then they make regulations, and the governor in council gives them the effect of law. Otherwise they would not have the effect of law. That is the purpose of this section.


Solon Earl Low: If a majority of the eighteen representatives of the provinces met here in Ottawa and decided on a certain regulation or change in a regulation, if they then recommended that to the minister, is he bound to put it through? That is a simple question. Is the minister bound by a majority decision of the provincial representatives?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot say any more than I have already said three times.


Solon Earl Low: But it is important that the minister answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have answered it three times.


Solon Earl Low: No, you have not answered it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is the law, and it is as clear as daylight. I must be at fault.


Solon Earl Low: I think the members of the committee are entitled to an answer to that question. It is a simple question and the minister can answer it yes or no. I could tell him what to answer, and I would be right. The answer is no; he is not bound. That is right, and I will go farther; the minister will disagree if I am wrong. This is only for the purpose of clarifying this whole matter. If the eighteen representatives of the prov-

Old Age Pensions
inces at that interprovincial board meeting here should be unanimous in their adoption of a regulation or their recommendation of a change in an existing regulation, would the minister say he would be bound even by that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Solon Earl Low: No, he would not, simply because the responsibility is with the federal government and no one else.


Mr. LOCKHART:: I just want to make one point clear, and to amplify what has been said by the previous speaker. The minister has indicated that there are. some agreements and some regulations still not complete?


Paul Joseph James Martin: None of the agreements has been completed.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: There will be further modifications?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As soon as this bill becomes law we shall have to obtain agreements.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The minister said it was expected that there would be further meetings with the provinces at which certain matters could be taken up. One question came into my mind in connection with the $2,000 of property value that might be left in the hands of the pensioner. Some of the provinces have been conceding that, and for some time they have been as lenient as possible in the administration of the regulations. As the previous speaker said, the provinces come here and they have cases in which the regulations are working an injustice. Then it is within the discretion of the minister to allow any change to be made in the regulations or any amendments, even if all the provincial governments are agreed. That is correct, is it not?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Go on.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: That is correct?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Is that fair to the provinces, who are supplementing the pension, doing their best to give pensioners reasonable security? Is it fair to hold the provinces down to that extent?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is not holding them down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not understand what the hon. member for Lincoln means when he says that.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: As the hon. member for Peace River said, eighteen representatives of the provinces come here and agree unanimously to a certain proposed change in the regulations. Are the provinces not allowed to
have any say in this matter, by agreement or otherwise, in order to make any change under the regulations, in view of the fact that they are paying increased sums to help bring more security to the people of their provinces? I am just a little bit concerned when the minister says-and not only the minister, but some other members of the government-that the answer is definitely no, and that the federal authority could dominate the situation-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No one said that.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I think the minister who is interrupting me was the one who said it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The regulations are a contract. They cannot be changed except by agreement between parties, and I cannot say more than that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is a matter of cooperation and consent.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: If the regulations are shown to be working a hardship they cannot be changed without the consent of all the provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: But even if all the provinces want them changed the government can still veto any change which might be proposed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only point out for the fifth time the implications of the section, which are pretty clear. If my hon. friend and I want to make a contract we sit down around a table and discuss the matter. If we do not agree we cannot have a contract. We cannot pass any regulation by ourselves, and they cannot pass any by themselves. It is a matter of mutual agreement. Surely the situation is clear.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: No, it is not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then I cannot make it any clearer.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Are there matters that are still under consideration between the provinces and the dominion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Nothing?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; we get along very well.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Then what was the reason for the minister saying he was going to take up certain matters?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was referring to agreements under section 2 of the bill.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Then there are agreements still to be effected?
Old Age Pensions


Paul Joseph James Martin: When this bill is passed, the provinces will be called upon to pay more money, and the bill will likewise be imposing upon the dominion an additional financial obligation. When the bill is passed we shall sit down with each province and execute an agreement pursuant to section 2 of this bill. That is what I am talking about, not the regulations.


Angus MacInnis: We should be clear, I think, as to what is meant by the agreement the minister is talking about, and my feeling is that there is some misunderstanding now. From my reading of the bill, and particularly of this section, the governor in council may make regulations not inconsistent with this act for the carrying out of the purposes of the act. The governor in council is this government. That provides for regulations covering pensions under sections 4 and 5. That means they will make agreements with the provinces on the basis of $30 or whatever lesser amount a province is prepared to pay. The point I want to get the minister's word on is that the federal government has no control whatever over the supplemental payments the provincial governments may make, that they may make these supplemental payments under whatever regulations they wish. Is that so?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; that is purely their own affair.


Angus MacInnis: All that is provided under this bill, then, is that, according to the regulations that have been made, with the provinces and the federal representatives sitting in, the government will pay a pension of $30 or whatever lesser amount a province may pay, subject to the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of this bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The questioning has become so popular I do not see why I should not get in on it also. Did I understand the minister to say that in order that the dominion might make a change in the agreement with New Brunswick, let us say, all the other provinces had to agree. Did I understand that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: All that is necessary is agreement between the dominion and New Brunswick?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was confusion
between the regulations and the agreements. An agreement is a matter between the province and the dominion under section 2 of the bill.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what I thought. Then I misunderstood you, and perhaps some others misunderstood you also.


Mr. BENTLEY:: I have a couple of questions to ask the minister which the other night he advised me would come better under this section of the bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is a filibuster.


Angus MacInnis: My hon. friend should know a lot about filibusters; I have seen him in a few.


Thomas John Bentley: The minister who made that side remark probably knows all about it. If he wants to make it appear that way I can assure him he will get plenty of it. I am trying to get information.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Thomas John Bentley: No, it is not carried. The minister had an opportunity a minute ago to save a lot of time by answering the question asked by the hon. member for Peace River. He has not yet answered it. It could have been answered briefly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did my humble best, as the hon. member knows.


Thomas John Bentley: If he did his humble best, then I would advise him to try something better, because it could be answered yes or no. The other evening, when I was talking about this matter I asked the minister a question. I took the hypothetical case of a province deciding that from its income it could make provision for a great number of its citizens, not old age pensioners, but others, who could receive, from the provincial treasury or from some other source over which the provincial government would have control, payments to increase the income of those citizens. If that were done, would it be considered supplementary and, therefore, not deductible from pension? The minister replied that if it came within section 16-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Section 16 (c).


Thomas John Bentley: I have not the new regulations. But I have the office consolidation of the old ones and section 16 (c) is not here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member has the wrong regulations.


Thomas John Bentley: I have not the new ones. However I am correct in understanding that that would be a supplementary payment. But any money coming from any private source or from other than a government source would not be suppleme ltaiy and would, therefore, be deductible.

Old Age Pensions


Paul Joseph James Martin: If it is income, yes.


Thomas John Bentley: I have another question to ask. These regulations I have are dated 1944.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us discuss the new ones.


Thomas John Bentley: I will see if this is in the new ones. Yes, I find it is the new regulation 24 which, under the heading "Suspension of Pension," states:
The payment of a pension shall be suspended (a) during the absence of a pensioner from Canada; provided that the pension authority may continue the payment of pension for any period of absence not exceeding ninety days in any one year where, in the opinion of the pension authority, the circumstances warrant such payment.
That is a slight improvement over the old one. But I would ask this question: Why does there need to be any time limit on a pensioner's being in another country if that country is better for him, or if his health is better there? If he has earned, by having been a resident of Canada, the right to receive an old age pension from Canada, why should he be restricted as to his movements after that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think we can possibly ask the people of Canada to pay money to people, let us say, living in the state of Colorado or California.


Angus MacInnis: Can a judge leave Canada on his pension?


Thomas John Bentley: It becomes a matter of opinion. I do not see why the people of Canada-and I am one of them-should object once in a while to pay a pension because the pensioner who has attained a certain age in this country wishes to go to another country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does any other country do it?


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that ever in any debate I compared Canada with any other country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You all do.


Thomas John Bentley: I never do.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You do, with New Zealand, all the time.


Thomas John Bentley: I never do; that is an absolute misstatement of fact. The only comparison I make is what Canada can do with what Canada does do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend surely is not asking us to do something in that regard that no other country is doing. Surely he is not suggesting that.


Thomas John Bentley: I am not concerned with any other country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You all are over there.


Thomas John Bentley: If we agree in Canada to pay somebody a pension because of certain qualifications he has gained here, then why should he not have that pension, no matter whether he goes to Oregon, Colorado, or up to the Yukon if he likes? And someone has mentioned that when judges are placed on pensions they can live where they like. Why does Canada pay a judge a pension if he goes to California or to the Riviera? Why is the old age pensioner singled out as having to stay in Canada when he is likely to be a citizen who probably needs a better climate than Canada can provide? What is wrong with being somewhere else?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is wrong for the reason that the present Prime Minister of New Zealand said the same suggestion was wrong, when the matter was discussed in the New Zealand legislature in 1938. I will show my hon. friend the exact quotation. Surely he cannot be serious when he makes this suggestion. My hon. friend is about to say that surely I am not going to rely upon the Prime Minister of New Zealand. I will rely upon any authority which meets my case.


Thomas John Bentley: I rely upon authorities, too. I do not want the Prime Minister of New Zealand for it, however; I will take the Minister of National Health and Welfare for Canada, if he will give us a good reason for it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think-


Thomas John Bentley: Or the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I will accept him, if he gives me good authority. What is the reason for it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not like to say my hon. friend hias made an absurd suggestion, because he is not that kind: of person. But I just think his suggestion, upon reflection by himself, will be accepted as wholly negligible.


Thomas John Bentley: I will have to be absurd,
then, because I can see no difference between old age pensioners and judges, when one gets much more than the other. And when they live on Canadian money, I can see nothing absurd when the suggestion is made that they should both be allowed to live in the same place.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The old age pensioners do not want to leave the country.


Thomas John Bentley: I know some who do. I know some who had difficult times in the thirties. I am glad they can get ninety days
Old Age Pensions

now. That will get them past the toughest part of the winter. I cannot see why it should not be 365 days, and I can see nothing absurd in my suggestion. If I am absurd I am willing to have the minister show me now how absurd I am.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh.


Thomas John Bentley: The hon. member over here likes to support the minister, but I will not take him as an authority, because the minister will have an opportunity to show how absurd my objection is, if he wishes to.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to see where we have the opinion of someone who lives in Canada, and not have to rely upon someone in New Zealand. Like my hon. friend, I think we are entitled to have that information, and not just the Statement that what the hon. member has said is absurd.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Thomas John Bentley: No; are we not going to have anyone to say why I am absurd?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I dad not say you were tbsurd. I knew the hon. member did not deserve it. I suggested that the hon. member's suggestion is of dubious validity because it is altogether different from the practice in any other country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It will not be carried until we have an answer. I do not see how it is absurd. I have not been able to see the reason yet, and I think there must be a reason. I am sure the minister did not act without a reason. I am sure he did not act because someone in New Zealand said something. We are entitled to know.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member knows me better than that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is exactly what I have said1.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have pointed1 out to him the difficulty of administering the act with a person living in Colorado, and that it would hardly commend itself to good administration.


Thomas John Bentley: The answer is this, I presume-and the minister will correct me if I am wrong-that the difference 'between the old' age pensioner and the judge is that there is no means test applied to the judge with his handsome pension, but, on the other hand, there must be a means test and a careful examination of the old age pensioner at all 
times. So that he must be home and in his own backyard where we can look at him. Is that the answer?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Thomas John Bentley: The minister shakes his head and says no. What is the answer, then?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shake my head because the hon. member is not going to make me make an admission which I do not think, in the light of my responsibility as a minister, he should ask me to make. I am not trying to keep the old people in this country; but I am trying to help them, and my hon. friend knows that.


Thomas John Bentley: Cannot the minister help them and let them go to live under an orange tree or under a grapefruit tree, or somewhere else, wherever they wish to go?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to come into this again. The minister said a minute ago that one of the reasons for not doing it was that nobody wanted to take advantage of it, that no old age pensioner would want to go. Then he turns around and says that we cannot do it because it would be such a huge administrative problem. Well, he cannot have it both ways. It does not seem reasonable that they cannot have their money in Timbuctoo, San Francisco or wherever they like.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Coming into force.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister not reconsider this date? The new act is to come into force as of May 1, 1947. This is the act which was heralded away back on January 30 as being such a wonderful act. If there is any merit in the minister's act-and we have been trying to tell him that we do not think there is nearly as much merit in it as there should have been

why does he not try to redeem the measure in some small degree by making a slight change in the retroactive date to January 1 of this year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This was the date the provinces were advised.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure there is not any province which would have any objection to making the date retroactive to an earlier date. I am quite sure the minister is not seriously stating that there would be any objection from the provinces on that score. I am equally certain that there would be no objection from the old age pensioners who have been kept waiting for a long time and for whom such vast hopes were held out by the

Special War Revenue Act
extravagant language used by the government about the measure they were going to introduce.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 5-Pensions to blind persons.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Section 5 stands.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the reason for holding up section 5?	*


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall have to give the reason on another occasion.


Angus MacInnis: That is the way New Zealand did it.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES. (Minister of Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 264, to amend the Fisheries Research Board Act.
Motion agreed to, bill considered in committee, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the senate to Bill No. 271, to amend the Special War Revenue Act and to change its title to the Excise Tax Act.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: This amendment is to page 6, which contains a section under the heading of "Penalty."


Mr. ABBOTT:: That is correct.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister say a word about this.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a minor amendment. Subsection 2 of section 48 reads:
An officer or servant of a bank, express company or corporation who assents to or acquiesces in the contravention of any provision of this part or in the course of his employment does or omits to do anything as the result of which his employer is guilty of contravening a provision of this part is guilty of an offence-
The senate has struck out the words "assents *to or acquiesces in the contravention of any provision of this part or". The amendment is not objectionable.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did the senate strike out those words because they went too far?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not any idea. They may have thought they went too far.


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


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs for Acting Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of Bill No. 362, respecting the protection and conservation of the forests on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains.
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-Short title.
Solon Earl Low: I understood some days ago that the minister was going to make a statement on this bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am only a deputy without profound knowledge of this particular bill. If the hon. member has some inquiries to make, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again when the minister is present.


Solon Earl Low: It does not matter to me at all except that I understood that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the minister will want to make a statement.
Progress reported.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Veterans' Business and Professional Loans Act to provide for the making of guaranteed loans to veterans already established in partnership businesses for expenditure by the partnership and to enable a veteran to include as part or all of his cash requirements under the act, moneys expended by him in connection with his business between the date of assent to the bill and the date of proclamation of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Veterans Affairs
Douglas Charles Abbott: If it meets with the views of the committee, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we might adopt the resolution and have the main debate on second reading. I had hoped that we might follow the same practice with this bill as with a number of others, including the old age pensions bill. Of course we are in the hands of the committee.


Howard Charles Green: We want a statement of what the bill is about. We are entitled to that on the resolutions shtage, and I would ask the minister to make a statement.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will not argue the point. We will make a statement; I thought we could save a little time.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I had hoped that we would get first reading of the bill, and then we could make a full statement on second reading.


Howard Charles Green: We should like to have a statement on the resolution stage. It enables us to prepare for the debate.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The bill will be distributed after first reading. The general purpose of this bill is to extend the scope and usefulness of the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act. As all hon. members are aware, loans are available under the act to veterans, through the chartered banks, for a variety of purposes associated with the establishment or expansion of a business or profession. These loans are subject to a partial government guarantee on a pooling basis similar to the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the home improvement plan, amounting to twenty-five per cent of the first million dollars of loans made by any bank plus fifteen per cent of any amount above a million dollars. Veterans . loans are made directly by the banks, but it is necessary for the Department of Veterans Affairs to concur in applications to ensure that those who apply are bona fide veterans within the meaning of the act.
The Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act has now been in effect for about six months. During that time, namely from January 15 to June 17, 1947, the Department of Veterans Affairs has concurred in 2,271 applications for loans by veterans in an amount of 83,943,000. This is a very considerable volume of applications acceptable to the banks, and indicates, I believe, that the act is fulfilling in large measure the functions for which it was designed and enacted.
Unfortunately, even though the banks are willing to lend money under the act, the veteran sometimes finds that he is unable to proceed as rapidly as he might wish with his investment, because of difficulties in
!Mr. Abbott.!
obtaining the necessary equipment and supplies. Hence, for this and other reasons the figures of actual loans made, which incidentally are not yet available for the second quarter of lending operations, are tending to lag behind the figures relating to concurrence by the Department of Veterans Affairs which I have just given.
I laid on the table this afternoon the first report covering operations under the act, in which is given an analysis of lending operations to date.
As a result of experience under the act, three principal amendments are being proposed, all of Which will facilitate the making of loans.
The first is an amendment designed to permit loans to a veteran who is already in a partnership and who wishes to assist in expanding the partnership business. Under the act as it now stands, this is technically impossible, even though a veteran may obtain a loan to form a new partnership or to buy into an existing partnership.
The second amendment is to meet the case of a veteran Who could not wait for the act to come into force and decided to invest what capital he had in a business. This veteran now wishes to expand and finds that he is no longer in possession of the one-third cash which he is required to put up before obtaining a loan under the act. The proposed amendment will permit the bank to regard expenditures made by the veteran between September 1, 1946, and January 15, 1947, as part of his proposed total expenditure, and therefore enable him to dispense in whole or in part with the ordinary cash requirement.
The third amendment is designed to simplify the taking of security under the act on personal and movable property. Because of lack of authority to take such security in their own right, the banks, where required, have been taking such security on behalf of the crown to secure the government's guarantee. This is extremely cumbersome and tends to place difficulties in the way of lending. The proposed amendment enables the banks to take security in their own right on personal and movable property which is the subject of a loan under the act.
The remaining amendments are of a clerical nature.


Howard Charles Green: How many applications
have been rejected?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend
does not mind, we have all that information in our department. My parliamentary assistant will be in consultation with the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance when

Dominion Day
the bill is being discussed, and all that information will be available. I have not it before me at the moment.


Howard Charles Green: I should also like to know
how many applications have been accepted by the banks.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. The parliamentary assistant will give the number.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: That was in the return
which I tabled today.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 396, to amend the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, July 1, 1947