[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Breithaupt.


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: In view of the general interest I should like to give an oral reply to three questions put to me by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) with regard to the summer clothing of the Canadian army.
Early in 1947 action was initiated to obtain a summer uniform for the army of a type similar to that already authorized for the R.C.A.F. Upon investigation it was found that a suitable tropical worsted cloth could not be produced in adequate quantities at that time. It was however definitely decided that tropical worsted uniforms would be issued to the Canadian army (active) and this will be done as soon as the cloth can be manufactured and the uniforms made. Contract demands for this purpose have already been issued but delivery will not commence before late summer. No second-hand R.C.A.F. khaki drill uniforms have been or will be issued to the Canadian army. During the war some 200,000 khaki drill uniforms were obtained from the R.C.A.F. for the purpose of clothing Canadian troops in Italy but were never shipped. These were not worn uniforms and were to all intents and purposes the same as the army khaki uniform which was and is standard issue. To scrap these and all other khaki drill uniforms at the end of the war would have seriously upset the supply of cloth for essential civilian and military needs. Even after the issue of tropical worsted uniforms, khaki drill will still be used for active training in field conditions.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: May I ask the minister if the army will receive every consideration that the air force is shown, in any way, shape or form?


Brooke Claxton: I think the hon. member knows that every effort is being made to put the three services on an exactly corresponding basis. I have announced that in the house, and I have told the hon. member the same thing previously. That the army is not suffering as compared with the air force is indicated by the fact that, proportionately, recruiting is better for the army than for the navy or air force.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is a better service.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 298, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. KNOWLES:: This bill would add to the appropriate section of the Income War Tax Act, the following words, which will be underlined in the printed bill:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall operate to prevent a minister of the crown from communicating to the Senate or to the House of Commons any information obtained under the provisions of this act.
The purpose of the amendment is to remove the ironclad restrictions as to secrecy now imposed by subsection 1 of section 81, which in my view have the effect of denying to the house information which at times ought to be readily available.


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Some hon. MEMBERS! Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.


Mr. GRAYDON:: That is peeping-Tom legislation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.
Income War Tax Act


James Horace King: Order. I shall put the motion, after, for first reading of the bill, aDd if it is the intention of hon. members to protest, they will have the opportunity to do so. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Horace King: Carried. Mr. Knowles moves, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, that the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


James Horace King: I shall have to put the question. Those in favour of the motion will please say "yea".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


James Horace King: Those against will please say "nay".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


James Horace King: In my opinion the nays have it.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 281, to incorporate The Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League.- Mr. Mutch.
Bill No. 283, for the relief of Joseph Chiarella.-Mr. Maybank.

Questions
Bill -No. 284, for the relief of Merle Allene Dalton.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 285, for the relief of George Nestor Cloutier.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 286, for the relief of Rufina Olga Soltysik Leshchynski.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 287, for the relief of Rhea Lillian Appel Ostroff.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of Alice Elizabeth Tucker Shaw.

Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 289, for the relief of Libby Raikles Lerner.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 290, for the relief of Beatrice Catherine McCabe Sowerby.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 291, for the relief of John Morrell.- Mr. Cardiff.
Bill No. 292, for the relief of Lily White Borgan.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 293, for the relief of James Donald Bacon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Laurel Gwendolyn Wilband Walsh.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 295, for the relief of Lillian Eileen Rendle Nadler.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 296, for the relief of Claire Alice Tucker Vincent.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Audrey Beryl Fryer.-Mr. Maybank.

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

Mr. BENTLEY:: 1.	Are there restrictions on the p-art of the United States against the importation into that country of books produced in Canada?
2.	If not, does Canada export to the United States books of Canadian production?
3.	If so, to what value in the year 1947?
Mr. MclLRAITH:
1.	Yes, United States laws and customs regulations prohibit the importation of books covered by an unexpired United States copyright. They also prohibit works regarded as being immoral or seditious, products of prison labour, or books falsely marked.
2.	Yes.
3.	$246,380.


BEDFORD MAGAZINE-ACQUISITION OF LANDS
Mr. STUART (Charlotte):: 1.	Did the crown, for purposes connected with the Department of National Defence, acquire in 1946 and 1947 certain lands at or near the Bedford magazine?
2.	If so, were appraisals made in respect to these lands?
3.	What are the names and addresses of appraisers and amounts received by each individual, firm or group?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The Nova Scotia Trust Company, 162 Hollis street, Halifax, N.S., as agents for the Department of National Defence, $10,917.12. The payment, in addition to appraising, covered negotiation and recommendation of settlements of claims aggregating $182,852.00 arising from expropriation of thirty-seven properties acquired for the magazine area.


TAXATION-RACES
Mr. BENTLEY:: 1.	Does the federal government collect a tax from (a) horse races; (b) dog races; (e) motor car races?
2.	If so, what percentage and/or how much?


Mr. WINTERS:: 1 and 2. There is a tax of 5 per cent on bets on horse racing made through the agency of pari-mutuel systems, and a tax of 20 per cent on the price of admission to certain places of amusement, and this would be applicable to admissions to all the races mentioned.
There is provision made in the statute permitting exemption from this tax, however, wdien the amusement is organized-, promoted or managed by an organization for social welfare, civic improvement or recreation, or for patriotic or other non-profitable purposes, when no part of the revenue inures to the benefit or private gain of any person as proprietor or member thereof, or shareholder therein.


INCOME TAX-FARMERS
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	When was the primary producers branch of the Income Tax Department set up in the different provinces in Canada?
2.	Why was the province of New Brunswick the last province to have -this branch established?
3.	What is the difference between the prairie farmers income tax guide and farm account book and those used in the eastern provinces of Canada?
4.	What is the difference between the farmer's income tax forms used in western Canada and those used in eastern Canada?
5.	What farm experience did the individuals have who made up these forms?


Mr. WINTERS:: 1.	There has always been a section dealing with the assessments of farmers but it has only been called the primary producers section since August, 1947.
2.	The primary producers section in New Brunswick was established at the same time as in all other provinces.
3.	There is no material difference.
4.	There is no material difference.
Inquiries of the Ministry

5.	These forms were compiled with the assistance of many officials of the taxation division, who were fully conversant with income tax problems, and as a result of consultations with and comments received from senior officials of the Canadian federation of agriculture, federal Department of Agriculture, and; other representative farm organizations.


RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT, P.C. 1095
Mr. TIMMINS:: How many housing units have been commenced upon or completed under the rental housing project instituted under P.C. 1095 of March 25, 1947, introduced to stimulate the production of rental housing?


Mr. McILRAITH:: To date there have been 574 housing units commenced upon or com-pletecl under the rental housing project instituted under P.C. 1095 of March 25, 1947, introduced to stimulate the production of rental housing.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. SKEY:: 1.	Is the Canadian Military Gazette an official government publication?
2.	Has the Canadian Military Gazette the government's permission to use the national coat of arms of Canada on its cover?
3.	Have permanent officers of the Canadian army the permission of the government to have their names appear as honorary advisers to the Canadian Military Gazette?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: 
Gordon Graydon: I guess there won't be very much, though.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South)':	May I direct a question to the
Minister of Labour? Is he in a position to inform the house whether the Canadian seamen's union have instituted a court action in the dispute between themselves and Canada Steamship Lines? If not, will the minister consider the calling of a conference, through his department, of all parties to the dispute for the purpose of trying to settle it without court action?
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the wartime labour relations board, upon the application of the Canadian seamen's union, gave consent to the union to the prosecution of Canada Steamship Lines Limited for alleged contraventions of the wartime labour relations regulations. I understand that prosecutions have since been instituted against the company by the union for contravention of the regulations, P.C. 1003, but I have no particulars in that regard.

Inquiries of the Ministry
My department has made every effort to settle the dispute between the company and the union, but without success. We are still prepared to make further efforts to this end at any time there appears to be reasonable prospect of resolving the dispute by so doing.
In view of the court proceedings now under way, and the uncompromising attitude the parties have taken one to the other, my department is of opinion that there is nothing to be gained by endeavouring to bring parties together again at this time.


Mr. MacINNIS:: May I ask a supplementary question? The minister referred to the uncompromising attitude of both parties. Is it not a fact that the uncompromising attitude was all on one side, that the employers refused to negotiate, according to the report?


Humphrey Mitchell: This dispute goes back, as my hon. friend well knows, to a difference of opinion on political issues inside the organization. I am sure he remembers vividly the differences that existed a couple of years ago and what took place on the Welland canal and at Cornwall. As my hon. friend well knows, what are called jurisdictional disputes are always difficult. I say frankly, without fear of successful contradiction, that my department has probably spent more time on this dispute than on any other dispute since I have been in the ministry. All that one has to do is to read the newspapers and see what took place between the parties in this dispute to understand how hard it is to get them in a conciliatory frame of mind.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Mr. Speaker, did not the McNish report bear out what my hon. friend suggested?


Humphrey Mitchell: It bore out exactly what I have said. 1 am in this position, and I hope I shall always be in this position-


Gordon Graydon: If you are, you will have to change your politics.


Humphrey Mitchell: I hope I shall always be in this position, notwithstanding the attitude of the communist party in this country.



OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS WORK OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister assure the members that the house will be given an early opportunity to discuss the work of the prices committee?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the house will have an early opportunity to discuss matters pertaining to supply and the budget, neither of which have as yet been more than touched upon. There is not an item of supply through as yet, and I think that until some of these major measures have been discussed undertakings had better not be given with regard to other matters.
May I say further to my hon. friend that I am only one member of this house. I have not the control of this house nor of the committees of the house. It is for the committees to decide when they wish to report to the house. While a committee is sitting and before it has reported it would be quite wrong for me to give an undertaking that its proceedings would be discussed here and when.


Gordon Graydon: You are too modest.



FUNCTIONS OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PATRICK H. ASHBY (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that most of our democratic institutions are now being operated in reverse, would the Prime Minister inform the house for what main purpose individuals were originally elected by the people to assemble in parliament?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I do not understand my hon. friend's question, and I doubt very much whether he understands it himself.


Mr. ASHBY:: May I inform the Prime Minister that the main purpose of electing individuals to assemble in parliament was to abolish this robbery known as forced taxation.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION RESPECTING REVISIONS IN CLASSIFICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State? Can he say when he intends to ask the house to resume the debate on the motion standing in his name with respect to salary increases for employees of the House of Commons?
Gold Mining


Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State):: Since the motion was first considered there have been further recommendations tabled for salary increases in the library of parliament, and as a separate motion will be necessary to have them considered by the house I thought it best to put on the order paper a notice of motion to approve these increases, so that all the recommendations may be considered at the same time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But when?



SB. ABEGWEIT INQUIRY AS TO STRUCTURAL CHANGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): Mr. Speaker, arising out of a letter I received today I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he received from the chairman of the transportation committee of the Summerside board of trade an inquiry as to whether the Department of Transport-
James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member, but I would remind him that the purpose of asking a question is not to give information to the house but rather to get information from the minister concerned.


Mr. McLURE:: I was not giving any information, Mr. Speaker. I was asking the Minister of Transport if he is going to change the lower deck of the S.S. Abegweit while she is in dry dock at Sorel.


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: If such a communication has
been sent to the department, it has not been brought to my attention; when it is, it will receive careful consideration.



GOLD MINING


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 7, respecting emergency payments to assist in meeting increased cost of production of gold.
Mr. RODNEY ADAMSON (York West):: Before this amendment, which is a brief and simple one, Mr. Speaker, is concurred in, I want to put on the record briefly the reaction of the executives who are under this clause which is now being altered by inserting the word "knowingly" in the penalty clause section 7 of the act. I think it is important

for the house to have the opinion of the gentlemen who are affected by this bonus bill.
I wish to quote briefly from some of the presidents and general managers of the mining companies who are affected by this bill. The first quotation I wish to make is from the remarks of the president of Dome Mines, Mr. Clifford W. Michel, at the annual meeting of the company. He said:
This help is too small, to say the least, and some people will say it comes too late. There can be no relief for gold mines until a proper price for gold has been set.
That is the president of Dome Mines speaking.


James Horace King: Order. May I ask hon. members to keep silence. This noise is disagreeable, not to say impolite, to the member who has the floor. It makes it difficult for him to make himself heard and for other members to hear him. I would call the attention of the hon. member who has the floor to the fact that he should confine his remarks to the amendment which is before the house.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is what I was endeavouring to do, Mr. Speaker. As I have stated, this is a brief amendment, but it deals with statements made by officers and executives of mining companies. I think what I have to say bears directly on the matter at issue. I have only three men to quote from. Mr. Jules Timmins, of Hollinger, says:
I do not believe any great improvement until currency adjustments result in an increase in the price of gold. Believe them to be inevitable.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I mention these quotations to the house, Mr. Speaker, because they exemplify the reaction of the industry to the bill which we have before us. The next quotation is from Mr. J. Y. Murdoch, president of Noranda, who has this to say:
The gold producers of this country should be allowed free access to world markets, and notwithstanding what our Minister of Finance alleges, I am certain Canadian gold producers could market their production at substantially higher prices than our government now pays.
With regard to the low-grade property, Pamour Porcupine, he has this to say:
Serious as this closing down of marginal producers may become, the resulting discouragement of prospecting and the finding and development of new mines is equally important. It will be years before Canadian gold mining will have any chance of recovery.
Those were three major producers. There is one more statement which comes under this clause, Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a point of order. Is the rule not clear that in speaking to an

Pension Act
amendment of this kind, one must stick to the subject of the amendment? The amendment .merely inserts the word "knowingly" in section 7, subsection 2. In other words, it merely provides that those who commit certain offences can only be taken to task for it if they did it knowingly. It seems to me that the discussion should be confined to that principle.


James Horace King: The point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is well taken. As I have already said to the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson), his remarks should be confined to the amendment which was made by the senate and is now before the house. That amendment has nothing whatever to do with the remarks that the hon. member is making.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 11, consideration in committee of Bill No. 126, to amend the Pension Act-Mr. Gregg-Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 2-World war II.
Mr. GREGG:: May I just correct a statement I made at eleven o'clock last night. As the result of the co-operation of the officers of the house, a draft bill showing all the amendments has been printed and is available at the Clerk's table. I might point out that in this draft there are one or two minor errors which I will indicate as we go along. On the cover the centre part should not be there. The words "as passed by the House of Commons" should be deleted, if they have not been.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Salaries.
Mr. BROOKS:: Would you wait, Mr. Chairman, until we get the bill?


Mr. MUTCH:: The amendments begin at clause 6.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will the minister let us know when we come to the new amendment?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The new amendments have been placed in their proper order as they should be finally in the act. Consequently clause 2 of the bill before the committee reads, "recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment." It is intended to define that phrase, "recorded on medical examination prior
to enlistment". I will ask my colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) to move the following amendment:
Section two of the said act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after paragraph (nn) thereof, the following paragraph:
(nnm) "recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment" includes recorded symptoms or findings ini,
(i)	medical proceedings for enlistment;
(ii)	official documentation covering any former period of service;
(iii)	the files of the department;
(iv)	compensation board or insurance company records;
(v)	hospital, private physician or other medical authority,
where such record refers to the injury or disease resulting in the disability in respect of which the application for pension is made;


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: I so move.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: This definition, I believe, is to clarify 11(1) (c).


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is right.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The committee recommended of course that "recorded" be struck out of 11(c). However, I do not believe there was great objection to its being retained provided the word is properly defined. We have it defined here and I think we will all agree that medical proceedings for enlistment should be in the definition. As regards (ii), official documentation covering any former period of service, that should be in the definition. No. (iii), the files of the department, is rather indefinite. Possibly the minister could explain what is meant by it. I say that because we have had complaints that sometimes it is found that a soldier in his youth had some illness and later on that is used as a reason for not granting pension. If that is put in his file after his first examination it becomes a part of the file in his appeal against the commission's finding. To No. (iv), compensation board or insurance company records, there is no objection; but when we come to (v), hospital, private physician or other medical authority, one objection which the committee raised to these definitions is that sometimes they are not clear enough and there is misunderstanding.
We all know what a hospital is; there is no misunderstanding there. We know what a private physician is, and again there is no misunderstanding. But as regards "other medical authority", that is an indefinite phrase, and I think it could be left out of the definition. I suggest that we amend the amendment to read, "hospital or private physician". We should strike out the words "or other medical authority", which to my mind are indefinite and would only weaken the definition.
Pension Act


Mr. BENTLEY:: While I would not disagree with the hon. member in his proposed amendment I suggest that we should go further and say "hospital or private physician on the files of the department". Merely to say, in (iii), "the files of the department ', leaves it too much open to abuse in the future. Wte know wThat the attitude of the present commission was before the committee and we have no criticism to offer about the way they try to administer the act. They mean it. But they will not last for ever, arid conditions change. I think that (iii) and (v) leave it open to different interpretations by persons occupying positions of responsibility in the administration.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am satisfied that the doubts expressed by my hon. friends are without any basis. As regards No. (iii), that will be the normal official documents which appear on a man's file, not hearsay or anonymous letters or anything of the1 sort, and it is what the commission should have. No. (v) is for clarification, and when it is read in the light of the final sentence, "where such record refers to the injury or disease resulting in the disability in respect of which the application for pension is made," I can assure hon. members that the interpretation of those two subsections will be so carried out that the points they have raised will have no effect.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would ask the minister to explain to us just what is meant by "medical authority". That is the objection we raised- that it is something not easily defined, and that different interpretations might be put upon it.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: During the deliberations in the committee, and on previous committees, the complaint has often been made that we lacked medical evidence of pre-enlistment conditions. The charge has been made that if the man had to prove that he had not had some pre-enlistment disability it was necessary for him to have expert medical opinion to substantiate what he said. The charge has been leveled against the administration that under certain circumstances hearsay evidence was accepted. For instance, the applicant says, "My mother tells me that when I was fourteen I had typhoid fever or ear-ache at certain ages", and it has been charged that without a definition, of "was recorded", the commission might accept such a statement as recorded evidence, although it had no medical background. I am not a lawyer, but whether or not it succeeds, the intention of these words, "or other medical authority", is to limit the power of the commission in

accepting as evidence that which is hearsay. The medical adviser in the committee pointed out to us that this is often the case. The change restricts the commission to such evidence of pre-enlistment disability as is medical evidence. It restricts it further to such medical records as refer to the specific injury or disease for which the pension is being claimed. Whether or not it does it, I should like medical as well as legal opinion; but that is the purpose. It is restricted. It is intended to narrow it down, to eliminate hearsay and to put the commission in the same position the man was in to back up his submission by medical evidence.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is the whole difficulty. I do not see why that is not clearly defined when you say "hospital, private or attending physician." How the board can go out and take hearsay evidence, when it defines what recorded evidence is, I do not know. Hearsay evidence is not recorded evidence; and we define recorded evidence here. If a disease or injury is sufficiently serious to be treated in a hospital or by a doctor, I claim it would be serious enough to affect in some measure a man's pension. If it is not serious enough to require the attention of a doctor or hospital treatment, then for the life of me I cannot see why any board of pension commissioners should consider the evidence of any element aside from that. So I really think if we had that read "hospital, private or attending physician," or as the hon. member for Swift Current suggested, it would meet the situation.


Milton Fowler Gregg: It has just been pointed out to me that there is another side to it which would work to the man's advantage. In a case under investigation by a pension advocate, the man may never have been in a hospital; he may never have had a private physician. The advocate may wish to prove that the man was healthy in his youth and up to the time he entered the service; and to get that proof he may require medical evidence from somebne who knew that man in his youth. In that case it would work to the benefit of the applicant, and from that point of view I feel the board should have this provision.


Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: I
am not quite clear on what the minister said a moment ago. Is it intended that these amendments in subsection 2 are to take care of the motion moved in committee that clause 11(c) be struck out?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is to give that clause a definition, as appears in the amendment.

Pension Act


George Stanley White: Then is there an amendment in this bill to take out clause 11(c)?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


George Stanley White: Where do we find that?


Milton Fowler Gregg: We will come to it in due
course.


Mr. KIDD:: I should like to add a word to what has been said already in reference to this bill. Already the committee has listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and other hon. members who have expressed their views. The purpose of this bill is to authorize increases in the basic rates of pension. Certain other minor amendments of an administrative nature are also incorporated. Last evening we concluded the general discussion of the bill, and now we are dealing with section 2, on which I think my remarks will be in order.
It will be noted that section 1 deals with the permanent force, but in all the discussion that has taken place thus far no reference has been made to permanent force cases. I am exercising my prerogative to bring to the attention of the minister one case which has been brought to me within the last few days.
This is the case of a permanent force veteran who served in both world wars; and I mention it because I believe there are many similar cases which should receive attention. The veteran's name is Leonard Tritsch, and his number was P-8964. He is an ex-sergeant of the R.C.H.A. Friends of his brought the case to my attention, and I have taken it up with the minister. This man served in the Royal Garrison Artillery of the imperial army from 1906 to 1919, during which time he had active service in England and France. After world war I, he enlisted in the R.C.H.A. in Canada and served from 1926 until 1939, when he joined the active service and served until his discharge on November 13, 1946, being later assessed as a one hundred per cent disability. On discharge his service pension, after twenty years of service, entitled him to $8925.
I emphasize the words "service pension." This veteran suffered a stroke on January 18, 1948, and was under the care of the Department of Veterans Affairs until March 11, during which period he received one hundred per cent pay and allowances. He left the hospital totally disabled and is unlikely to recover. Here is a veteran with twenty years of continuous service in the permanent force, yet. the pension board has reduced his pension from one hundred per cent to forty per cent.
Here is what they ruled in his case, and I quote the exact words:
1.	Incurred during permanent force service Canada, not pensionable as it did not arise out of nor was it directly connected' with such military service, pre-enlistment to active force service, aggravated two-fifths during that service in Canada. Effective from date of A.F. discharge.
2.	Incurred during permanent force service Canada but not pensionable as they did not arise out of nor were they directly connected with such service, pre-enlistment to active force service, not aggravated during that service.
I say the findings in this case are absurd. Here is a man with twenty years of service in the Canadian permanent force and another thirteen years in the imperial army; yet they claim his disability is not directly attributable to that service. As it stands now, if this man died today his pension would cease, since the pension commission has reduced his disability from one hundred per cent to forty per cent, and his widow would be left penniless. That is a point I cannot emphasize too strongly.
In view of this particular case, and to avoid bringing up similar cases, I would recommend to the minister that in all cases dealing with permanent force N.C.O.'s and other ranks for pension purposes, a senior ranking permanent force officer, appointed perhaps by the adjutant general, fully versed in the Pension Act, should be present when the case is considered by the pension commission. I hope the minister sees my point. This man was employed by His Majesty's government for over twenty years. His case was dealt with by the pension commission, and I believe that when a member of the permanent force has his case reviewed by that board there should be some person from the permanent force there to speak on his behalf.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I cannot comment on
the particular case the hon. member has mentioned, except to say that the pension commissioners will deal with all applications fairly, irrespective of the service to which the men belonged and no matter for how long they may have served; and I am quite sure they will not need the attendance of a permanent force officer.
I am reminded by the chairman of the commission, on the point we were discussing, that claims have been established on the basis of such flimsy evidence as prescriptions from a drug store. I am told further that it would be restrictive to delete the words "other medical authority." Such a document, I understand, would come within that category, and otherwise might not be received.
Pension Act


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask in this connection if the evidence is based upon the prescription from the drug store? Why would not the authority of the doctor issuing the prescription be of more value than the prescription from the drug store?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Sometimes the doctor is dead. The prescription is all you have.


Mr. BLAIR:: This section of the medical authority could cover the mass of X-ray plates taken in Ontario. I am satisfied with the wording of it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2 as amended agreed to.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6.
Milton Fowler Gregg: This is new.


Alphonse Fournier: I move that the following be substituted as section 6:
Paragraph (c) of subsection one of section eleven of the said Act, as enacted by section nine of chapter sixty-two of the statutes of 1946 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Pre-enlistment disabilities
"(c) no deduction shall be made from the degree of actual disability of any member of the forces, who has served in a theatre of actual war during world war I or during world rvar II, on account of any disability or disabling condition which existed in him prior to his period of service in either of the aforesaid wars:
Proviso
Provided that service by a member of the forces in a theatre of actual w'ar may only be counted for the purposes of this paragraph when it has been rendered in the particular war with reference to service in which pension has been awarded:
Proviso
And further provided that no pension shall be paid for a disability or disabling condition which, at the time he became a member of the forces, was obvious or was recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8.
Alphonse Fournier: I move that the following be accepted in substitution for the present section 8:
Subsections one and two of section twenty-six of the said act, as enacted by section fifteen of chapter twenty-three of the statutes of 1946-41, are repealed and the following substituted therefor:-

Extra allowance for total disability wheTe requiring attendance
"26 (1) A member of the forces who is totally disabled and helpless whether entitled to a pension of class one or a lower class and who is, in addition, in need of attendance, shall be entitled if he is not cared for under the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs, to an addition to his pension, subject to review from time to time of an amount in the discretion of the Commission not less than four hundred and eighty dollars per annum and not exceeding fourteen hundred dollars per annum."


Mr. CASE:: I am trying to follow the old bill. Were these amendments agreed to in the committee on veterans affairs?


Milton Fowler Gregg: They are exactly as recommended. This simplifies the old section to a great extent. The old one dealt with variations in rank, and this includes all pensioners who are disabled and in need of attendance.
*Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10.


Milton Fowler Gregg: This is amended, Mr. Chairman.


Alphonse Fournier: I move that the following be substituted as section 10 of the bill:
10. That portion of subsection tw*o of section thirty-two of the said act, as enacted by section twenty of chapter sixty-tw-o of the statutes of 1946, that precedes paragraph (b) thereof is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) Subject as in this act otherwise provided, the widow of a member of the forces who "was at the time of his death in receipt of a pension in any of the classes one to eleven, inclusive, mentioned in schedule A to this act, or who died while on the strength of the department for treatment and but for his death would have been in receipt of pension in one of the said classes, shall be entitled to a pension as if he had died on service whether his death was attributable to his service or not,"
"(a) in the ease of service during world war I, if she was married to him prior to the first day of May, 1948; and
(i)	the death of her husband has occurred more than one year subsequent to the date of marriage, or
(ii)	the death of her husband has occurred, less than one year subsequent to the date of marriage and the commission- is of the opinion that he had at the date of such marriage a reasonable expectation of surviving for at least one year thereafter;
provided that in awards made to widows married on or after the first day of January, 1930, no payment shall be made hereunder for any period prior to the first day of May, 1944: and provided further that if the marriage took place betw-een the thirtieth day of April, 1944, and the first day of May, 1948, no payment shall be made for any period prior to the first day of May, 1948;"

Pension Act


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My understanding of the effect of t'he substitution is that in respect of anyone who married after May, 1944, and became a widow, her pension will begin on May 1, 1948?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is right.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: This was not the recommendation of the committee. It recommended that the date be withdrawn altogether. Why was the date of May 1, 1948, fixed upon?


Milton Fowler Gregg: This has always been the method. But, further than that, the procedure of deleting altogether the deadline had implications which will be obvious to all hon. members. The average age of these men is now 59 years. It 'has been the intention under the act that the wife of a pensioner, in receipt of her share of the pension, should have been something in the nature of a companion for at least part of the life of the pensioner. It certainly was not the intention at that time, nor do I think it is now, that it should be open to possible abuse in a few cases as the yearn go on.


Mr. LENNARD:: The fact that it might be open to abuse in a few instances is no reason why the other cases should be penalized. I believe that was not the view of the committee. It was moved in committee on May 4 by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, and passed unanimously, that the deadline be removed. This is not the wish of the committee.


Milton Fowler Gregg: But it incorporates the spirit of it.


Frank Exton Lennard: By leaving this as it is, many honest cases will be penalized.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: By bringing the date up to May 1 of this year we take care of all the present cases. This is not to deny that from that date forward there might not be other borderline eases creating new problems. But despite our inability to remove the date altogether we have won the concession of taking care of those who at present qualify.


Thomas John Bentley: The hon. member was correct when he said he did not think this entirely meets the wishes of the committee. Do I understand this provision means that no pension can be retroactive?


Milton Fowler Gregg: A widow married after April 30, 1944, will not be eligible for pension until May 1, 1948. If a man married in the intervening years and children were born, they would become pensionable.
5849-245i


Thomas John Bentley: But if he had died she would not be able to apply?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Not after this date.


Thomas John Bentley: The same would apply for the advanced date?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


Thomas John Bentley: That question was in my mind yesterday when we were discussing the first section. It seems to me that the hon. member for Wentworth had a point when he said that while this provision may prevent some abuses, it also may prevent some marriages. The second paragraph reads:
(ii) the death of her husband has occurred less than one year subsequent to the date of marriage and the commission is of the opinion that he had at the date of such marriage a reasonable expectation of surviving for at least one year thereafter.
All the safeguards that are necessary are there to take care of any abuses because the commission would be capable of deciding a thing of that kind. If they were not, the section would not be there. I really believe that this part could have been left out and the deadline eliminated.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 11.
Milton Fowler Gregg: There is an amendment here which reads:
Paragraph (a) of subsection one of section thirty-two of the said act as enacted by section twenty-two of chapter sixty-two of the statutes of 1946 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:-
"(a) in the ease of service during world war I, ii she was married to such member of the forces either before he was granted1 a pension for the injury or disease which has resulted in his death or, if the marriage took place subsequent to the grant of such pension, she shall be entitled to a pension if she was married to him prior to the first day of May, 1948', and
(i)	the death of her husband has occurred more than one year subsequent to the date of marriage, or,
(ii)	the death of her husband has occurred less than one year subsequent to the date of marriage and the commission is of the opinion that he had, at the date of such marriage, a reasonable expectation of surviving for at least one year theTe-after;
provided that in awards made to widows married on or after the first day of January, 1930, no payment shall be made for any period prior to the first day of May, 1944; and provided further that if the marriage took place between the thirtieth day of April, 1944. and the first day of May, 1948, no payment shall be made for any period prior to the first day of May, 1948;"
Pension Act


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That just advances the deadline from 1944 to 1948?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 12, 13 and 14 agreed to.
On section 15.
Milton Fowler Gregg: I think the explanation is quite clear, but I should like to mention that the fact that these boards have disappeared, as is here shown in the bill, does not mean than an applicant for pension is deprived of anything. They have been replaced with what we feel are better facilities within the pension commission itself.
I think it is well to state at this stage that we have within the Department of Veterans Affairs a branch which is known as the veterans bureau and which is wholly concerned with the responsibility of advising and /otherwise assisting veterans in the prosecution of their claims under the Pension Act. That is done without any cost whatever to the veteran. I cannot speak too highly of the bureau headed by C. B. Topp, who is a veteran of both wars, his advisers here and the advocates throughout the country.
In every section of Canada an applicant has the opportunity, in addition to going to his member of parliament, of getting in touch through the local office with the advocate. Of course he has the right to the assistance of any national veterans association or its branch or secretary, but the fact is that these advocates do act as advocates in the real sense of the word.
In addition to the valuable assistance provided by the representatives of organized veterans and the advice of the select standing committee on veterans affairs, I may say that I have been kept fully informed by the chief pensions advocate on a number of matters relating to the general administration of the Pension Act, and it is my intention thoroughly to explore these details at the earliest opportunity with a view to ensuring that the intentions of parliament in enacting this legislation and these amendments are carried into effect.
I have every confidence that the pensions advocates throughout the country are discharging their responsibilities under the Pension Act in a constructive and competent manner. I do not want to give the idea that either the chairman of the pension commission or the minister does not like to get letters from hon. members, because we do. But I suggest

that where a case needs to be carefully studied for a fairly long period of time, and if it is not desired to use a veterans organization, perhaps speedier action might be obtained by making direct contact with the advocate at the regional office.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: When an appeal is made to the federal appeal board, nothing is done about changing the pension; they simply grant a new hearing?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is correct.
Section agreed: to.
On section 16.


Milton Fowler Gregg: This is a new section which will read:
Section sixty-three of the said, act, as enacted by section thirty of chapter sixty-two of the statutes of 1946, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:-
"63. Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension the applicant shall be entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which shall mean that it shall not be necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences and presumptions in favour of the applicant."
This section shall come into force on the first day of June, nineteen hundred and forty-eight.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Some time ago I had a sad case presented to me, with which the commissioner is quite familiar. It was that of a man who served in the navy. He had diphtheria and was not given, proper treatment, and it was alleged that a form of paralysis set in. If one could see this man he would certainly give him every sympathy. His condition was so poor that ladies would get up in street cars to give him their seats. He looked as though a slight breeze would blow him over. The commission was good enough to provide this man with the best medical examination that could be obtained, although he may have had some complaint about certain doctors who were on the board. I think it was the opinion of the commission finally that he was something of a psychopathic case. He had been given a part-time position in one of the government departments but was unable to work steadily at this very easy job, and as a consequence he was not able to keep himself and his boy. That was a very difficult case and the commission agreed that there were at least tw'o sides to it. Would this type of case come under this section and would this man who had obviously certain evidence in his favour be granted a pension?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The board would be very glad to review his case.

Pension Act


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I do not think there is any complaint about the number of boards the man has had. I think the commission was very fair in granting him the panel of doctors he had; also they had one of the foremost psychopathic doctors in Montreal pass on his case, although he was a constituent of mine. He had all the physical evidence of being in dire need; there was strong medical evidence from eminent practitioners that his condition was due to this paralysis, and he could not get a pension, although a great deal of work was done on the case. I went to the hearing with the pension advocate in Toronto, and the evidence was all taken there. Does this section simply mean that the man will be entitled to a re-boarding, or on the evidence that the department already has, inasmuch as there is apparently some doubt, will he be granted a pension?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It would be difficult to make a statement offhand, but the chairman of the commission will be very glad to review the whole case in the light of these amendments.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What is the effect of the provision as to coming into force on June 1, 1948? Will it apply to new cases coming up or to old cases?


Milton Fowler Gregg: This was a definite recommendation made by the veterans committee with a view to strengthening the hands of the board in determining the benefit of the doubt. The effect of its coming into force at this particular time means that they may start with that interpretation as from that date.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: In other words, the evidence must be brought anew; is that it?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, not necessarily. They may review old cases in the light of this, without the necessity of the claimant coming forward.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17.
Milton Fowler Gregg: This a new section 67. It is the same as the old section, except that in paragraph (a) "1944" is changed to "1948", and a subclause (2) is added to provide that this section shall come into force on the first day of May, 1948.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: This new section has to do with the change of the date. The committee felt that this clause was more important than the others so far as the change of date was concerned. It deprives a child, for instance, bom after May, 1948, of any additional pension, and the committee felt that such a child should be treated the same as the other children in the family. If a man happens to lose
his wife and remarries and has a child by his second wife, there is no logic in saying th&t the children born to the second wife after May, 1948, should not have the same treatment as the children born prior to that date.


Milton Fowler Gregg: This is the same principle that was in the act formerly. I am confident that it improves the benefits greatly. It protects the children of any marriage before this date.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: But not after that date?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-Schedules A and B.
Milton Fowler Gregg: Section 18 is new and related to it are the schedules. I will read the new section:
(1)	Schedules A and B to the said act, as amended by sections thirty-one of chapter thirty-eight of the statutes of 1928 and by twenty-three of chapter twenty-three of the statutes of 1941, are repealed and Schedules A and B to this act are respectively substituted therefor.
(2)	Section six of this act-
Here is the correction I mentioned earlier. That should read "Section eight" and there should be inserted after the word "and" the words "subsection one of" so that it will read:
(2)	Section eight of this act and subsection one of this section shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, except that the percentage of disability figures appearing immediately below the class designations 1 to 20 shall come into force on the first day of June nineteen, hundred and forty-eight.
(3)	An increase in pension paid to any person by virtue of this section in respect of any period prior to the day on which this act receives royal assent shall not be included
(a)	as income for the purposes of the War Veterans' Allowance Act, 1940;
(b)	as a pension payment for dependents for the purposes of subsection three of section ten of the veterans rehabilitation order; or
(c)	as a pension award or an amount received by way of pension for the purposes of the regulations respecting treatment made under the Department of Veterans Affairs Act.
Those last items in the new classes perhaps require a word of explanation. This amendment provides that no overpayment to veterans under other veterans legislation will result from the increase of pension paid under the new rates in respect of any period prior to the enactment of the bill. It is to guard against a man who is getting the war veterans allowance and a pension being overpaid.
While on my feet I want to say a word or two on a few of the points raised yesterday. I do not propose in any sense to cover the
Pension Act

addresses that were then made in the house. I acknowledge gladly the compliments that were paid here and there to my officials, the chairman of the commission, and to the chairman and the work of the parliamentary committee, with which I agree heartily. On the other hand I rather felt a desire yesterday to retire to the fine amity of the committee rather than to listen to some of the discussion. Within the last five weeks I have had the privilege of visiting veterans groups and organizations in one or two large centres and in smaller centres throughout Canada, and there I obtained a much cheerier impression of the attitude of veterans than from some of the blue-ruin remarks yesterday.
I should like to mention just one or two points in particular. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle referred to pensioners and their children under conditions that were worse than those of extremely poorly-paid members of the community. Our present rate as shown in this bill, combined with the thing which has nothing to do with me, the side issue of family allowances, will definitely make it unnecessary for pensioners with large families to have serious difficulties, unless there are unusual circumstances.
Then an implication was left by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough with regard to those whom he called "shattered fragments" who visited us here and visited the committee, and who impressed us all. Most of them were men with 100 per cent disability and were helpless in the sense that they required to have attendants to help them. The implication was left, I thought-and if I am wrong, I am glad-that these men would receive at the best only $94, which is now in the bill. That is not right. Such a man, even if he were single, who is in receipt of helplessness allowance under this bill will receive $1,128 on his 100 per cent pension, $1,400 if he is totally helpless, or a total of $2,528. If he should be married, that amount will be $2,900; and if he should have a large family of four children, it would be $3,596.
Statements relating to the cost of living were made by a number of speakers. Those I admit right away. I admit the point that was made in committee with regard to the rise in the living standard as compared with that in the early days of the old veteran in the 1920's. The young people who have come from this war have entered upon a new living standard which the old-timers knew nothing about. I admit the high wages of unskilled labour and of all labour. I also admit that it is difficult to find living accommodation and that living is overly expensive where some of

our pensioners are perforce living-and by desire-in the large cities of Canada. But against that picture, black as it was sometimes painted yesterday, I should like to place a few facts that have not been mentioned in this house. I should like to mention them in all fairness to our objective in this bill, namely, to raise the morale of the pensioner and to give him a more adequate living.
All pensions are exempt from income tax. That has not always been true but it is true at the present time. You may ask how income tax will affect the pensioner. I will refer to that later on, because we have many pensioners paying income tax. There is free medical treatment for pensioners with hospital allowance, with the provision of free appliances if they need them because of their disabilities. There is a stability of basic income through the ups and downs of our economic picture into the future, at least as far as we can see it today. I am far happier about this bill based upon an increase in basic rates than I would be, I was going to say, about almost any other. But at least I would hate to see ihc increase entirely based upon something that was tied solidly to the cost of living index. These are men who want to know as nearly as they can what this backlog of income will be this year, next year and the year after, and to be able to govern themselves accordingly. The stability factor is, to my mind, a valuable one. We are now at the peak height. Eight years from now we know not where that point will be, but this award will, I hope, not fall below this level for a great many years.
There is a disability preference in the civil service which places the pensioner not only above the ordinary applicants but above the other veterans. There is something else which is not so obvious. It is not covered by law. There is a growing preference within industry for the pensioned man. It came about through a new understanding and a new sympathy on the part of industry, if you like. Then it was clinched by the fact that it was found that normally the pensioned man, in the specific role which applied to him, often does a better job than the fit man would, which seems unbelievable, but has been demonstrated.
Pensioners are subsidized through the workman's compensation acts of the provinces by virtue of the fact that when a pensioner in industry is hurt, we pay the costs. There is, therefore, a reasonable security, and I consider this rather important. I have here somewhere what it would mean in dollars and cents on an annuity basis, but I will not quote from it. I will just state the simple fact that the

Pension Act
pensioner has a reasonable security for his dependents without cost to himself. He has security by way of provision for his widow where the disability is 50 per cent or over, and also on the matter of employment, which is related to that point of income tax.
Following some of the discussion yesterday, and speaking of the seriously disabled men who were pensioned, particularly those in the helplessness group, men who have worked hard during the years to get back their independence, to reassure themselves that they can be producers and citizens in the full sense, I feel that we ought always to watch how we can encourage them. Within the department, we have a 100 per cent pensioner who would qualify for helplessness allowance; he is director of our casualty rehabilitation section. He is an inspiration to the men with whom he is working. This is a section about which we do not send out much publicity. It is one about which we do not talk a great deal, and that is done deliberately. He advises me that the men like himself do not want to be held up for pity. They do not want their great disabilities to be over-emphasized. They like to have unostentatious assistance and perhaps the best assistance comes when they know not how it comes. This technique which he has developed within his section of the department is something that was, to me, a surprising factor in its success.
I should like to add that the director of prosthetic services is himself a total disability pensioner, having lost both legs and one eye. Throughout the work that is being carried out by men comparable with those I have mentioned, in the 75 per cent to 100 per cent pension group, and in the whole of the helplessness allowance group, we have only approximately six per cent who are not either under treatment or under training for rehabilitation or who have not employment. There are only about six per cent who are not employed or under appropriate treatment or training. To my mind that is an outstanding achievement, and when the estimates of my department are brought into the house, if I were called upon to delete from them the amount necessary to continue that rehabilitation work, I would feel much sorrier about cutting it out than I am at not being able to increase pensions by 33^ per cent. I thought I would mention that.
With respect to what has been said, I have just been handed by the chairman of the committee an item in today's Evening Citizen of Ottawa, appearing under the heading:
Legion approves 25 per cent boost in vets' pensions
Approval of the 25 per cent increase in pensions for veterans now before the House of
Commons was expressed by Major General C. B. Price, dominion president of the Canadian Legion.
The legion head in a statement said:
"All branches of the legion will be gratified by the recent announcement by the Minister of Veterans Affairs in the House of Commpns, that the recommendations of the parliamentary committee respecting amendments to the pension bill are being accepted.
"This is a very satisfactory culmination of two years of effort by the legion to bring pern sion rates into line with present day conditions 

no revision having been made since 1925.
Non-Partisan
"Ever since 1919 parliament has dealt with veterans' affairs on a non-partisan basis, and we particularly appreciate the effective work accomplished by the parliamentary committee and the splendid contributions to the results made by all parties represented in the House of Commons.
"It is also gratifying that the government has accepted the unanimous recommendation of the committee for a twentydive per cent increase for all beneficiaries under the Pension Act and also the recommendation for an almost 100 per cent increase in helplessness allowances."


George Stanley White: I
wish to say just a word in regard to what the minister said with reference to certain remarks I made last night and to ask him if it is not true that there are pensioners with 100 per cent disability who do not receive the helplessness allowance.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Oh, yes.


George Stanley White: It was to these men that I was referring when I spoke of them as shattered fragments to whom the government, of which the minister is a member, denies an increase of 33i per cent. I was not trying to be critical of the minister, but I must say it is rather late for him or his government to attempt to take any credit for this increase of 25 per cent which has been so grudgingly approved. The minister has given in only because he has been forced by public opinion across the country, and no one knows it better than the veterans.
I would refer to what the minister said a moment ago yvhen he was speajring about the comparison between an annuity and the pension. I understood him to say something to this effect, that the veteran without cost to himself has protection for himself and his wife. I disagree with that remark entirely. The veteran has paid a great price for that security which he is getting by way of pension, and the minister is entirely wrong in saying that the veteran who is receiving a pension, or whose widow will receive a pension after he dies, gets that without cost to himself. That man paid a very high price in pain and suffering, in his disability, and also in the
Pension Act

shortening of his life expectancy. Last night, speaking in the debate, I asked the minister whether or not the pension commission would reconsider all cases in which a ruling had been made regarding the term "wilfully and deliberately concealed". I notice in the amendment in clause 18 it is stated that section 6 of the act will come into force on the first day of October, 1947.
Will the minister say whether or not that means that the pension commission will review all cases where a decision has been given with respect to that term?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The commission will have cases under review on many matters from time to time, and if a review is desired for any special point and application is received, they will immediately review the case.


George Stanley White: That is not good enough.


Milton Fowler Gregg: May I say that the pension commission have close to 200,000 pensioners on their list. It would be impossible for them to start today to review all those in the light of any amendment in the bill which is now before us.


George Stanley White: The minister is missing my point. This amendment comes into effect on the first day of October, 1947, and my interpretation of that would be that the pension commission could not review any case and give effect to this amendment. They have already given their decision, and it is up to the minister to direct the commission to review all cases where a decision has been rendered on the term "wilfully and deliberately concealed".


Milton Fowler Gregg: The date stated there does not necessarily mean that, as >a result of the review of any pension decision, the new rate would come into effect at that time.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: I think we had better deal with clause 18. Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. GILLIS:: I wash to say something, and what I have to say was provoked by the minister himself. I was quite satisfied to sit here and allow clause 18 to go through, but he made one statement that is not true in the end of the country from which I come. He said that there was growing sympathy in industry for the man who was pensioned, and that more and more men were being absorbed into the industries of Canada. That may be true across the rest of the country,

but it certainly is not true in the basic industries of Nova Scotia. The reverse is in fact the truth.
I have argued in this house for many years that, in any section of the country, where the pensioner who may be 10 per cent disabled from a medical point of view seeks employment, if there is nothing but heavy industry in that section of the country, for employment purposes that man is 100 per cent disabled, and that is more pronounced today than ever. Almost all the unemployed in my particular area are veterans of this war; and the steel and coal companies, and I believe every heavy industry across the country, have adopted the practice of having men medically examined before they are employed. One of the first things the ex-service man is confronted with when he seeks employment is the fact that he is five, ten, fifteen or twenty per cent disabled, and they are not hiring anyone who is not 100 per cent fit. That is the policy followed by the steel and coal company in Nova Scotia and I believe it is pretty general throughout the country. In addition, they have closed down completely on hiring anyone who is over forty years of age.
If the minister has been led to believe that the statement he just made is applicable to all industry across this country, I cannot sit here without saying to him that I know this is a burning question all through Nova Scotia, where there are hundreds of men with disabilities of five, ten, fifteen or twenty per cent who cannot get work. It is true there, as it is in the northern part of Ontario, that before you can get employment you have to pass a medical examination and be 100 per cent fit; and to all intents and purposes, as far as employment is concerned, these men might as well be 100 per cent disabled.
Several times in this house I have suggested that the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Labour will have to get together on this question and see if some scheme cannot be worked out with the industrialists of this country. I know the minister has placement officers who are seeking special employment for men in the higher disability categories; but they are having no success in Nova Scotia. There is no special place to put them. To get work in any of our basic industries in this country you have to be fit; and the employer is not taking pensioners. That small pension militates against a man getting a job.
My only reason for rising is that I have argued this matter so often. I receive letters every day from men in that position, and I

Pension Act
just want to correct the impression the minister may have given, that the industrialists of this country have become big-heartedi and willing to take on these small pensioners. The reverse is true. If you have a pension you are unfit, and you are not wanted. That is the attitude.


Milton Fowler Gregg: We shall have to co-operate to do something about Cape Breton, but I have checked with the deputy minister, who knows more about the veterans rehabilitation phase of the matter than any other man in Canada. He assures me that my statement is perfectly true, that across Canada as a whole there has been a growing willingness on the part of industry to take pensioners for the jobs appropriate for them.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: In' view of the minister's statement a moment ago, I thought I should say now what I have to say. I was not a member of the veterans affairs committee, but in the main I think they did a fine job. Before that committee was called I made an appeal on behalf of a certain group of people who, in my opinion, made a tremendous contribution to the winning of the war. Looking over the schedules and following the bill clause by clause, I fail to see that they have been recognized in any way.
I refer to the merchant marine, who made such a tremendous contribution during the war. Many of them suffered real hardship, and have had great difficulty in rehabilitating themselves. They have been unable to carry on with their normal employment, and are no longer able to go to sea. I have in mind a man in my home town who was on two ships ' which were torpedoed at sea, each time losing all his belongings; and all he received in compensation was a fixed sum of money in respect of what had been lost with the ship. If those men have been provided for in this bill I should like to know where to find that provision. If they have not I should like to know the attitude of the government and the department with respect to these men of the merchant marine who took their cargoes through, even as far as Murmansk.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I believe at future meetings of the parliamentary committee representations will be made in behalf of these men. In the meantime I can tell my hon. friend that members of the merchant marine who were injured through enemy action are pensionable now under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, which is separate from the Pension Act proper.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not wish to detain the committee for any length of time. I was
quite prepared to let section 18 go through without further comment on my part, but I do not altogether agree with the statement made by the minister just a few moments ago. I agree that security for the veterans and their dependents is our first objective as far as this bill is concerned, but I do not agree that this 25 per cent increase gives that security. I still contend that the increase should have been 33J per cent, and I base that on the situation in 1925.
At that time the pension committee decided that $75 a month represented security for the totally disabled veteran and his dependents. In view of the cost of living in 1925, in view of the wage rates at that time, and the standard of living, I contend that $75 then was infinitely better than the $94 proposed at the present time, and I believe the department might very well have increased it to $100. We are going to give them $94, and I am sure another $6 would have satisfied both the veterans and the people across Canada.
The chairman of the committee says, "Carried". I do not think that attitude will help at all as far as his committee work is concerned, and I suggest that it would be more becoming if he would just keep quiet while I am addressing the Chair.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: On a question of privilege, if the hon. gentleman is referring to me I may tell him I did not hear the first part of his remarks. I was talking to my colleague, and I do not know what it is all about. Would he repeat what he said?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I heard you say "Carried".


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Don't be always butting in.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I was not butting in. If I offended you in any way, I apologize, but I was not even listening; I was speaking to my colleague.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, to my mind the $75 paid in 1925 represented much greater security than the $94 which is to be paid now. A few moments ago the chairman of the committee handed the minister a clipping to the effect that the Canadian Legion approved this increase. There may be a few here in Ottawa who were instrumental in having that article published in the Ottawa newspapers, but I venture to say there are thousands of men belonging to the legion right across Canada who do not approve, so I would advise the minister not to depend too much upon that clipping.
3872
Pension Act

The minister also said he wished to raise the morale of the pensioners. We all wish to do that, but I believe their morale would have been raised to a higher level if they had been given the $100 to which they were entitled. The minister speaks of other benefits which have nothing whatever to do with this 'Pension Act. He mentions free medical attention. These men have received free medical attention ever since the first world war, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the benefits under this act. The minister speaks of hospital appliances. Of course they receive such appliances, and have been receiving them. What sort of department would we consider this to be if it did not provide the proper appliance for a man who lost a leg overseas?	,


Milton Fowler Gregg: If my hon. friend will allow me to comment on that, I was attempting, as he has been in his addresses, to take a man in unskilled civil labour and compare his total benefits with those of the civilian receiving a 100 per cent pension. I was pointing out that the pension was augmented by other things provided by the country, which the civilian did not get. That was my only point.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We all know that, Mr. Chairman. The minister spoke of the preference in the civil service. We all know the veteran is supposed to get a preference, but I know of many cases where that preference has not been carried out as well as it should have been. These things are all very well, but I contend that they have nothing to do with the basic rate of pension for soldiers as set out in this bill. I repeat that all the evidence produced in this house goes to ^how that an increase of 25 per cent is not enough, and that it should be at least 331! per cent.


Thomas John Bentley: I believe, like some others, I would have allowed this to go through without further comment. However, the minister provoked me somewhat, as he did others; and I do not say that I blame him. He had a perfect right to make his reply; but he said one or two things which I cannot permit to pass unchallenged.
He mentioned that organized labour generally does not agree with the idea of having wages tied to a cost of living bonus. I believe that is what he said, or it is at least the implication of what he said.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I made no mention of organized labour. I said I did not like the principle of the sliding scale for pensions.


Thomas John Bentley: Even if the minister does not like it, I would point out that it is the purpose of a pension act to compensate people for disabilities they have suffered in the service of their country, and to give them something as near as possible to the average of the standard of living of the Canadian people.
That average changes rapidly these days, in terms of dollars and cents, and fairly rapidly in terms of consumable goods and services. While I supported the motion to increase the amount by 33J per cent, when the matter was before the committee, I still feel that a cost of living bonus on top of the floor amount would be better. If 33 j per cent was the proper amount of increase-and it was considered the proper amount by many people across the country who have given the matter serious thought-and if $100 a month was the amount necessary to meet the cost of living at that time, at an index of 150 8, we may take it as axiomatic that the 150-8 cost of living index equals $100 a month, the amount considered sufficient for a single person to provide that type of living which we should be prepared to provide for those who have been hurt in our service.
This being so, I felt, and still feel, that by granting an increase of 25 per cent, to strike a figure below which a pension could never drop-and that would be $94 a month-it would equal a cost of living index of 144. So you would have $1 for each point in the cost of living, which would bring it to $100 a month at that time. It has since gone up a point, so it would require to be $101 a month now.
The point I make is that $94 a month will not likely ever again be more than sufficient to provide a bare existence. I do not know whether we shall have a depression. Some say we shall, and others say we shall not. I think so too-whichever way you wish to take it. I do not know, nor does anyone else. There is good reason to suppose, however, that there might be an increase in the cost of living when the Marshall plan goes into effect, and when the Minister of Finance really gets down to business and gives effect to this 25 per cent.
All those things can happen. So far as I can see, however-and many agree with me- there would not seem to be a time within the conceivable future when $94 a month would be too much. Therefore, by taking a base of $94, and never allowing it to go below that figure; and by taking the cost of living bonus on top of that we would, I believe, give the veteran a reasonable assurance that he would have something above a mere existence all the way through.

North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act
The matter of wage increases has been mentioned. Perhaps they are a good guide. In committee we had a plethora of charts and tables prepared by experts. These were a good guide. But the actual fact is that we are trying to compensate people who have been hurt. We are1 not trying to pay people for a production job they are doing now. They have done their production job and have suffered in the process; and it is my view that they should have a definite assurance that they will never again have to suffer physically because of their living conditions if the country can prevent it.
I believe, therefore, that from now until we meet again the government should give consideration to this idea and bring in something along these lines which will give the assurance I have indicated. I feel strongly about the cost of living bonus and always will.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: How long does the minister expect it will be before the cheques are issued after the bill receives assent? Would it be possible to have extra copies of the bill printed? It is of such interest that I am sure many people throughout the country would like to have a copy of it.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I believe we can hope to have the cheques covering the increase from October 1 to the end of May in the mail early in June, and the cheques at the end of June reflecting the new monthly increase.
On the second point, we shall, of course, have these corrections made and the bill reprinted as amended, and passed on to the other place.


Frank Exton Lennard: I am getting a bit tired of this back-slapping which seems to be the vogue in Ottawa. The government compliments the legion and then the legion compliments the government. It is becoming a continual round of pleasure, so far as those two bodies are concerned.
I am a past president of the legion and a member of it today. But I have always been opposed to its being subsidized by the government of the day. I am not criticizing this government particularly for that, because the legion has been subsidized for years. It is quite against my idea, however, of the way in which a veteran body should be run, if it is to represent properly the veterans of this country. I am opposed to it, and I shall voice that opinion on several other occasions before this session is completed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 208, to amend the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, by 3-4 George V,
chapter 162, there was incorporated the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners. One amendment has been made to that act, and this bill proposes to make another one of a noncontentious variety. It is brought about in this manner. In 1929 the municipalities of South Vancouver and Point Grey were united with the city of Vancouver. The purpose of the bill is to substitute the city of Vancouver for the municipalities of South Vancouver and Point Grey and thereby remove the anomaly now existing.
Mr. MacNICOL:: What is the anomaly?


Lionel Chevrier: The anomaly is that the two municipalities have been incorporated within the city of Vancouver, and it is proposed to change the names of South Vancouver and Point Grey to the municipality of the city of Vancouver. It is a simple amendment.
The commission consists of three commissioners, two of whom are appointed by the governor in council and one by resolution passed by the four municipalities. If this bill carries there will be but two municipalities. A request for this amendment was made by the city of Vancouver in 1942 but was not carried out because of the war. Since then, letters have been received from the clerks of the municipalities of Burnaby and Richmond and the corporation council of the city of Vancouver and from solicitors for the North Fraser harbour commissioners, approving the proposed amendments. The changes made by the other sections of the bill are necessary in order to make similar substitutions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply) moved the second reading of Bill No. 280, to amend the National Housing Act, 1944.
5849-246*
National Housing Act
Mr. NICHOLSON:: Is the minister making a statement?


Mr. HOWE:: No.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Mr. Speaker, seeing that the minister is declining to say anything further with respect to this bill-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not decline; I just said nothing.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I thought I understood the minister to say in answer to my hon. friend that he did not have anything to say at this time. I will sit down if the minister-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not decline; no one asked me to say anything.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: There is not a great deal more that we can say on this bill in addition to what was said on the resolution. We in this party are not prepared to accept this amendment to the National Housing Act as being an effective remedy to the housing crisis in Canada. I want to say a few words with respect to it.
This is an expedient along the pathway of housing in Canada; but, as we have said before, it is only one item in this field of trial and error that the government has started on. The main and probably only real feature of the bill is the element of rental insurance, but I would point out that that feature covers a narrow field. The minister has said it is intended to cover only the moderate rental field; in other words, rentals around the level of 880 a month or less. The areas in which the housing may be built are restricted and no project will be considered unless it covers eight or more family housing units. The type of building, the size and type of rooms and so on are all subject to restriction and control by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
It cannot be said that this bill meets in any way the need for veterans housing, because we cannot expect that veterans will be in position to pay $80 a month or thereabouts. In so far as housing and the primary responsibility of the government are concerned, this bill does not touch the problem at all.
In October last year the minister stated that some 12,000 wartime housing units would be provided throughout the country. A great deal [DOT]of interest was taken in the minister's statement, but it turns out that, of that number, only some 3,500 have been proceeded with by Wartime Housing, while about 5,200 are under negotiation. Earlier this year a statement was given out by the Department of Trade and Commerce that negotiations had been com-

menced with some seventy-nine municipalities which goes to show the interest there is in the country in veterans housing.
There are small and large communities among those seventy-nine. There are small places like Aylmer and Barrie and cities like Belleville; there are places like Bowmanville and so on. Brockville wanted 100 houses, Burlington wanted twenty-five and Chesley wanted fifty. The fact of the matter is that these municipalities have problems of their own. Taxation is a problem with them, because they can go only so far with respect to the money they can spend on housing. So we come back to the same old problem we have discussed before, that this matter requires the co-operation of the three levels of government in order that Wartime Housing, which is now being taken over by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation may succeed. Right now it would seem that the government is at an impasse in respect of veterans housing, and Bill No. 280 will not, in my opinion, solve the problem in any way, shape or form, so that some other means will have to be looked to.
The bill provides that lending institutions may lend up to 85 per cent of the value of the project, and in this bill lending institutions are being asked for the first time to provide the funds alone, not in co-operation or jointly with His Majesty. The fact of the matter is that the minister has so little faith in the bill himself that there is a clause in it that if the lending institutions do not come forward with the money, Central Mortgage and Housing may provide the funds.
There has been a good deal of criticism in the papers lately by lending institutions of government policies in respect of housing. I remember being at probably the first meeting that was held by the lending institutions, five or six years ago, to discuss their responsibilities with regard to housing. At that particular time they were saying to themselves: There is some responsibility on us, too, in this housing field, and we must accept some share of that responsibility. After a period of some two or three years, Housing Enterprises, in which they were all interested, was the result. That, of course, was not a success and they withdrew from the field. Now they are saying to the government: We do not like the manner in which you are carrying on these housing projects; we do not like the small down payments that are being allowed in respect of houses built under N.H.A. and Integrated Housing. Mr. R. H. Reid, president of Dominion Mortgage and Investment Associa-

National Housing Act
tioix had some highly critical things to say about the housing program of this government, but I shall not take time to quote his remarks. The fact of the matter is that the lending institutions are not taking very much interest in lending money under these government housing projects, and I think we can take it that not much help can be expected from them under this new project of rental insurance. So the matter is right back on the doorstep of the government, and Central Mortgage and Housing will probably have to carry on alone the lending of money under this project. It will have to bear the full weight of it, if it is to succeed. Under the only other project which the government brought forward by an amendment to the National Housing Act last year, only 574 units were built.
I do not wish to deal with the sections of the bill on the second reading except to make reference to section 3, which provides for loans to limited dividend housing companies. That is dealt with only in a cursory sort of way, but it is a section of the act which I think should receive careful study. We find that the government of Ontario have been quite prepared to assist the municipalities in financing the re-development of certain sections of cities and towns, and they have put up a considerable amount of money for that purpose. That is a most important factor in the housing situation today, and it brings me to the question of slum clearance.
I am all in favour of this government taking some part in slum clearance in towns and municipalities. I am all in favour of this government taking a more active interest in respect of limited dividend companies which have been mooted but for some reason have not been proceeded with. What we are all waiting for in respect of these projects is some leadership from the government. We all admit that emergency housing is something that must go, and if we are to do away with emergency housing we must have something else to take its place. I do not think rental insurance can take its place at all.
This year we have an estimated surplus of
8800.000. 000.	Why cannot we appropriate
850.000.	000 or $100,000,000 of that surplus and do something with respect to the housing problem? We talk about public investment; and the minister will tell us that some day, at the appropriate time, he is going to use some of this government money for public investment. But under our financial system, if you have a surplus in 1947 and do not use it, that is the end of the surplus; it is gone
for all time to come. We must find some ivay of appropriating some portion of those funds to carry on housing projects not only this year but next year and in the years to come.
There is one ray of hope in respect of housing. I was in Hamilton looking at some houses a few weeks ago, and I saw there just as nice a little bungalow as one could ever see, a whole row of them, erected for veterans by builders m the city of Hamilton on land that had been provided by the city. They cost $4,800 and the veteran could carry that house for $23 a month. There is not much likely to happen to a veteran who can get a house like that at that price and carry it for $23 a month. Not far away in the same city I saw another small house built on a fifty-foot lot, and of good depth. It was a five room house, with every convenience and appointment that a house could have, and was selling for $5,600. In that case also the city of Hamilton provided the land free to the veteran. That house could be carried for something like $35 a month. It is a house that any member of this House of Commons would be glad to live in.
That only goes to show what can be done with a little bit of co-operation. The city of Hamilton has co-operated with the builders and has provided the land and certain municipal services, and the veterans in Hamilton are getting the benefit of that co-operation. We find, when we get down to the root of the matter, that the reason why these houses could be built more cheaply in Hamilton was that there was competition in the trades. When a builder wanted a plumber there was not only one plumber to call on, but three or four plumbers were willing to put in a tender, and so prices in Hamilton have been kept down. The same methods could be followed in other parts of this country.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that this bill, in my opinion, will not provide as it should for the veterans; and if it does not, it is up to the government to bring down further amendments to the act which will work in the interests of the veteran. I say that this bill will not provide anything more than a very few housing units in 1948, probably one hundred to two hundred units, and that is not good enough.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think it was significant, Mr. Speaker, that the minister who is piloting this legislation through the house did not take advantage of the usual opportunity to make some comments in connection with the bill. I might mention that
National Housing Act

my deskmate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), speaking on May 6, as reported at page 3695 of Hansard said this:
Coming as I do from a city where the housing problem is a serious one, I felt that I should be taking part in this debate; but when I consider the seriousness of the housing problem and the complete failure of the government to give leadership, the emptiness of this legislation is so apparent that so far as I am concerned, it is not worth talking about.
I gather that the hon. member who has just taken his seat feels pretty much as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does about the legislation. But the housing situation is so critical that I think some of us must say something about it, and offer our protest that the minister has not seen fit to act on the suggestions made when the resolution was before us and bring in a bill that offered some greater hope to the people of Canada.
The other day I mentioned that I should like some additional information with regard to the operations of Housing Enterprises Limited. I must thank the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for having sent me such complete information on such short notice. The information I have -confirms my opinion that houses of the type built by Housing Enterprises Limited can be financed by an extremely small section of the Canadian people. As was mentioned By the minister the other day, the average -cost will be slightly over $8,000 per unit. Although the return gives the total as $26,326,420, and mentions that the final cost will possibly vary one per cent up or down, most builders these days find that the final costs are certainly higher than the estimated costs. I gather, therefore, that the final cost would be over $8,000 per unit.
I understand that a new formula is being used by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in determining rents. I have the rents that are being charged in the different cities, and they are low, considering the investment. I am sure that no private builders anywhere in Canada will build structures of this type and rent them at these rentals. I will not take the time to discuss all the units, but I should like to compare a few of them with the information that was disclosed at the time of the last census in 1941.
In Vancouver there are two projects. In "A" there were 136 units, built at a cost of $6,566. The rents run at $43, $45, $53, and $55. I find that, when the last census was taken, the average value of owned homes in the city of Vancouver was $3,090. The Vancouver people

were strong on mortgages, as were people in all parts of the country. Forty-one per cent of the homes had mortgages averaging $1,650 each. The monthly rent paid by the people in Vancouver in 1941 was $26. There is a fairly wide variation between the average of $26 which was paid in 1941 and the amounts that are being charged here.
The other project in Vancouver is not quite so expensive. The 213 units were built at an average cost of $5,550, but still the rents are high. They are $45, $50, $52.50 and so on up to $65. I might mention in passing that, although there is quite a wide variation in the costs of the houses built by Housing Enterprises Limited in the various cities of Canada, there does not seem to be a wide variation in the rentals.
I now come to Victoria. Costs are higher there. There were 104 units built, at an average cost of $8,675. The rents range from $45 to $60. The two-bedroom units rent at $45 and $46.50. At the time of the 1941 census the average value of owned homes in Victoria was $3,200. Only 24 per cent of the owners were the proud possessors of mortgages. The average mortgage was $1,232, and the monthly average rent was $23. I am sorry I have not the file-


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask a question of the hon. member?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is the hon. member not comparing fully serviced houses-that is, serviced with heat, light and other services-with unserviced houses?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Even if that is taken into account, there is still a wide variation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is just as well to mention it, is it not?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes. I mentioned the average monthly rent. I am glad the minister has brought this to my attention. But even if that is taken into account, there is still a wide difference. If the average rental of unfurnished houses in Victoria was only $23 in 1941, it would be difficult for the people in those brackets to step up to rents ranging from $45 to $60.
In Saskatoon the average cost for fifty units was $7,448. In 1941 the average value of the owned houses was $2,610. There were 27 per cent with mortgages averaging $1,261. The average rent was $23 a month.
Calgary had 104 units costing an average of $7,709. In 1941 the average value of owned

National Housing Act
homes there was $3,391. Only 27 per cent had mortgages averaging $1,380. The average monthly rental was $27.
Housing costs were higher in Edmonton. In that city 106 units were built, at an average cost of $8,398. The average value of owned homes in Edmonton in 1941 was $2,879. Twenty-one per cent had mortgages averaging $989. The average monthly rent was $26.
Coming to London, Ontario, we find the costs are away up. For 186 units the average cost was $8,467. In 1941 the average value of the owned homes was $3,550. Of these 41 per cent had mortgages averaging $1,588. The average monthly rent was $29.
Hamilton, Ontario, had 116 units built by Housing Enterprises, costing an average of $6,826, with rents ranging from $42 to $55. The average value of owned homes in Hamilton in 1941 was $3,898, with 56 per cent of the people owning mortgages averaging $1,890. The average rent was $27 a month.
In Kitchener, Ontario, the average cost of 114 units was $7,577. The rents ranged from $42 to $57. In 1941 the average value of owned homes was $4,257, with 63 per cent having mortgages averaging $1,899. The monthly average rent was $27.
Brantford had fifty-four units built at an average cost of $7,889. The average value of the owned homes in 1941 was $3,627. The percentage with mortgages was 43-6; the average mortgage was $1,443. The monthly average rent was $23.
In Toronto the costs are the highest in Canada. There were two projects. One was Danforth court, where thirty-three units were built, at an average cost of $10,527. Then in Greenwood court, thirty-seven units were built, at an average cost of $10,637. The average value of owned homes in Toronto in 1941 was $4,684; the percentage with mortgages 59-5; the average mortgage, $2,323; the monthly average rent, $35.
In Montreal, taking the Villeray terrace, there are 150 houses, the cost being $5,856; and there are the Benny Farm Gardens, $8,827. I am not familiar with either of these projects, but there is quite a wide variation in costs, running from $5,856, with rentals at from $10 to $45, and $8,827, with rentals at from $62.50 to $89. In 1941 the average value of owned homes was $3,937 and the monthly average rent was $26. The average mortgage on mortgaged homes was $2,191.
In Three Rivers there were fifty-seven houses, the value being $9,065, with rents
running from $44 to $57. In 1941 the average value of owned homes was $3,062, 43 per cent with mortgages, the average mortgage on mortgaged homes being $1,521, and the average rent being $22 a month.
In Saint John there were 106 units averaging $7,517, the average value of owned homes in 1941 being $2,415, and the percentage of homes with mortgage 26-2. The average mortgage on mortgaged homes was $995, and the average monthly rent $22.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the first responsibility of the government should not be to provide housing accommodation for people in the higher income brackets, people who can pay higher rents, people who would have found some means of securing living accommodation even if the Canadian people had not spent $26,000,000 on housing.
When I was discussing the resolution in committee the other day the minister asked me where I had got my information to support my contention that there was a very small percentage of the Canadian people who could pay rents of this sort. At that time I did not have the "National Accounts Income and Expenditure, 1938-1945," but I have it with me now. It is published under the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. These figures are for 1942, but I checked this morning to see whether there was not more up-to-date information. The minister may tell me that the incomes are higher than they were in 1942, but it is not my fault that I have not the figures.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not your fault that they are higher, but it is your fault for using 1942 information.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I used the latest
statistics the bureau could supply.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why not use 1942 costs, then?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have been using the costs brought down by the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on those houses completed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, may I interject. My hon. friend has been deliberately comparing rentals of unheated, single dwellings with rentals of fully heated and fully serviced apartments. He might as well compare the cost of a piano with the cost of a sewing machine. The two are wholly unrelated. Now he is going to give the incomes of 1942 and relate them to building costs in 1948. He can do that if he likes;
National Housing Act

but if he thinks he is deceiving anyone, certainly he will not deceive anyone in this house.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister will have a chance to close the debate. But making allowances for differences, and.if you make allowance for heat and other services, you still find a wide variation between what is paid in different cities.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You will- notice that I called attention to the fact that one group were heated and the others were not. It was not my hon. friend who did that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But even making allowances for the fact that incomes have gone up since 1942, you still find from the statistics that there is only a small percentage of the Canadian people in receipt of incomes that would warrant the payment of the sort of rents that have to be paid. On page 35 of the "National Accounts Income and Expenditure," giving the distribution of income recipients by income classes in Canada, 1942, twenty per cent of the married men in Canada in that year were getting less than 81,000 a year. There were fifty per cent getting less than $2,000 a year. There were only three per cent of the married men who were getting over $5,000. Even if there are -twice as many now who are getting over $5,000, you still have only six per cent of the people getting over $5,000 a year; *and with such a large number in these low-income brackets, what the minister should be bringing in now is a plan to provide large-scale low-rental houses, so that the people who are living in these slum areas might look forward, in one or two or five years, to moving out of such slums and into modern fireproofed houses.
I have argued before, from the point of view of the people as a whole, that it would be cheaper to demolish the slums and provide low-rental housing, subsidized, in a good environment, than to maintain prisons, the high cost of fire protection necessitated by the present conditions, the high cost of hospital care, and so forth. Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Before that motion is carried, Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of hon. members to the fact that His Excellency the Governor General has been informed of the subject matter of the bill and recommends it to the house and gives his consent to its consideration by the house.


James Horace King: Mr. Nicholson moves that the debate be adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow the house will take second reading of Bill No. 282, to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, then second reading of Bill No. 221, to provide for the winding up of the Penny Bank of Ontario and the repeal of the Penny Bank Act, then second reading of Bill No. 248, to provide for carrying into effect treaties between Canada and Italy, Roumania, Hungary and Finland. If we conclude that, we shall take up estimates of the Department of Agriculture and, if we complete those, we shall proceed with the estimates of Transport.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 13, 1948