Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: I am rising to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I should like to pay tribute to the city from which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) comes. It has produced perhaps the best team the world has known. They have gone through their league in splendid form. It may be that some day when I become a cabinet minister I will allow a private member to pay tribute to my city. The Port Arthur Bruins have gone through the finals of this league in four straight games. The outstanding feature of this team is that they are home brews and Simon-pures. That is something which cannot be said of any other team in Canada. Of course an outsider could not have any chance of getting a place.
On Saturday night I saw this team play, and I thought they were called by the wrong name. They should be called antelope or deer instead of bruins.
Why do we men support hockey?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to pardon me for a moment. Why do we support hockey, baseball or rugger? It is because when a boy gets a place on the team, it is his first experience of democracy. If more clergy, members of parliament and social workers knew what the boys and girls go through when they lose a game, and realized that they then have a better chance of speaking to them than they have from the pulpit or the public platform, the better it would be.
In the Port Arthur News-Chronicle of May 8 appeared an article under the heading, "Boys played hockey, no time for crime, McKitrick states".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: The article reads in part as follows:
Judge McKitrick said that while the West End Bruin juniors were away winning the Canadian championship and the Memorial cup in a
sportsmanlike but also decisive manner, a record was being marked up by young boys at home; it had not been found necessary to send one single boy from here to a training school last year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: If you will not pardon me, Mr. Speaker, why did you pardon the hon. member who spoke yesterday?


James Horace King: I think the hon. member has already stated his question of privilege.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I thank you, sir, for giving me as much time as you have.



STANDING COMMITTEE


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved:: That the name of Mr. Marier be substituted for that of Mr. Lesage on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. EDOLTARD R1NFRET (Outremont): I wish to bring to the attention of the house the proceedings of the committee of the whole on Friday last, May 7, which have not been reported to the house. At that time the committee was considering Bill No. 151. Section 1 of the bill was called by the chairman, and at page 3735 of Hansard I find:
Some hon. Members:	Carried.
Some hon. Members:	On division.
After that a vote was taken and the section was negatived. Then I asked that section 2 of the bill should stand. There was no decision.
James Horace King: Order. Since the house is supposed to ignore anything that happened in committee, I would suggest that the hon. member put his motion before making any explanation. I suggest that he move the motion first and give the explanation later.
3808
Biisiness oj the House


Mr. RINFRET:: Then I move:
That bill No. 151, an act to incorporate the National Insurance Company, be restored on the order paper among private bills under the heading "House in committee," to be considered from eight to nine o'clock p.m. on Tuesdays and Fridays during the present session.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I rise to a point of order. I have no objection to the motion being moved, and no objection to the house agreeing to the motion if it wishes to do so; but it does seem to me that it requires forty-eight hours' notice. Standing order 45 provides:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, or for placing a question on the order paper, but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the house. Such notice shall be laid on the table before six o'clock, p.m., and be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day.
The only phrase in that order which might be claimed by the hon. member as an exemption is the reference to notice not being required for private bills. The reason notice is not required for the introduction of private bills is obvious; private bills are presented to parliament by petition, but that is all that exemption covers. I go further and quote citation 357 of Beauchesne, second edition:
As a general rule every motion proposed in the house requires notice unless it is of a formal or uneontentious character, or raises a question of privilege.
Further I quote citation 321 from Beauchesne, third edition:
In the absence of standing orders to the contrary, the following motions may be made without notice:
I will not take the time of the house to read the kinds of motions that may be made without notice, listed under citation 321, but they do not include a motion such as this for placing something back on the order paper. As I have said already, I have no objection to the motion being made; in fact I think the house might grant the hon. member this concession. But my point of order is that if the hon. member is seeking by this means to reinstate something on which the house has already ruled, even if in committee of the whole, that makes it a contentious matter. If on the other hand he is prepared to assure the house that he is not seeking to reinstate the name of the company which was rejected by the committee, then it would be uncontentious and I should be willing to waive the requirement of notice.


James Horace King: I would call the attention of hon. members to standing order 45 as it appears in Beauchesne, second edition:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, or for placing a question on the order paper...
I draw the attention of the hon. member to the following words:
. . . but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills . . .
The bill to which the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret) is referring is a private bill; therefore according to standing order 45 it is not necessary that notice be given.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt tile motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Knowing nothing whatever about the rules of the house, Mr. Speaker, I must appeal to j'ou in these matters. If this bill is to be restored to the order paper I should like to know whether the question of the name of the company, "National Insurance Company", again will be subject to the decision of the committee of the whole. May I ask your ruling on that?


James Horace King: I would say to the hon. member that I have no ruling to give on what is going to happen in committee.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: But this has to do with what has happened in committee.
Mr. SPEAIxER:	I understand that the
motion of the hon. member for Outremont is to reinstate this bill under the heading "House in committee," and of course the Speaker ignores what is going to happen in committee. The hon. member knows quite well that if the bill is inscribed on the order paper to be considered in committee, then it would be the privilege of hon. members to discuss the bill in committee of the whole.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: As I understand the
matter, there was a private bill before the committee of the whole house on Friday evening, and when the first section was voted upon it was voted down. Then an attempt was made to go on with the second section; but inasmuch as that section-


James Horace King: Order.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I am speaking to a point of order.


James Horace King: Hon. members will realize that there is a motion before the Chair. The Speaker and the house are supposed to ignore



194S

[Stage Direction]
Business oj the House
what has happened in committee until it is reported to the house. In this case it has not been reported to the house, so I could not permit any debate on what may have happened in committee. It is up to the house to accept or reject the motion which has been moved.
['Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises out of a report in the press and over the radio that conversations between the United States and the Soviet union may begin for a general settlement of outstanding differences. As this is a development of the highest importance in which Canada is directly and vitally affected, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs say (1) whether Canada\nhas been consulted or informed of the suggested United States action; and (2) whether he is in a position to throw any further light on the proposal than the press and the radio have given?\nRight Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the first question is no. As to the second question, I am not in a position to say what has appeared in the press or over the radio in this country. I have had no communication from any official source, but I have had the benefit of seeing dispatches from press correspondents, and the tone of those dispatches I think explains why it is that so far no official communication has come to us. Thus, the United States ambassador, Walter Bedell Smith, said, according to the dispatches, that the Russian publication of his talks with the Soviet foreign minister Molotov was a surprise to him because the talks were confidential. He is quoted as having said:\nRelease of the notes by Moscow rather surprises me, as this is the first time they have done such a thing with a confidential exchange.\nMy understanding is that the Moscow radio has given out what is supposed to be almost the complete text of the conversations or notes between the United States ambassador and the UB.S.R. foreign minister, and the dispatches of the press correspondents which I have seen report a very interesting situation. I would not care to go beyond what is reported to have been said by someone speaking on behalf of the foreign office in London. The quotation is as follows:\nWe were not consulted. The announcement was a complete surprise to us, but whether it is a pleasant surprise we cannot say until we have seen the full official text of the American and Soviet notes.\nIt is apparent from these dispatches there has been a slight misunderstanding over what was to be published about these conversations at this time. They are reported to have taken place just about a week ago. The subject matter is of great interest, and I hope that we1 shall in due course receive official information. As soon as I get any official information which may be of interest to hon. members I shall hasten to bring it before the house.']
Harry Rutherford Jackman: I am not debating any matter that arose in committee of the whole last Friday evening. It did seem to me, however, in view of what took place there, that the whole bill died a natural death, perhaps for want of anyone knowing exactly how it could be kept alive. My contention is that at the moment there is no such bill as that which the hon. member wishes reinstated on the order paper, and that if he wants to have this matter introduced into the house again he must start from the beginning.


James Horace King: I took the liberty of interrupting the hon. member for Outremont, who was discussing what had happened in the committee, because that is supposed to be ignored by the house. I thought he ought to move his motion, since the order for motions had been called, and I asked the hon. gentleman to do so. Now that his motion is before the house it is his privilege to explain it.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, in committee I asked that section 2 stand. There was no decision on that point.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not consider that he is closing the debate. As I understand it, you are now giving him the privilege of explaining the motion.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: On my suggestion that section 2 should stand, no decision was reached by the committee. After that I made a second suggestion. I asked that the whole bill should stand, and on this motion there was no decision taken. I then asked that the committee should report progress; and at that very moment I saw that the chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that you have just ruled that any discussion of what happened in committee of the whole is out of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Henry Harris: The hon. member is debating what happened in committee. Therefore-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Don't disclose your identity over there.


James Horace King: May I suggest to the hon. member for Outremont that even though he is the mover of the motion, he has not the right to discuss before the house what happened in committee of the whole. I shall ask him to explain his motion and confine his remarks to it.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, the bill was not reported to the house. At nine o'clock, at the expiry of the time for private bills, the Chairman reported to the house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: -such bills as had been disposed of by the committee. He did not report Bill No. 151; but he did report the bill under discussion at the expiry of the hour. So this bill, No. 151, was not reported upon. Now-


Joseph Henry Harris: On a question of privilege-


Mr. ABBOTT:: That is in order.


Joseph Henry Harris: The bill is dead. Let it die, and start over again.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: In notation 695 of Beau-chesne, I find this:
The proceedings of a committee on a bill may be brought abruptly to a close by an order: "That the Chairman do now leave the chair" or by a proof that a quorum is not present. The chairman, in such eases, being without instruction from the committee, makes no report to the house.
This is a case similar to mine. I continue with the notation:
A bill disposed of in this manner disappears from the order paper, though it can be revived by an order of the house.
Now, as to the procedure to be followed to have it revived, I cite notation 663 in Beauehesne:
When the motion that the bill be now read a second time is negatived the bill disappears from the order paper, but it is competent for a member immediately to move without notice: "That the said bill be read a second time on . . . next".
That is, that the bill be read a second time on such and such a date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is on second reading-immediately.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: To continue:
On this motion being agreed to, the hill takes its place on the orders.
3810
Business oj the House

It continues-and this is where I meet the objection of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
The same practice obtains with respect to the bill, at any previous or succeeding stage.
Therefore I have exactly the same case as that cited in notation 695. I have followed the procedure mentioned in notation 663. I think the motion is completely in order, even if there is no notice as per notation 663.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are wrong again.


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: Those in favour of the motion will please say "yea".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


James Horace King: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And some members having risen:


James Horace King: The motion is carried.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: No.


An hon. MEMBER:: Too late.


Major James William Coldwell: No.


James Horace King: I declared the motion carried. I did not see a sufficient number of members standing.


Major James William Coldwell: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not rise to call for a vote, but I looked around and more than five members were standing.


James Horace King: I will put the question again. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Horace King: Those in favour of the motion will please say "yea."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


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


['In my opinion the yeas have it.']
Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I was paired with the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Beaudoin). Had I voted I would have voted against your ruling.


James Horace King: I would inform the hon. member for Calgary West that the question before the house was not an appeal from the Speaker's ruling.


Arthur Leroy Smith: With me it is a matter of habit, sir.


Mr. GILLIS:: I was paired with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. HODGSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for York North (Mr. Smith). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. HATFIELD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Gariepy). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. COCKERAM:: I was paired with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises out of a report in the press and over the radio that conversations between the United States and the Soviet union may begin for a general settlement of outstanding differences. As this is a development of the highest importance in which Canada is directly and vitally affected, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs say (1) whether Canada
has been consulted or informed of the suggested United States action; and (2) whether he is in a position to throw any further light on the proposal than the press and the radio have given?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the first question is no. As to the second question, I am not in a position to say what has appeared in the press or over the radio in this country. I have had no communication from any official source, but I have had the benefit of seeing dispatches from press correspondents, and the tone of those dispatches I think explains why it is that so far no official communication has come to us. Thus, the United States ambassador, Walter Bedell Smith, said, according to the dispatches, that the Russian publication of his talks with the Soviet foreign minister Molotov was a surprise to him because the talks were confidential. He is quoted as having said:
Release of the notes by Moscow rather surprises me, as this is the first time they have done such a thing with a confidential exchange.
My understanding is that the Moscow radio has given out what is supposed to be almost the complete text of the conversations or notes between the United States ambassador and the UB.S.R. foreign minister, and the dispatches of the press correspondents which I have seen report a very interesting situation. I would not care to go beyond what is reported to have been said by someone speaking on behalf of the foreign office in London. The quotation is as follows:
We were not consulted. The announcement was a complete surprise to us, but whether it is a pleasant surprise we cannot say until we have seen the full official text of the American and Soviet notes.
It is apparent from these dispatches there has been a slight misunderstanding over what was to be published about these conversations at this time. They are reported to have taken place just about a week ago. The subject matter is of great interest, and I hope that we1 shall in due course receive official information. As soon as I get any official information which may be of interest to hon. members I shall hasten to bring it before the house.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Before asking the question I wished to read in Hansard the answer
Inquiries oj the Ministry
[Stage Direction]
that he gave yesterday to my query concerning the instructions of the Secretary of State of the United States to the consul general at Toronto who appeared before a court in that city and declined either to be sworn or to be cross-examined. I join with the minister in saying that I do not wish to make an incident out of this event, but I think it well that there should be a clear understanding that the practice indulged in by the Secretary of State is a departure from diplomatic practice. I ask the minister if he considers there has been a departure from the diplomatic observances heretofore followed by the United States and Canada.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I could not say that I would regard it as a departure from diplomatic practice. It is something which is done from time to time, jind which, I understand, in this case came out <of the fact that public notice had been given calling for representations, and that upon that notice being published the consul communicated with the Department of State and was authorized to appear and make a statement, if tile court chose to receive it. It is not unique. Under the circumstances I deplore that the appearance had been made, because it was a matter that had already been under discussion for years between the state department and the Department of External Affairs. It having been a matter under discussion between the two departments, though there was an application to a provincial administrative body by a United States citizen for a licence, it seemed to me that it would have been preferable if the applicants had been left to rely on the general knowledge that it was a matter in which the government of the United States had for a long time expressed interest. It did not seem to us that it was necessary to have it brought before the board in that form at that time, and that bringing it before the board in that form at that time might further embitter a matter which was known to be controversial.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In the Ottawa Journal of the day before yesterday a speech was reported by Doctor Maurice Ollivier, K.C., who according to the dispatch is an employee of this House of Commons. He stated humorously, so the dispatch says, that the M.P.'s should be told that their speeches should be made while standing on

one leg, and that the minute they put the other foot to the ground their speech would be automatically at an end.
I am one of those who perhaps have no sense of humour. In any event I have a little difficulty in understanding even humorous criticism of that kind of this House of Commons by one of its servants. Perhaps we might reply that many civil servants whom I know would get through infinitely more work if they did it all standing on their heads.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. ROSS THATCHER (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Mines and Resources. Has the government given any recent consideration to relaxing the immigration laws in order to let into this country German nationals who have relatives in Canada? I have been asked by a number of my constituents to ask that question.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Acting Minister of Mines and Resources):: German nationals are not allowed to enter Canada.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I know that is the policy, but is any consideration being given to changing that policy in the future, as has been done in England?


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not know just what, the hon. member might mean by consideration. Such matters are discussed by the minister and the department at various times, but no consideration is being given to this matter that might lead to an early decision on policy.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Would the minister take it up with a view to having the cabinet give consideration to the matter?


Mr. FERGUSON:: Has the government ruled that German nationals are not permitted to come to this country because of the fact that Canada is still in a state of war with Germany?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is correct.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: May I ask a supplementary question? Is it the object of the government to decline to sign a peace treaty with Germany to permit these German nationals who live in Germany to join their families in this country who are good Canadian citizens and have proved themselves to be so?

Inquiries oj the Ministry


James Angus MacKinnon: I can only reply by saying that the matter which the hon. member has raised in a supplementary question is a matter of government policy and will be announced in due course.



BOOK OF REMEMBRANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence what progress has been made up to this time with the Book of Remembrance of the second world war?


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, work has been commenced on the Book of Remembrance. It is expected that it will take four or five years to complete. It is desirable for the sake of uniformity of style, to have as much of the work as possible done by one person. Commander Beddoe, who compiled much of the first Book of Remembrance, has undertaken the work of compiling the second. Others will be engaged under his direction.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. STEPHENSON (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, on April 26 a question of mine on the order paper was passed as an order for a return. I wonder when I might expect the return to be brought down?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether last year any uniforms formerly used by the air force were turned over to the army? If so, have any uniforms been called in up to the present time, which were formerly used by the air force, now used by the army? Will the air force be issued with uniforms prior to a new issue of summer uniforms for the army?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to look into this and give the hon. member an answer later. So far as I can follow the question, I think the answer is probably no, but I will look into it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have sent up to my office for a supplementary question. The first question-and this is important, because we are asking for recruits for the army


James Horace King: Order. I have no doubt the question is important but I would ask the hon. member to put it on the order paper.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, is it not important that we have recruits for the army?


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


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask the Minister of National Defence these questions? Is it true that used R.C.A.F. summer uniforms were issued to the army in 1947? Have these used uniforms been reissued? When will new summer uniforms be issued to the army?


James Horace King: Order. I must remind the hon. member that the rules of the house are binding on both sides of the house. I have already ruled on the hon. member's questions and suggested that he should put them on the order paper.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We still want recruits.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to empower the Minister of Agriculture to appoint a director of rehabilitation and an associate director of rehabilitation.
Mr. COLD  WELL@: Before we proceed may I say that last evening the business of the house was announced-


Mr. GARDINER:: I was about to rise to ask for the unanimous consent of the house for a particular reason.


Major James William Coldwell: May I point out that this is a very important matter to those of us who come from western Canada, and we cannot agree to have this matter taken up this afternoon because our members have not had an opportunity of going into the matter in preparation for such a debate.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the hon. member will agree when I explain; if not, well and good.

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act


James Horace King: I shall put the question to the house. Mr. Gardiner moves, seconded by Mr. Jean, that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider an amendment to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I realize that I must have the unanimous consent of the house in order to do what I am going to ask the house to permit me to do. This bill is merely for the purpose of appointing Mr. L. B. Thomson as director of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act with headquarters at Regina. Mr. Thomson has been with the department for many years. He is superintendent of the experimental farm at Swift Current. During the last three or four months he has been visiting his old home in New Zealand, and therefore we were unable to make arrangements with him to take over the position until he returned, which explains any delay in bringing the matter before the house. Mr. Thomson is a civil servant and has all the rights under the Civil Service Act with regard to superannuation and everything involved therein. The act gives the minister authority to appoint a director and an assistant director of rehabilitation, but it does not give authority to appoint one who has the privileges of superannuation. In order to make it possible for Mr. L. B. Thomson to take this position and still retain his rights under the Superannuation Act it is necessary to pass this amendment. That is all the amendment is for.
The assistant will be at Ottawa instead of Regina. My only' reason for asking that it be speeded up is that we want to get along with the work. I understand that the senate is to adjourn shortly for a week or two, and I want to get this through before the senate adjourns. Therefore I should like to have it advanced to the stage where we can bring the bill before the house and then go on with discussion of it.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Is the minister in a position to advise what particular work is to be undertaken? He says that haste is necessary because the senate is about to adjourn; therefore he wants to expedite the matter. The whole question of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act is one on which a statement should be forthcoming from the minister

at this time. If I understand it aright, one of the matters particularly to be covered by this resolution is the development on the South Saskatchewan river, in connection with wffiich certain expenditures in the last year have amounted to well over 8100,000. This is a matter, sir, of great importance to the people living in central and southern Saskatchewan. It is a matter of particular importance to the constituency I have the honour to represent, in that over the years one of the great difficulties has been the maintenance and the preservation of the levels of Last Mountain lake, the largest body of water in central Saskatchewan. In addition to its value as a summer resort it has value for fishing purposes and also as a bird sanctuary. Can the minister advise us of the extent to which, during the present summer, work will be done in connection with this matter? In particular, what will be done toward raising the levels of Last Mountain lake? I realize that flood conditions prevailed this spring; but those conditions, of course, are only temporary and seasonal and do not in any way solve the major difficulty of maintaining the levels of this lake.
I know of no subject which is of more importance to the people of Saskatchewan than the extension and development work being done under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. I must say that while I had not heard before of the projected appointment, I know of no better one that can be made by the department than that of Mr. Thomson, the superintendent of the Swift Current experimental farm. Over the years he has devoted himself to ascertaining moisture conditions throughout the province and allotting the various areas according to their productivity. He is a man with a great deal of information on the subject, and should discharge his responsibilities with honour to himself and credit to the administration.


James Garfield Gardiner: I had hoped that it would not be necessary to discuss the matter at this stage. There will be two opportunities for discussing fully what has been suggested. One will be on second reading of this bill on a later day. The other would be on my own estimates, where the appropriations for the particular works that have been spoken of would be discussed. Of course if the committee insist on discussing the matter now, I can discuss it, but I think it would be better to advance the matter to the stage ivhere we can get the bill before the house, and on second reading or in committee of the w'hole there can be any discussion that may be desired. If hon. members are not then able to get all the information they desire, the

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act
matter can be discussed on my estimates for prairie farm rehabilitation. I think it would be more suitable to have the discussion at that time, but of course I am in the hands of the committee.


William Henry Golding: I do not think it would be in order to discuss under this resolution the work that is to be done. The resolution simply has to do with giving the minister authority to make these appointments. We might wander far from the question before the committee if hon. members do not confine discussion to matters dealt with by the resolution.


Mr. BENTLEY:: I suppose you are correct, Mr. Chairman. It is a little bit difficult to know how to keep within the scope of your ideas on the matter, and at the same time to say what needs to be said at this time. The actual appointment of course does not come as a surprise to those of us who live in or near Swift Current. For some weeks now we have heard that it was likely to be made, and I cannot think of anybody who was not glad. Among the civil servants that I know personally, it would be impossible to choose for that kind of work a more able and energetic man than Len Thomson. I imagine that Saskatchewan generally will be well pleased with the results of his work. If there is anyone who can get done in two years what some people envisage might take ten or twelve, it will be Mr. Thomson. I hope the minister will bear that in mind and not put any curb on him when he proceeds to work.
The matters mentioned by the hon. member for Lake Centre are important ones. If he or someone else had not done so, I had intended to ask the minister for a statement at this time. If the minister will give that statement, I am content to wait until the bill following upon this resolution comes before the house, and then to have further information. if necessary, given when the estimates are being considered. But it is extremely important that the minister make a statement at the earliest possible moment. As the hon. member for Lake Centre has said, the projects envisaged for some time by the prairie farm rehabilitation administration are matters of urgency with us out there. At the present time the failure of the P.F.R.A. engineers to get in their report on time is holding up an important development, a bridge across the South Saskatchewan river at Saskatchewan Landing. Permission has not vet been granted by the Department of Public Works because the engineers reports have not been brought in. When the matter is opened
up by a resolution of this kind, it is obvious that those of us who are interested in it must insist on an early statement-and I hope it will be a statement with something in it-from the Minister of Agriculture.
As I said at the start, if these projects are to go ahead, and if this new appointee is to be given free rein and free scope for his energies and abilities, he will get done in a short time what others have said it would take a much longer time to do. We want to know if he is to have free scope, if he is to be turned loose to get these things done, and if we are to get our bridge over the river without any interference from this dam that is projected, and other developments. We want that information from the minister, either now or shortly. I am willing to wait until the bill is before the house, provided that the minister undertakes to give a statement then. If not, we may have to insist on it right now.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I should like to endorse all that has been said by the hon. members for Lake Centre and Swift Current. It was my privilege before coming to Ottawa in 1940 to serve as a member of the advisory committee to this board. For some years I had considerable experience with the proposed new appointee, Mr. L. B. Thomson. He was then superintendent at Swift Current, and he was one of the most efficient men I knew. He accomplished a great deal of work for that board. I am sure that the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Swift Current is well founded, that the proposed appointee, Mr. Thomson, is a man of great energy and drive. If the work does not move along rapidly, I feel sure it will not be his fault, unless he has slipped considerably in the last little while.
Other members did not press the question, but I think we should have a full statement from the Minister of Agriculture, and it may be just as well if he gives it when we have the bill before us; but certainly I think we should have it then. Under the present set-up, the act covers a large portion of the three prairie provinces, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. For some years past now, many of us have asked that the field be broadened considerably-in fact, that it be made national. We have had members from the maritimes talking about this matter, as well as members from other parts of Canada. There is much that can and should be done to assist the betterment of agriculture throughout Canada in a national way.
I want to congratulate the minister on having gone so far as to propose the appointment of Mr. L. B. Thomson. When the bill is before us I hope the minister will tell us who Mr. Loan Companies Act

Thomson's assistant will be in Ottawa. I hope he will make a full statement at that time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I hope to bring the bill down for second reading either tomorrow or the next day. I cannot be sure about tomorrow until I consult some of the others, but in any case it will be either Wednesday or Thursday of this week. Then we can have whatever discussion is necessary, which I think will cover the points raised.


Thomas John Bentley: We have the assurance of the minister that the bill will be proceeded with before he leaves for other parts?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is why I want it brought in today.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to ' troduce Bill No. 282, to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. LOAN COMPANIES ACT



AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO DEFINITIONS, NUMBER OF DIRECTORS, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 220, to amend the Loan Companies Act.
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I should like to make one or two comments, but is it the intention of the parliamentary assistant to make a statement first?


Mr. MAYHEW:: I thought I would make a brief explanation of the bill, and then, after it is given second reading, ask that it go to the banking and commerce committee, where it can be further studied.
This bill amends the Loan Companies Act, 1927, mainly in respect to the powers of investment and the power to borrow money. However, there are a number of minor amendments. The principal act was first passed in 1914, and applied only in part to loan companies theretofore incorporated. It applied in whole to companies incorporated after 1914. Section 2 of this bill makes the act apply in its entirety to all loan companies regardless of the date of incorporation.
I might say the powers which will go similarly to all companies include the power to elect an executive committee of the board of directors; to establish branch offices; to reduce the par value of the company's stock from $100 to $10 or multiples of $10; to invest in common stork of no par value, of course with limitations; to increase their powers to accept

deposits and to borrow money. Generally those are the powers that will be given these companies when the act is amended. I could give a lengthier explanation, but in view of the fact that as soon as second reading is given I intend to ask that the bill go to the banking and commerce committee, perhaps that will be sufficient.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In view of the intention of the government to send this bill to the banking and commerce committee I shall add only a word or two. It seems to me that in general this bill is designed to give a little more flexibility, and for that reason I approve of it, in general terms. In these days of increasing restrictions it is pleasant to find something which, as I say, appears to give a little more flexibility.
My own feeling is that we can far better rely upon the judgment and capacity of responsible people given a certain amount of freedom than if we try to check them at every turn. In those happy, far-off days when even in Great Britain-perhaps I should say especially in Great Britain-there was a large measure of freedom, I remember a story of what happened to a business associate of mine. Many years ago he went to establish in England a branch of the company he served here in Canada. There he took legal advice, asking what rules he had to comply with and what were the restrictions. He was told there were practically none; then this significant addition was made. His legal adviser said, "You have very few restrictions of any kind. But we have laws in this country, and if you disobey any of those laws you will be put in jail." That is a salutary sanction to have behind those who are conducting the affairs of the country, and it seems to me that is a good rule. I feel sorry they have had to depart from it in Britain to the extent that seems necessary at the present time.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, since it seems to me this measure in general moves in the direction of a certain flexibility and perhaps a little more freedom, I shall reserve any further comments until we get to the banking and commerce committee, where questions may be asked.


Mr. F. E. JAENICKE (Kindersley):: Like the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) I have only a few remarks to make on this bill. In the first place I am glad the parliamentary assistant has stated that the bill will go to the banking and commerce committee, where the amendments can be gone into fully and explained by some of our officials.

Loan Companies Act
There are several features of this amending bill which I do not like and which require some explanation. However, I do not desire to oppose second reading, and shall not do so. One matter was referred to by the hon. gentleman who moved second reading; that was the establishment of an executive committee of the directors. That is rather a departure in company law which I think should be studied. Although the powers of the executive are restricted, it will have some powers which might make the directors liable in case of infraction of the bylaws; therefore I believe this feature of the bill requires careful investigation.
Another amendment I do not like is in regard to inspection of the books of the company. Under this change an execution creditor of a shareholder is to be entitled to look into the books. The rules of our courts ought to be sufficiently wide if we need discovery of assets in aid of execution, and I should think we do not need to amend this act in order to make it so much easier for an execution creditor. I know of no other statutory provision of the kind.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am sure the hon. member would like to be correct. This amendment does not give power to examine the books, but only to examine the stock register.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: That is what I am objecting to-an examination of the share register of the company so far as an execution creditor of a shareholder is concerned. As the law now stands, a creditor of the company is entitled to view these records, but the amendment provides that an execution creditor of a shareholder, not of the company, shall be entitled to look into them.
There is also the question of the investment of the company's funds in common stock without par value. I must be frank and admit that this is a matter in which I have had no business experience, but it seems to me that we have at least two loan companies with a great many shareholders, people with small sums of money who have invested it in them. Possibly they are in the same position as a trust company or insurance company, which I understand today is entitled to invest money in stocks without par value. In any case I am open to conviction when this matter comes before the committee.
Another peculiar amendment is found in one of the last sections, which provides that if a company has made an investment since December 31. 1947, that is contrary to the provisions of the old act and of this one as amended, it is a good investment. It
seems to me this is going to whitewash some of the breaches of provisions of the old act which companies have made. While I do not object to this new legislation for the protection of shareholders, I believe we should look into the matter more closely.
About eighteen months ago I had considerable business with the superintendent of insurance in respect of one loan company.
I found that there are really only two loan companies in Canada having a large number of shareholders. One of these, an old and reliable establishment concerning which I have no fears so far as the larger powers granted under this measure are concerned, is in Ontario. There is, however, another and smaller company in Winnipeg, and I fear that we should not entrust these larger powers to such a company. This however is a matter which may be considered in committee.
The general effect of the bill is that it loosens the reins. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario welcomes that situation. I am sceptical about it, especially with respect to the one loan company about which I spoke a moment ago. However we can give this matter careful consideration, and I am pleased to note that the parliamentary assistant has given his word that the matter will be referred to the committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 126, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Applicant,
Mr. GREGG:: Mr. Chairman, as hon. members are aware, Bill No. 126 has been before the committee on veterans affairs since early in the year. From time to time since early in March the committee has submitted to the house certain recommendations, as its deliberations have taken place. I thought I might make some reference to those recommendations.
Pension Act

On March 3 a formal report was made to the house dealing only with matters respecting a quorum and the suspension of standing order 65.
On March 24 the chairman of the committee reported to the house as follows:
Your committee recommends that the government consider the advisability of introducing, at the appropriate time, an amendment to Bill 126, an act to amend the Pension Act, in respect to helplessness allowance to provide that the maximum amount payable to a disabled veteran in any of the classes described ini the scale of helplessness allowance, as at present authorized, be increased from $756 to $1,400 per annum, and that the minimum amount so payable be increased from $250' to $480 per annum.
On April 20 a further report, involving a recommendation for an administrative change, was made. That report is as folows:
Your committee recommends that, upon increases in war disability pension rates going into effect, the Canadian pension commission review each award in payment under section 21 of the Pension Act without the necessity of application by the pensioner.
That was purely an administrative proposal for the pension commission, without the necessity for an amendment to the act.
On April 27 the chairman of the committee reported to the house as follows:
Your committee recommends that the government consider the advisability of introducing, at the appropriate time, an amendment to Bill 126, an act to amend the Pension Act, to provide an increase of twenty-five per centum in the amounts set forth in schedules A and B to the Pension Act.
Your committee further recommends that the government also introduce an amendment to the said Bill 126 to remove the discrimination as to rank contained in subsection two of section twenty-six of the Pension Act.
Finally yesterday, May 10, the chairman reported as follows:
Your committee has considered Bill 126, an act to amend the Pension Act, and has agreed to report it without amendment.
Your committee is of the opinion that the rates provided in certain clauses of the bill are inadequate and that the limitations imposed in other clauses are unduly restrictive. As any revision of these rates to meet the view's of the committee would result in an increased charge upon the public, your committee feels that it has no option, under the rules of the house and the terms of its order of reference, but to report the clauses without amendment. The committee would, however, urge that consideration be given to the recommendations contained in its second and fourth reports presented on March 24 and April 27, respecting rates of helplessness allowance and of war disability pensions, and would also recommend that the government consider the advisability of introducing further amendments to the said Bill 126 to provide:

1.	That, in respect of world war I pension awards, no reduction in the assessment of disability shall be made, provided such assessment has been in effect for three years or more.
2.	That section 11(1) (e) of the Pension Act he amended by striking out all the w'ords after the word "forces" in line twelve thereof and substituting therefor the -words "was obvious on enlistment."
3.	That schedule A to the Pension Act be amended to provide that payment of pensions be made at the nearest multiple of "5r" except where the disability is less than 5 per cent, for which compensation 'by way of a final payment is provided.
4.	That sections 32 and 32A of the Pension Act be amended by striking out the proviso respecting marriage before Mayr 1, 1944, where-ever it appears in these sections; and that section 66 be repealed.
5.	That section 62 of the Pension Act be amended by deleting the words "be entitled to draw and shall" in the fifth line thereof.
It gives me great pleasure to announce that, following a full and most intensive consideration of the representations made before the parliamentary committee on veterans affairs, and after studying the evidence presented there, the government has agreed to accept the recommendations, including an over-all increase of 25 per cent in the basic rates under the Pension Act. Hon. members will be gratified, I am sure, by this decision; for the country has shown clearly its opinion that those who have suffered as a result of death or disability from war service should be adequately compensated.
Perhaps the committee would be interested in a more complete summary of the major items in connection with the recommendations I have read.
Under the proposed new set-up a man and his wife will receive, in the case of 100 per cent disability, a total of $125 monthly as compared with the old rate of $100 monthly. Of this new amount, approximately $94 is payable on behalf of the man and $31 on behalf of his wife. They will receive for their first child $19 monthly, with $15 for the second. The payment for the third and each subsequent child will be at the rate of $12 monthly. This means that in the case of a Canadian family of a man, wife and three children, the total 100 per cent pension will be $171 monthly clear of income tax. This compares with the previous total of $137.
The basic rates for widows of those who have died are increased correspondingly. Instead of the previous payment of $60 monthly, a widow will now receive $75 and the additional allowances mentioned already for any dependent children. The rates for orphan children, following the same principle, will be $38

Pension Act
monthly for the first orphan child, $30 monthly for the second and $24 per month for the third and each subsequent child.
The government has also agreed with the unanimous recommendation of the special committee to a substantial increase in the additional pension paid to those pensioners who unfortunately are totally disabled, helpless and in need of attendance. The previous maximum of $750 a year has been increased to $1,400 a year. This means that a totally disabled pensioner in need of constant attendance will receive, if a married man with no children, $1,500 per year as pension and $1,400 per year as a helplessness allowance, cr a total from both sources of $2,900 annually, none of which is subject to income tax.
Hon. members may be interested in what this will mean in the total annual liability to our country. Under the present rates Canada's annual pension bill for disability pensioners and for dependents is approximately $73 million. This new schedule will increase the bill by $18,000,000 annually and will make a total yearly pension liability of approximately $91 million. The increased benefits resulting from these changes in the basic rates and in the helplessness allowance will be retroactive to October 1, 1947, and immediate action will be taken by the Canadian pension commission and the chief treasury officer to get the adjustment cheques and increased rates of award into payment.
I have already referred to the purely administrative recommendations, but I shall repeat them. The third report recommended that the pension commission review each award under section 21 without the necessity of application by the pensioner. That has been accepted by the government and has gone into effect as an administrative change.
In the fifth report the committee recommended :
That, ini respect of world war I pension awards, no reduction in the assessment of disability shall be made, provided such assessment has been in effect for three years or more.
That administrative policy likewise will go into effect. The other recommendations in the fifth report which was tabled yesterday require amendments to the bill. In the main these will be dealt with by amendments as we deal with the bill in detail. As these amendments involve a number of changes, normally I would have suggested that the bill be reprinted; but knowing it- was the wish of the parliamentary committee, as it is my wish, I asked that this be brought up before the committee of the whole today.
I shall undertake to attempt to answer any questions and deal with each section carefully as amendments are put forward. I assure hon. members that if the bill passes the committee of the whole and receives third reading I shall undertake to see that a reprinted bill is made available.
May I say further that the recommendations contained in the fifth report tabled yesterday have been accepted to an appreciable extent, and additional amendments to the Pension Act will be moved as supplementary clauses to Bill No. 126.
The first amendment deals with the phrase "wilfully and deliberately concealed" in section 11(1) (c), and the inclusion of a definition of the phrase "recorded" on medical examination prior to enlistment. That is a slight variation only from the recommendation of the parliamentary committee.
Second, there will be an amendment to schedule A of the Pension Act to provide that payment of pensions be made at the nearest multiple of "5" except where the disability is less than 5 per cent, for which compensation by way of a final payment is provided.
Third, there wrill be an advancement of the deadline respecting marriages and births from May, 1, 1944, to May 1, 1948, for veterans of world war I. This implements in part the recommendation of the committee. The government does not consider that it is expedient at this time to remove the deadline entirely. This action will take care of cases which gave a great deal of concern to the parliamentary committee.
Fourth, an amendment to section 62 of the Pension Act to provide for the deletion of the words "be entitled to draw and shall" in the fifth line of the section.


Mr. BROOKS:: Mr. Chairman, as the minister has mentioned, the bill which we are now considering is really not the bill that had second reading in the house. Personally I do not think anyone can take exception to the minister trying to get this bill through as quickly as possible, and we have no intention of raising any objection. While we all studied the bill carefully in the committee, the time taken was considerable and it is possible that we have forgotten some of the matters which were brought up.
My point in rising now is to ask whether we are to consider this bill section by section, or whether general remarks may be made now rather than on a particular section. The minister has rather established a precedent-by making general remarks at the outset.
Pension Act

There are some things I wish to say applying more particularly to the schedule than to any section.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Whichever you prefer, Mr. Chairman.


William Henry Golding: Of course the proper procedure in dealing with a bill is to deal with the clauses as they are called, but the Chair is always in the hands of the committee if there is unanimous consent to dealing with this bill in any other way.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: At the outset I wish to say that I think the committee will. be greatly pleased that so many of the recommendations have been implemented by the government through the minister. There was almost universal assent to most of these recommendations. We pressed hard in the committee for them and we are pleased indeed that the government has seen fit to implement most of our recommendations. I am not going to touch on the recommendations now, except the one which has to do with schedules A and B, which, after all, is the most important part of the bill to the soldier.
First let me point out that there has been no increase in the pension since 1925, some twenty-three years ago, and I am sure that every member of the house will agree that an increase in pensions is long overdue. During the depression and during the second world war the returned soldier from the first war was quite willing to accept what was coming to him and made very little complaint. In the second world war nearly everyone at home was employed at high wages; but the returned soldier who was unable to work, though many of them did, was content to carry along on his full pension of $75 a month and made no complaint. During the depression, from 1929 to 1937 or 1938, there was also very little complaint from the veterans in this country, although certain benefits which they had been receiving were reduced.
Undoubtedly war workers received very high wages, and, since the war, let it be said to the credit of the veterans organizations throughout Canada that their first concern has been for the rehabilitation of the young soldier returning home rather than pressing for ben-fits for themselves. But now that the young soldier has been more or less re-established on his farm, or in business, or attending school, the older veteran felt that, in duty to himself and to those who stood in need of increased benefits, something should be done to meet their requirements.

Just before the Christmas vacation the Prime Minister announced to the house that there would be an increase of ten per cent in the basic pension. We remember how that announcement was received by members of the house and by the people of this country from one end to the other. It was spoken of as a most ridiculous offer, which it was, and of course the legion and other veterans organizations could not and would not consider it for a moment. Then the bill now before us, Bill No. 126, was introduced, proposing an increase in the basic rate of pension by 16] per cent. This increase was also considered to be m-rf unsatisfactory by members of the house and throughout the country. It was an increase which it was felt should not be considered at all by members of the house and by the different veterans organizations.
When the bill came before the committee a number of recommendations and motions were made. One motion which I had the honour of moving in the committee was to increase the basic pension by 33] per cent. It was put to a vote in the committee and fifteen members voted in favour of the 33] per cent increase and sixteen against, so it was lost by just one vote. After seeing how that 33] per cent vote went, the committee voted unanimously for an increase of 25 per cent. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that while a 25 per cent increase was recommended by one veterans organization, the Canadian Legion, every other veterans organization across Canada had recommended an increase of 33] per cent, and in addition mayors of municipalities and responsible civic organizations from one end of this country to the other sent in to the committee and to the members of the House of Commons many recommendations and petitions for an increase in the pension of 33] per cent.
It might be asked, on what grounds was the 33] per cent increase in the pension based? In that connection I should like to read what the Prime Minister said when he introduced this matter in the house on December 19. At page 489 of Hansard he said:
It was recognized that account should he taken of increases in the general level of wages and salaries since the establishment of the existing rates.
Again, the Minister of Veterans Affairs said at page 63 of the proceedings of the veterans affairs committee:
That was one factor, of course, but there were other factors in relationship to the whole picture of Canada as was mentioned this morning. The living standards of others of the Canadian population were considered by the government, and one might say, as far as it was

Pension Act
possible, all the departments within the government were consulted to see what would be equitable at this time in the light of what can be done.
There were three factors which it was felt should be considered in any increase in the basic rate of pension: first, the cost of living; second, the wage increase across Canada; and third, the increase in the standard of living between 1925 and 1948. Taking first the increase in the cost of living, I think it will be agreed that that is one of the most important factors entering into any proposed increase in the pension rate. While there has been no increase in the basic pension from 1925 until the present time, instead of taking 1925 as the basic year I feel that we would be more justified in taking the year just before the war, say 1939. I say that because the young soldier who fought in the second world war and was mostly concerned with becoming re-established, building a home, buying furniture and meeting household expenses, based his idea of the value of a pension on its worth in 1939, and not 1925, a year which he knew absolutely nothing about.
If we take 1939 as the basis, the cost of living has increased since then to 150-4. Thus it has not increased 33J per cent; it has increased over 50 per cent. Clothing, which is one of the largest elements that enter into the cost of living, has increased to 172-9, or almost 80 per cent. Home furnishings, which is something that the veteran settling down finds an important item, has increased to 161-9. Food has increased to over 169. I just noticed a Canadian Press dispatch in the Montreal Gazette this morning, which spoke about a further rise in the cost of living. The article said:
Cost of living indexes for eight Canadian c-ities April 1 showed increases varying from 1-3 points for Vancouver to 0-4 for Saint John, X.B., the bureau of statistics reported today.
Food and clothing increases were mainly responsible for the advances.
That is the point I wish to emphasize, Mr. Chairman; food and clothing increases are mainly responsible for the advance in the cost of living. Then again the Canadian Press on May 4 said:
Cost of living index goes up to record peak. Advance appears to have steadied; freight rate impact not shown.
The article goes on to say:
The cost of living index, calculated on the basis 1935-39 equals 100, now is at its highest point in history. Before this year the peak was 150-6, established in the inflationary period after the first world war. This record was shattered in February when a 0-8 point boost in that month lifted it to 150-8.
The article also says:
Clothing and food indexes showed the greatest changes between March and April, although small advances were registered also by fuel and light, home furnishings and services and miscellaneous items.
I would point out that there are a lot of small things that we do not think of when we consider the cost of living. For instance, if we go out to buy a paper in the morning, instead of getting it for two or three cents as we did twenty or twenty-five years ago, today we have to pay five cents. This may seem a small matter, but it is indicative of how the cost has gone up in practically everything that we have to buy. I remember when we used to buy the Saturday Evening Post for five cents. That was twenty-five years ago. Today we have to pay fifteen cents. I might mention haircuts and shoeshines, and all these little things. I doubt whether they are included in the cost of living, but they have gone up, not 33^ per cent but 50 per cent, 100 per cent, and in many cases more than 100 per cent. Therefore, so far as the cost of living is concerned, the veteran is more than entitled to a 33i per cent increase in his pension.
The next item which was mentioned as entering into the increase in pension was the rise in wages all across Canada. I would point out that while there was a large increase in wages for workmen in skilled and unskilled labour, ranging anywhere from 50 per cent to 75 or 100 per cent, the pensioner's pension still remains at the same rate as it was in 1925. Speaking about the increase in wages, I should like to refer to a report which was given to our committee by the bureau of statistics. Under the heading, "Wage rates- unskilled factory labour-male", we find that taking 1925 as the standard year at 100, in 1947 the wage rate had increased to 197-4. That is, wages of unskilled factory labour, male, on the basis of 100 in 1925, had almost doubled in 1947. It had increased from 109 to 197-4. If we take the year 1939 and compare it with 1925, we find that it had increased to 108-2. Therefore, from 1939 to 1947 there has been an increase of almost 90 per cent.
I now come to the average earnings of wage and salaried workers. The year 1925 is again-given as the standard at 100. In 1947 wages of the salaried workers had increased to 179, or almost 80 per cent. Therefore, in the matter of the increase in wages, which was the other main factor that should enter into* an increase in pension, we find that unskilled labour had almost doubled its rate from 1925,
Pension Act

and the salaried wage earner's wages had gone up 80 per cent.
The other factor which I feel should enter into an increase in the veteran pensioner's pension is the standard of living. I mentioned that a few moments ago. No action was taken on the standard of living at all. We all know there has been a great increase in the standard of living since 1925. Things that were considered luxuries in those days, such as electrical equipment and so on, are necessities today, and have added greatly to the cost of living so far as the veterans are concerned. I know there are some who will say that the Canadian Legion recommended the 25 per cent increase. That is a fact. The Canadian Legion did recommend 25 per cent, but I would point out to the committee that their recommendation was made some time ago, and that the cost of living has gone up steadily since. They made their recommendation before the beginning of the year and, as we know, the increase has gone up steadily since that time. I should also like to quote from the brief of the Canadian Legion. They make this statement:
Disability pensions are compensation for injuries or disabilities suffered as a result of war service. It was never intended that they should be at bare subsistence level. Awards are based upon medical advice as to the individual's capacity to take employment in the common labour market. It is reasonable, therefore, to expect that a 100 per cent pensioner should receive compensation at least equivalent to the wage paid' for common labour. On an average throughout Canada this would not be less than $100 per month, reckoning on the basis of an hourly rate of 55 cents and an eight-hour day.
I would point out to the committee that the legion was wrong in the assumption that the wage paid for common labour is $100 a month, and that the basic hourly rate is fifty-five cents. As a matter of fact, we were told by officials from the bureau of statistics that the weekly rate of wage was $38 odd which would bring the total up to over $150 a month. We were also told that that included not only men who were heads of families but women and boys. Therefore the legion was basing its recommendation on a wrong assumption. It based its recommendation on the assumption of fifty-five cents an hour for an eight-hour day and $100 a month; but mark you, in its brief the legion says that the totally disabled pensioner should not receive less than $100 a month. I cannot reconcile the recommendation of the legion for a 25 per cent increase when the legion itself says that the soldier should not receive less than $100 a month. I sometimes wonder if the legion was not perhaps a little bit confused over the 25 per cent and the $25 increase. As far back

as July 7, 1947, the general secretary of the Canadian Legion sent a circular letter to all members of the House of Commons. I am not going to read the letter, but attached to it was a recommendation which the legion made at that time. I should like to read an excerpt from it, as follows:
The present rate for a single man-
That is speaking of disability pension.
-is $75 and for a married man $100 per month with additional allowances for children. The more children there are in a pensioner's family, the greater becomes the problem of maintaining a household, notwithstanding family allowances.
The legion's proposal, therefore, would provide the single man with $109 per month and the married man with $125, plus children's pension and family allowances. We believe that such an increase is necessary if unemployable disabled veterans are to be relieved from the exceedingly straitened circumstances under which some are presently existing.
As you see, Mr. Chairman, there again we have the legion recommending the $100, or the increase of 33J per cent. I am satisfied that if that recommendation were justified on July 7, 1947, it is much more justified at the present time. This makes the veterans organizations across the country practically unanimous in their request that a 3.3' per cent increase be given in pensions. I am not going to emphasize this matter any further.
We are pleased indeed that the government has seen fit to increase the pension by 25 per cent. I will say that I believe it has been done under pressure as far as the government is concerned. A few months ago the government offered 10 per cent; then, when they found that it was received across this country with such utter contempt, they increased it to 16J per cent and prepared a bill on that basis. Now they come before us with 25 per cent. That is still inadequate, Mr. Chairman. It is not as much as this country can afford. As the minister told us just a few moments ago, the cost will be something in the neighbourhood of $18,000,000 to give the veterans of this country a 33^ per cent increase; or to give them $100 -which is small pay; no labourer in this country today is trying to live on $100 a month- will cost this government only another $6,000,000.
When we consider that the Minister of Finance, when he brings down his budget, will show a surplus of some $800,000,000, I think, as did the members of the committee, with the exception of one, there should be an increase of 100 per cent for the veterans of this country. Now is the time to give justice to these men. We have not amended these schedules for some twenty-three years. If we do not amend them

Pension Act
again for another twenty-three years, this will be left as it is. I believe that an adequate increase should be given to these men now. In justice I feel that this 25 per cent should be still further amended and that we should give these veterans what they are entitled to.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Chairman-


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Chairman-


Joseph Henry Harris: [DOT]-if I may be-


Thomas John Bentley: Who has the floor, Mr. Chairman?


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member for Danforth.


Joseph Henry Harris: If I may be permitted to have the floor, Mr. Chairman- with due deference to the hon. member who has just risen-perhaps the house would be kind enough to grant one of the veterans of this chamber the privilege of saying a few words in close proximity to the remarks that have been made by my hon. and gallant friend, the member for Royal. He knows as much about this great problem as many of us, and certainly a great deal more than those of us who might be laymen and who, perhaps through no fault of their own, did not have the high privilege of being part and parcel of the armed services in world war I and world war II.
I thought perhaps you, Mr. Chairman, and the House of Commons might be indulgent to one who has been privileged-as a layman, not as a soldier-to serve as an ordinary individual in Canada who looks on the great work the members of the armed forces did, how they saved democracy for us and how, during the last quarter of a century, they have done their best, as they are doing now, to carry on shoulder to shoulder with the rest of us who have an ambition to be good citizens in this greatest country and nation of the *world, our Canada.
To serve in that manner has been my privilege. I say to the minister who is guiding this legislation through the house, that is something which we think about from day to day, week to week, month to month and year to year when we come in contact with those highly privileged men who saved us. While they wero doing their job, we tried in our humble way to do something on behalf of Canada, but rarely had an opportunity to express our views with regard to their anxieties and with regard to what they had done on our behalf.
I trespass on the time of this committee today to give, in a few sentences, the ideas
of those who are off to one side and who got in on the tail-end of the procession of the boys who deserve the head of the line. The minister, whose deputy I see in front of him, knows that some of us were privileged to give service to those who served us so well and saved our way of life. For that we ask no thanks. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the five or more I see in this chamber who know, that we were privileged to give service; and the minister or his deputy can correct me if I am wrong.
In my own little community of Toronto we were highly privileged to give service to perhaps 4,000 or 5,000 who came back to us maimed and who needed service of a kind that a hospital organization, of which it was my privilege to be chairman, was able to give. The assistance of the Department of Veterans Affairs in our voluntary work is now gratefully acknowledged. They cooperated with this group of sixteen or eighteen men who gave these services to a maximum of servicing two hundred or so veterans daily who returned -during world war II; and how we gloried in being able to do something for them!
That is past, but some things that are past should not be forgotten, and that is why I mention it. That is not the problem just now. Many things run through my mind in trying to follow the able and gallant speech, if that is a proper word, of the hon. member for Royal, who is a gallant man in common with many of my associates whom I see in this chamber. These gallant men must have within their very hearts and souls the needs of those who have been privileged to return. We ordinary men may not be able to appreciate the situation as they do, though I ask you, Mr. Chairman, and through you the minister to remember that some of our blood also served.
Apart, from that, we as humble citizens have tried our utmost to see their point of view. For a quarter of a century I have had these men and their wives coming to my door. Any time I am at home the door is open to them after seven o'clock in the evening. I have learned to love, admire and respect these men and women, and I am anxious to be of some service to them. But I also think of others with whom it has been my privilege to come in contact, a few hundred employees in a plant where we have never had a strike or trouble of any kind. For years I have listened to their woes, to their family troubles, and so forth. In Calgary we have twenty or thirty, in Toronto another three hundred and fifty, and all those people
Pension Act

know there is one individual to whom they can come with their difficulties. None of this group have troubles with respect to pensions. Their difficulty is that they are not pensioned enough, that they are not earning enough, that they should have more money, better housing, and so on, running the whole gamut of those things which enter into our daily life.
I am privileged perhaps even more than the hon. member for Royal and many other members of this house to hear the story of the ordinary civilian and also to hear the story of the veteran and his wife and family. For a long period it has been my pleasure to provide payrolls for these people; and having some idea of costs, I say quite frankly and sincerely that during the last quarter of a century the amounts we have paid men incapacitated one hundred per cent, and on down the line, along with the pensions that went to their widows and families, which in the early days might have been on a par with what obtained in ordinary civilian life, have gradually lost that relationship.
I do not charge the minister with responsibility for this. I say it has been the responsibility of this chamber, Canada's House of Commons, that these pensions have not kept pace with rising costs of all kinds. Just last Sunday I received telephone calls from three returned soldiers in my own community, one a veteran of the first war and two veterans of the second war. They said their rents had been almost doubled. They were carrying on ordinary little grocery stores in that vicinity, and suddenly they found their rents greatly increased. I could give the figures; perhaps from $55 to $100, which is not quite double, or from $85 to $150, again not quite double, but that is not necessary to quote. The fact is that the cost of remaining in their places of business and keeping their families together has been almost doubled.
Not only that, but many times I am asked questions like this. "Where am I to live? I have two rooms, and they are costing me $40 a month. I do not know where to go for more room." Someone may say, as I sometimes do, that in the rural parts of Ontario we have thousands of vacant farm homes; so why should these people not go and rehabilitate those farms? That might be all right for my worn-out employee who has an aptitude for farming, or for thousands of others who should go back to the land; but I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the men for whom the minister is responsible, because of their training, their war service, and in many cases their disabilities, are not able to go on the land in Canada. They are city bred and soldier trained; they

are accustomed to army food and army life, and you cannot change them overnight. These are not people you can transplant to vacant farm houses anywhere. They should have the first call on any available work in our cities and towns, for a dozen reasons.
The other group who have not served overseas, many of whom were brought to this country from Europe because of their training on farms, could be dealt with in a different way. If there were some squeeze process which could force foreigners to go to the vacant farms of Ontario and the other provinces, I would be ready to vote for that squeeze to be applied; but I would not be prepared to say this should be done in the case of our own citizens who served in the second great war, who perhaps came right out of high school, with no idea at all of agriculture and whose fathers were perhaps tradesmen. I am not suggesting they should be pushed out of the larger centres. But I would urge, as forcefully as I am able, that we be placed in a position where we can demand that those who have not served our national needs, those who have not served us in helping save democracy, be asked to get out of the way. Others should be made to vacate some of the homes they are occupying, and some of the positions they hold, to make room for those of our boys who have graduated from the schools and who, in the best years of their lives, served overseas.
Bring those young men into wholesome communities where, in their turn, they can make a living. We hear talk about increases in costs. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to think about those increases in costs. I ask the same of any member who has had the privilege of making up a payroll each Friday night. I look at the costs of 1935, and compare them with those of today; I look at those of 1939, and again compare them with present costs.
A few moments ago I heard the hon. member for Royal make a reference to a payment of fifty-five cents an hour. As an ordinary manufacturer, I thought of the good old days when we paid fifty-five cents an hour; and we did not show many deficits.
Let us consider the ordinary labourer today. Perhaps he is not able to read or write. All he knows is how to punch a time-clock at eight o'clock each morning, change his clothes, and start to work at about eight-fifteen. He will wait around, work along and slog around until about a quarter to twelve. Let us not forget that about ten o'clock he has a rest period of five or ten minutes. Then, after lunch he comes back at one o'clock to resume his work; and I should not like to say how many minutes after one o'clock he actually begins. I do not

Pension Act
want a strike in any of my plants. But he does start to work shortly after one o'clock.
I was not here on Friday night; I found it necessary to be absent on some important business. Coming down the stairs at the plant about a quarter to five, I was almost mobbed by men coming upstairs, ready to sign off, with their day's work complete. Work eight hours a day?-well, perhaps seven and a half. I hope they did. And if they did not work seven and a half hours, I am not complaining much.
But what a change! From the time the minister's department-and this was before his term of office-suggested fifty-five cents an hour, we can remember what has taken place. Not one of them draws less than eighty cents an hour, and is paid for eight hours each day. 1 am not going to quibble, but I leave it to the imagination of lion, members to decide how many of those eight solid hours they were actually working from the time they began work at a quarter after eight o'clock in the morning until they stopped at a quarter to five; less, of course, an extra ten minutes at tea, and tea at ten o'clock-about all of which I do not complain.
Thank God we have a Canada here which gives our men all these great privileges. But I am sorry, in a quiet sort of way-
Some lion. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henry Harris: *-to have to
drive into the minds of lion, members the fact that those who are engaged in industry have responsibilities. The Minister of Veterans Affairs, who has responsibility in this matter, must understand the situation when his department asks for legislation of this kind.
In passing, let me say that this is not the end. This is but the beginning. Some of us might accept it now; but none of us will lie down until this situation is equalized between those who have been fortunate enough to work in industry and who have not been handicapped one hundred per cent-
An lion. MEMBER: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henry Harris: Speak a little louder, and I will answer you. Let us not forget the man who has been handicapped possibly to the extent of 100 per cent so that we might remain behind and have the privilege of enjoying the advantages in. this great Canada of ours. My appeal is this. Let us as men try to measure up to the points contained in the bill. Let us keep also in our minds our everyday experience with our great industrial population, one which we must nurture, look after, encourage and keep in good humour, so that they may continue to work
in order that this country may be a great producing nation, and may be able to continue to hold its exporting position. Let us bring into the fabric of our industry those who may be only partly dependent upon the Department of Veterans Affairs. Let us make them part and parcel of our industrial organization, so that Canada may reach her destiny.
But while we do this, let us not forget that we have a responsibility to our veterans. While I was not privileged to serve on the veterans affairs committee, I have had the privilege of observing what goes on round about us. I say through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, that we shall not be finished with this problem when the bill is passed. Do not feel too badly when many units and organizations petition you. They will not pester; they will be content to petition their rights. And when I make reference to their rights I am sensible enough to realize, as will be other hon. members, that there will always be some who will ask too much. Perhaps they will ask more than they expect to get. I know there will always be some who are unreasonable. But they are Canadians; they did their bit. And I can say this, after a quarter of a century of experience, that I have never yet had a demand made upon me, as a member of the House of Commons, which was not within reason. On many occasions demands have been made of me. How grateful those people have been when some little attention has been paid to them by a member of parliament. Good heavens, you would think we were gods, the way some of these widows and soldiers wait at your doorstep. I put my arm around those widows and children-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henry Harris: I do-ten thousand of them-and I will do so again.


An hon. MEMBER:: What a man!


Joseph Henry Harris: I say to them, "I am just your servant; that is all." I am their servant. If some are unreasonable-and perhaps one out of ten thousand might be- you can shake his hand, seat him down on a chair in your home, and make him listen to reason. All the men will listen to reason, and so will most of the women.
I say to hon. members that if you would open your homes once a week to all the people who have been having difficulties, they would be most grateful to you. I know of no other group in the community who are so gracious and lovable when they come to see you. At the same time let me say that, after thinking over (he problems of the last quarter of a century, I know of no other group in the
Pension Act

community which has given so much and asked so little from those of us who have been privileged to stay at home and attend to our gardens and our other business, from day to day.
To get back to the theme raised by the hon. member for Royal, let us be sensible and realize that costs have gone up, wages have gone up, in fact everything seems to have gone up much faster than the pensions to those who served us in world war I and world war II. I think I can venture a guess, and if I am wrong I hope industrial Canada will cry me down. I say to industrial Canada, Give to these men and women who served us in world war I and world war II, not just what you have given your employees but temper it with the bonuses and extra pay that you have given to the executives in your business. I say to industrial Canada and to those managing big business, If you ever have a quiet moment- I know they do have them-sit down and think. The hardest thing to do is to think. I say to them, Think not only of your own miserable little industry, or mercantile business, or shop, or what have you; try to think, without waiting for church on Sunday morning, about your fellowmen. Classify them if you will, but ask yourselves, who among them have paid the greatest price, who among them deserves the most consideration? I say, in common with my gallant friend the hon. member for Royal and all those honourable and gallant men in this honourable assembly that if they will do that their conclusions will be sound and will be for the well-being of Canada. Those of us who are not privileged to call ourselves gallant men will be happy to subscribe our mite that in the main this great country, which today by any yardstick offers a great example to the world, may continue on her path to that destiny which will make the minister and all others proud of our country.


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Chairman, I would have been a bit more impressed by the speaker who has just taken his seat if I could remember that during the last three years he had supported the position we had taken in regard to increases in rentals and price control.


Joseph Henry Harris: At least he did not oppose it.


Thomas John Bentley: With regard to the matter under discussion, while we are disappointed in some respects, we feel that the government has made a vast improvement over what we were led to expect when we first assembled this session and when the committee on veterans affairs was set up. I have had the privi-

lege of sitting on this committee ever since I came to the House of Commons in 1945. Without casting any reflection upon the previous chairman or minister, I want to say that the present chairman has been most agreeable and able in the conduct of his duties and the minister has been most sympathetic and helpful in the carrying on of the work. The same goes for the officials of his department from whom we got a great amount of information.
I am not going to go into all the matters that were dealt with by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), but I want to refer to one or two things about which I am extremely pleased. I note that the minister is going to move an amendment in order to accept the recommendation of the committee to remove the words "wilfully and deliberately concealed" from section 11(1) (c) of the Pension Act. That is a matter of gratification to myself and a great many other people.
While those words may have been put in the section with the best of intentions, we have always felt that their effect was to create a rather unpleasant connotation when veterans were looking over the act. I want to point out here as I did in the committee that the words "wilfully and deliberately concealed" indicate that someone attempted to get into the army with the expectation of later on exploiting his services in order to live the life of Riley in the future. That is not a good situation.
I remember when I first went to enlist in world war I a number of us came in from the outlying country dressed in our working clothes. The recruiting was done in a rather informal manner because it had not been organized as it was later on. We went before the attestation officer and answered the various questions that were asked with regard to our health. What young man, even though he had a slight disability, would admit it, especially before other young men? That is not what we would expect a human being to do. Others forgot them, while others felt that if they disclosed anything it would be considered that they were trying to back out after having got in the recruiting office.
I think, with these words out, the administration of the act will not lose in efficiency, while a great many veterans will be highly pleased.
I am glad the government has agreed to bringing the pension up to the nearest five per cent if the disability is over the half-way mark. I think administration will be easier. We were all very much in favour of that and we are glad the government has accepted the recommendation.

Pension Act
I was a little disappointed in the minister's announcement with regard to the deadline respecting marriages, which is to be moved from May 1, 1944 to May 1, 1948, which has now passed. If there had to be a deadline, which the committee did not want, I would have thought the government could have moved it forward to 1952 or somewhere about there and then watch the progress of events from that point on. However we are not going to quarrel over that too much; in fact we are not going to quarrel over it at all. I think the striking out of the words "be entitled to draw and shall" from section 62 of the act was necessary, and I do not think that deletion will hamper the operation of the act or its administration. In the course of time I am sure it will have a beneficial effect.
We are glad that the government and the minister have accepted the recommendation that no reduction in assessment of disability shall be made, provided that such assessment has been in effect for three years or more. That will be a tremendous improvement over the old act and we are glad to have it.
With regard to the schedules I want to point out that there was a difference of opinion between the two veterans organizations that presented extensive briefs. Like the hon. member for Royal, I am inclined to think that if the legion had given just a little bit more thought to it they likely would have agreed with the recommendations of the national council of veterans associations and would have recommended the 33J per cent. That 33j per cent, if granted, would have amounted to only S100 a month. I do not think any member of this house or anybody outside who has an income of over $100 a month would like to be compelled to live on $100 a month, for a single person. I agree that what we have secured is better than what we were led to expect when we first came here. Nevertheless wc should have been infinitely more pleased had this very minimum of 33J per cent been granted.
Small local governing bodies in this country, village councils, town and city councils, people back in the country who have to collect the taxes from the people they meet every day and are not removed like the taxing authorities here in Ottawa from the people they tax but meet them, as I say, every day, and have to be careful also in the spending of those taxes- responsible bodies of this sort sent in resolutions asking that an increase of 33J per cent be granted; and because I felt that these responsible bodies had given consideration to the cost which would be involved in such an increase and were willing to meet it in their local governments on behalf of their taxpaying citizens, I supported the recommendation to that effect which the hon. member for Royal moved in the committee. But, as he pointed out, it was defeated on a vote by a very small majority. He failed to remind the house that I then immediately moved-and I mention this to keep the record straight- another amendment to the resolution which was then before the committee. My amendment asked for a 25 per cent increase, plus a cost of living bonus. Had that amendment for a 25 per cent increase, plus cost of living bonus, been accepted by the committee, it would have resulted in the veteran receiving at the present time slightly more than $100 a month, because we recommended that a cost of living bonus should be paid on the basis of one dollar a month for each one point rise in the cost of living index.


Mr. WYLIE:: That was defeated by one C.C.F. vote, was it not?
Mr. BENTLEY': No; it was defeated by one vote. There were no political lines drawn in the committee. We tried to keep it as much as possible on non-political lines, and I believe that every member of the committee, no matter to which party he belonged, tried to do what he felt in his mind and heart was the best he could for the veteran.
Mr. BROOKS; The vote hardly indicated that.


Thomas John Bentley: I am not going to make a political issue of the matter. It may be as some say, but I am trying to keep the increase for the veterans out of the political field and deal with it as we saw it, on its merits.
My motion, I regret to say, calling for a 25 per cent increase and a cost of living bonus did not carry. If it had carried I believe it would have been a very good thing for the future for war disability pensioners in this country, because it would have established a floor under which their pensions could not drop, and it would have made available to the pensioners a bonus to take care of any increase which might take place in the cost of living. I would remind the committee that, while there are those who say we have now reached the peak in living costs, there are others equally eminent who say the cost of living is likely to go as high as 180 points, and if it should increase to 180 points, that is by 28 points and a fraction, it would largely cancel that increase in the pension which we worked so hard on the committee to secure for the veteran. I think a cost of living bonus would have been a very good precedent to establish. I believe it would have been better
Pension Act

even than the original proposal of the national council of veterans organizations.


An hon. MEMBER:: Explain it.


Thomas John Bentley: Someone asks me to explain what we meant by the 25 per cent increase, plus the cost of living bonus. The 25 per cent increase would have amounted to approximately the figure shown in the table which the minister passed around today and which will be in the new schedule to the act. It would have brought the pension, in round figures, to about 894 a month. The cost of living bonus, based on $1 a month for each one point rise in the cost of living index, would have meant, with the cost of living index standing at 152 at that time, that $8 would have been added to the $94, making the pension $102. If the cost of living index went down a couple of points the pension would have dropped to $100, and if the cost of living index dropped six more points at some time in the future the pension would reach its base, a minimum of $94. Should the cost of living index go higher than it is at the present time, it would mean that the pension would increase accordingly, to perhaps $110 or $115, depending on the rise in the cost of living index. That was the base we were trying to establish, an equitable arrangement based on the cost of living. But unfortunately, as I say, my amendment was defeated by one vote. Then the main motion to increase the pension by 25 per cent came before the committee and eventually carried almost unanimously. And so the table that goes out today, while it does not meet the hopes of those who moved the two amendments in the committee, nevertheless does give to the veteran a more pleasant and enjoyable prospect to look forward to than the original recommendations of the government which we were afraid the government might stick to.
I do not want to take up more time because I know there is a speaker to follow me, but in closing I would suggest to this committee that, as the national income in this country increases and as the earning power of our people increases, there is no good reason why those who have given years of service to this country, and have been hurt by that service, should not at all times be in a position to share in that increased national income or production. Remember this also, that when pensions were first introduced we did not have as a common thing in our houses many of the things which today are not only common but essential to the modern way of building houses, and we should not deprive any veteran in this country of the oppor-
tunity to enjoy the improved standards of living which go to make up the increased income of the country. While nothing further in this direction is likely to be done at this session of parliament, I would like those who are responsible for the Pension Act to give my suggestion their serious consideration and be prepared at another session to accept the justice of my proposal, that at no time should the veteran fail to partake of any increase in the standards of living which come to the Canadian people. With that, Mr. Chairman, it only remains for me to say that in the main we are pleased with the presentation made by the minister this afternoon,


Mr. QUELCH:: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to pay a tribute to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and also to the chairman of the veterans affairs committee on the very fair and non-partisan way in which the meetings of the committee dealing with the Pension Act have been carried on. I think that this year we set a new high in that regard, and I am sure that the action will be highly appreciated by veterans organizations across the country.
When the pension bill, No. 126, was before the house on second reading we of this group expressed dissatisfaction with a number of its sections, and also recommended that certain amendments should be made to the Pension Act. Generally speaking, I think it can be said that was the attitude of the veterans committee. A number of recommendations were made by the committee, and I am sure we w'ere all glad to hear the minister say that in the main these recommendations had been accepted by the government.
Previous speakers have already said a good deal regarding the increase in the basic rate by 25 per cent. That was the recommendation of the committee, and the government have accepted it. It is true that within the committee there was quite a strong demand to have the basic rate increased by 33^ per cent. That was the recommendation of the national council of veterans organizations. It was also the recommendation of a number of boards of trade across the country; that is, to have the basic pension increased to $100 a month. Many of us felt that in view of the increase in the cost of living, and in view of the increase in wages, we should have increased the basic pension to that amount. On the other hand the recommendation of the legion was for a 25 per cent increase, and the recommendation of the committee to the government was for a 25 per cent increase in the basic rate; there-

Criminal Code
fore the government are to be highly commended for having accepted that recommendation.
I was especially pleased when the minister announced that the government had agreed, in part at least, to accept our recommendation regarding an amendment to section 11(1) (c) of the act to strike out the words "wilfully and deliberately concealed". For a long time that has been a bone of contention with veterans. Many veterans have felt that many veterans had been denied a pension on the grounds or as a result of these words being written into the act. It is well to remember that previous committees have made recommendations that these words be struck out We made that recommendation in 1946, but unfortunately at that time the government could not see its way to accept the suggestion. Again I say I am very glad that the government have agreed to that change, and I hope that it will have the result which many of us think it should have.
I am also glad that the government has agreed to establish a floor under pensions. The exact wording of the recommendation was:
1. That, in respect of world war I pension awards, no reduction in the assessment of disability shall be made, providing such assessment has been in effect for three years or more.
Then the pension commission assured us that that is in reality the attitude of the pension commission in regard to pensions of the old veterans; that is to say, they do not reduce them. On the other hand it is bound to give a feeling of assurance to veterans to know that right on the statute there is a section to the effect that their pensions will not be reduced,
In closing, I would say this. If the government can give the same kind of consideration to the recommendations that I believe may come from the veterans committee on the War Veterans Allowance Act I am sure the veterans of this country will be very highly pleased indeed.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. CRIMINAL CODE



ONE-THIRD OF JURORS TO BE FEMALE IN TRIAL OF FEMALE PERSONS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved the second reading of Bill No. 199, to amend the criminal code (juries).
He said: I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to delay the house for more than a few minutes tonight. This particular bill is one of the reasons I think we should have a legal committee in this house for the purpose of considering legal bills. I believe it would save a great deal of the time of the house.
My argument is this. Women can sit in the high court of parliament, in this house and in another place, and they can do many things today that they could not do in years gone by. This bill will make provision for women to be on juries. This matter was brought before the House of Commons last session. One of the cardinal principles of the British constitution is that the courts are subservient to the legislature. It is also one of the cardinal principles of Magna Carta that the people shall take a large share in the administration of criminal justice. One of these matters is the inspection of public institutions. With all due respect to the House of Commons here, I want to say that we are miles behind the old country in the matter of law reform. A committee was set up there shortly before the second great war broke out to consider all phases of this problem, with the result that a bill was prepared, although it was not introduced, embracing many of the features I am proposing here tonight. We are somewhat reluctant to advance one iota from what we had fifty years ago in the way of law reform. Law reform is one of the most important matters which this parliament can deal with.
With regard to the place of women today, I may say that some years ago when I first was head of our city, we found that married women, unless they owned property, could not vote in municipal elections. We went to the legislature and a bill was passed which made provision for two votes in the house, one for the man who was the tenant or the owner and one for his wife. Then in 1917 we went farther. We went to the Ontario government and said that this law had proved good in municipal matters. On account of what women did in the first war, and the suffering they endured, the Ontario legislature adopted the principle of our bill, namely, to give women over twenty-one years of age the right to vote in provincial elections. Toward the close of the first war, on that principle, after a long fight women obtained the federal franchise.
In the election held for this parliament, in June, 1945, fifty-one per cent of the women voted and forty-nine per cent of the men voted. As hon. members know, I believe in law reform, which has been a dead letter
Criminal Code
[Stage Direction]
in Canada as compared with the old country. We shall have some law reform if we pass this bill.
I remember, on one occasion some years ago, going over to the Hull assizes when I first saw the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) in action. There were all men on the jury. He had them all weeping. First, of all, the court crier started to weep. Then some tall fellows at the back of the hall started to weep also. The late minister of justice the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, one of the most beloved men in the province of Quebec, asked me to go over to see this young barrister there, and I did so. The result of this exhibition of sorrow was that court was adjourned until next morning. The jury wept as did everybody else. Everybody had his handkerchief out and all that kind of thing. The result was that a verdict of not guilty was brought in with regard to the prisoner. That is the first time I saw the hon. member for Temiscouata in action.
I do not know how far he is prepared to go with regard to this bill, but I should like to say this. Last session I introduced into the House of Commons a bill to allow women on juries. I believe that if women could secure this part of law reform, it would be a step in the right direction. If a female is being tried, I believe there should be females on the jury. Twenty years ago, when I first brought this matter before the House of Commons in 1927-1028, Mr. Harry Anderson, a popular and able editor, of the Toronto Globe, said he thought women were too temperamental. In my opinion, they are not any more temperamental than some of the men I see in this chamber when votes are being taken.
In the second place, Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to one fact, and that is the place of women at the present time, and what they are doing in organizations like the Red Cross and the patriotic fund. Even with regard to our elections for this House of Commons, who does most of the work? From what I see of the matter, I think the women do. The men do not work now the way they used to. They leave it to the women in the daytime. Women can sit on the boards of education. There are twenty-five or thirty of them in the British House of Commons. I would point to what they are doing in education and public health, and in the Red Cross and the patriotic fund. Now they can be lawyers. Some are judges, some are magistrates and all that kind of thing. I would also mention what they are doing in organizations like the I.O.D.E., the national council of women, the patriotic fund, 
hospitals and charities, the Red Cross, the schools and churches. They lead in all these good works. By what they have done in two long wars they have earned the place they now have.
Among the most important things, I believe, is the inspection of public institutions; and I believe that women would be better equipped to do this than men. What have we with regard to the inspection of public institutions? We have no inspection at all, except by crown officers. I am not here to say anything against crown officers. They are good and they are not responsible for wffiat goes on. We in the House of Commons are responsible. I can say this. If women inspected some of these institutions such as the Don jail in my constituency, which was built shortly after confederation and has been condemned by grand juries whose reports have just been pigeonholed, changes would be made. I venture to say if women went there and saw what was going on at the present time there would be a vast improvement in no time in the conduct of these public institutions.
Then we see the place women are occupying today with regard to many other matters. I do not wish to detain the house much longer because there may be other members who wish to speak. On the streets of Ottawa these days will be noticed banners urging the public to be kind to animals and to make contributions to the Humane society and all that kind of thing. It seems to me that there should be some kind of society with a slogan, "Be kind to humans."
With regard to the Toronto Humane society, a fine organization according to a clipping I have in my hand, their inspectors went out and examined 134,000 cattle, sheep and swine,
40,000	poultry, 4,300 horses and 19,000 cats; also hundreds of inquiries a week regarding the care of animals are received by the Toronto office. They have issued a pamphlet on the care of animals such as dogs, cats, horses, birds and so on. So far so good.
After every great war there is always dislocation. There is always an outbreak of crime after every great war. The time has now come for these women, who have done such good work during two wars and in the depression, to be given this right. They have proven their case. There is no reason why they should not sit on juries. I venture to say they would be far better than some of the men I have seen on juries, and would bring about real law reform in this country by their inspection of these places.
Then take the question of the inspection of institutions such as the Mercer reformatory
[Stage Direction]
Criminal Code
and other similar buildings which should have been torn down years ago. It is true that under the present minister, Mr. Dunbar, Ontario has announced the opening of certain new institutions to look after the young people of this province who get into difficulties, but as far as the Toronto jail is concerned I see no improvement at all. The city of Toronto was a pioneer in law enforcement. It built a jail farm for young people away out Yonge street north of Thornhill, and another institution for women three miles west of the city, at Concord. The intention was then that the Toronto jail should be closed, but I venture to say it will never be closed under dual control. Today there are dozens of young people. lying on the floors there and not being properly looked after. I do not want it understood that I am criticizing the staff. They are very good, but they operate under antiquated conditions and have to do the best they can.
I venture to say that if women were on the juries and made presentments they would see that something was done about it. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) has made some improvements, no doubt, in federal prisons, but if I had my way I would put a sign over some of these federal institutions: "Abandon hope all ye who enter here". Often those in charge of these institutions have had no training for the work, and as novices, learn only from experience. I am not here to criticize them; far from it, but I believe we should give women the right of inspection when they are serving on juries.
I would not want any sob stuff in this discussion. I believe if these institutions were properly conducted we would see the same results that have been experienced in the old country. I would not urge any reform which is not in the public interest; but look at what is happening in the old land. Under the summary convictions act people are given time in which to pay their fines, instead of being sent to jail. When people are out of work and have not the money with which to pay their fines, they should not have to go to jail. I am shocked at some of the fines imposed in the Toronto police court under our control system, and federal tax matters, sometimes running into thousands of dollars compared with other places. Why, they summon people there for not having a radio licence, and all the rest of it. The administration of these federal laws is a severe charge upon the municipal police systems of the country, and they cannot provide institutions for those people. If we had the law reform they had in England fifteen or twenty years ago, a real summary conviction act; if we gave people time to pay their fines, I believe half 5849-243
the prisons could be closed up here as they were in England.
Our pace has been very slow in this country in regard to prison reform; though some improvements have been made in the last year or two, they are more farcical than real. As far as inspection goes, however, there is none. Members of the House of Commons have the right to inspect these institutions, but how many go there? Hardly any member of this house or any federal minister has inspected one of these institutions, or knows how it is conducted. If women were on the juries I think they would get better results, and for that reason I hope the Minister of Justice will consider accepting these amendments, or widen out the bill for female juries for females. While I have great respect for him and for the attention he has given his duties, I really think we should have some legal committee which, during the recess of parliament, would do what was done in England in 1938, when Sir Robert Horne had a bill all ready to introduce before the war broke out. The bill has now passed both the House of Commons and the House of Lords in England, after elaborate inquiry.
I believe the time has come for real law reform in Canada, and this is one phase of it. I believe women should be allowed to serve on the jury in a case involving another woman; but I really feel that the inspection feature by women is a most important part of it. If women were to inspect some of these institutions, asylums, federal and provincial jails, and so on, I believe we would get some reforms which we cannot seem to get now with juries of men making presentments to the judge, who sends them to the authorities where they are simply pigeonholed.
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: In the course of his gracious speech the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has paid fitting tribute to women, during this week following Mothers' day. I congratulate him on his remarks, during which he uttered many truths.
The hon. member is sponsoring Bill No. 199, to amend the criminal code to permit women to serve on juries. The jury is the cornerstone of one branch of law, that is, criminal law. Some people have spoken in favour of the abolition of the jury; in certain parts of this country the grand jury has been abolished; but the jury remains, and serves a very useful purpose, in that it is a guarantee of a fair trial for all those who have to appear before the courts.
The question now is whether men are exclusively superior to women.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: No.
Criminal Code


Jean-François Pouliot: The answer given by my deskmate is correct. Even the most ardent feminists have not been advocating the superiority of one sex over the other. They have been sponsoring equality. Leaving that argument aside, I think the question is quite clear. Would it improve the administration of justice to have women on juries in cases where women appear before the criminal courts? That is all. In this bill the hon. member for Broadview has expressed the desire to sponsor the acceptance of women on juries. Well, who can do other than congratulate him on this suggestion?
With regard to a matter like this, or generally, who will contend that the female of the species is deadlier than the male? There is no reason to say that. It is an aphorism which has been taken for granted but in which there is no truth at all. In the administration of justice it would be a guarantee of security to women who may be called upon to appear before the courts to see persons of their own sex deciding their fate.
The exemptions must be different from those concerning men called for jury duty, and the suggestions -made in this bill are perhaps not sufficiently complete, because there should -be another provision with respect to the exemption of women called toi serve on juries. That is, however, an easy matter to adjust. It should not take long to add the dispensation I have in mind.
If I understood correctly what the hon. member for Broadview has said so well, it is that he wants an acceptance of the principle of permitting women to serve on juries. It is wrong for any man to have a complex of superiority over women. In my long political career I have addressed many meetings attended by men and women, and I have appreciated the qualities of women, and their decisions. 01 have done so because so many of them were kind enough to vote for me.
To say that women are temperamental is unjust. They -are no more temperamental than men. Indeed I know many men who are much more temperamental than women. Besides that, as a rule women are better informed -than men, because they read more. Some have achieved success before the bar, on the bench and in many other activities.
I -shall gladly support the hon. member's bill, provided that in due course there is an amendment exempting mothers with young children from the obligation of serving on juries. Other than that, I should be pleased to see women from all walks of life serving on juries, to decide the more important cases.

I wonder what the vote of the house will be, but I hope it will not be any reflection upon women, and that hon. members will think twice before voting the bill down. It is a good bill, a bill which deserves, the support of the House of Commons and the Senate. I shall not speak longer, because I hope it will pass at the -earliest possible opportunity.


James Horace King: The hon. member for Davenport.


An hon. MEMBER:: What does he know about women?


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, there is always someone in -the house who knows much less than those who get up to speak, but who cannot contain himself without interjecting some silly remark.
I, too, shall be brief, because I wish to support the proposal of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), who has been a consistent pioneer in promoting good legislation in the House of Commons. I do not need to add to what he has said about the sphere women have held in the public life of Canada, -more than to add to the list he has already given the fact that we have had queens, and the further fact that the next ruler -of the British empire is likely to be a woman.
Only recently I attended a -ceremony when quite a number were called -to the bar in Toronto. It was on that occasion the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was called. At that time a number of women were called to the bar, one of whom was the daughter of Mr. Deputy Speaker, and another the daughter of the late H. A. Clark, K.C., and winner of the Wallace Nesbitt prize.
Women have thoroughly demonstrated that they are -able to -take their places beside men in -any position requiring common sense and education. I have much pleasure in supporting the hon. member's bill.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support Bill No. 199, to amend the criminal code, and in doing so I congratulate the hon. -member for Broadview (Mr. Church) upon having introduced the bill. It is but another indication of his humanitarian -approach to life.
I support the bill because it makes provision for further recognition of the fact that women are necessary for the proper functioning of governmental and administrative services. I believe experience has proved the truth of this statement. Women who have occupied seats in the House of Commons have made -a great contribution to our deliberations, and have' done worthwhile work for the

Criminal Code
country. I am certain that if in this parliament we had had more women in the House of Commons we would have price controls in Canada at the present time.
Let us look at the work women have done in legislatures. I give credit to all parties when I say that the women who have sat in the British Columbia legislature have given great stimulus to social welfare, legislation particularly in connection with mothers' allowances, children's allowances, and those aspects of government directly concerned with the home and family. The same applies to our municipal councils, and to the multitude of organizations in which women work. Without doubt, experience has proven that, more and more, the activities of women are a benefit in every sphere of our social life.
I support the bill because I believe the inclusion of women on juries, even according to the terms of the bill, will better serve the ends of justice. Women have an understanding of women's problems and women's circumstances which men do not have. I also support the bill because I am certain that their wisdom, counsel and advice, due to their experience in a wide range of fields, will be of advantage in the administration of law in this country.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, from the discussion we have heard thus far I believe there must be some misapprehension as to the meaning of the bill. Is it not a fact that women may sit on juries now?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Angus MacInnis: Well, they can in my province.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: That is right. You are progressive.


Angus MacInnis: Even at that, the bill provides only that in cases where a female is tried by a court one-third of the jurors must be women. The assumption underlying that, I should imagine, is that women will be more fair or will have a better understanding of the law as it affects women than of the law as it affects men. That, I believe, is the point with which a jury must concern itself.
Further, if we are to give equality, let me say that I am in favour of equality of the sexes in everything. But if we are to have a law which says that where a woman who is being tried by a jury, one-third of the jurors must be women, then the next thing we shall have to do is to enact a law whereby when a man is being tried by a jury one-third of the 5849-2435
jury shall be men. In my opinion it becomes ridiculous if we do not assume the equality of the sexes.
If women today in any part of Canada cannot serve on juries, and if the province concerned has it within its control to remove that restriction, and fails to do so, then it must be an extremely reactionary province. I speak in this instance, of course, out of the abundance of my ignorance of the law.
I am not opposing the bill in any way; but if the bill had for its purpose ensuring the equality of women in matters of this kind I woidd be much more enthusiastic than I am now in its support.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, when the minister speaks I should like him to answer one thing. I am sure we have all enjoyed the complimentary speeches we have heard tonight with respect to women. It is too bad that we have not more women here who could reply to the toast to the women which has been so well put by so many members this evening. When the minister speaks I should like him to tell me whether this bill would apply to the province of Alberta. We are still under the Northwest Territories Act out there so far as juries are concerned and, if this bill does not apply, as I think it will not, then I shall not be too greatly concerned about the women in my province, because we have a provision in our own jury act with respect to the service of women on juries.
It strikes me that from the practical side of this thing we would have to reconstruct all our court houses. There is no doubt about that. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in all court houses there is only one jury room and with the one room goes one of the amenities that are usually attached to things of that kind in civilized countries.
I am heartily in favour of what the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) has just said. I am inclined to think that if we are to deal with this matter at all, if we have jurisdiction to do so-I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) to enlighten us on that -then we should provide for complete emancipation and not just pick and choose here and there as this bill does.
The bill provides that where a woman is being tried by jury one-third of the jurors shall be women. There is nothing permissive about it. They have had a lot of experience with this thing in England and in other places, and I am sure that the Minister of Justice in a summary way, in a short manner in any event, will give us details of the experience in various countries.
Criminal Code

I am bound to say that in the jurisdiction in which I live there is no demand for it. That is my size-up of the situation. Remember I am in favour of it, but if women do not want the right to serve on juries I do not think we should force it upon them. They are delicate people and they do not appreciate force. I know of no great demand by women's organizations anywhere for the right to serve upon juries.
Those of us who are in the business of trying lawsuits before juries know it is one of the hardest things in the world to get men to serve on them. Unfortunately that is true. I agree with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) that it is the cornerstone or pivot, certainly, of a branch of our law. We all believe in jury trials, but those of us who have been engaged in them, and I see quite a number here, will bear me out when I say that you never have a jury trial where you do not get telephone calls or visits from half a dozen people who say, "Please keep me off that jury." I do not care whether you are on the side of the prosecution or the defence, the same applies. That is what is found in actual experience.
Take for instance, coroners' juries. In the place where I live they are all friends of Paddy O'Sullivan who is in charge of coroners' inquests. We see the same boys on those juries all the time. If one of them happens to be sick they even have substitutes out there. It just runs along in that particular way.
We have had great difficulty to get men to serve, and unless there is some considerable opinion among women that they want to serve, I do not see why we should make it obligatory and force it upon them. May I say that I go again with the sponsor of this bill; I go again with the hon. member for Vancouver East, and I say that if we are going into this at all, let us make it complete emancipation. Let there be no difference whatever, where jury service is concerned, between men and women. Let us go the whole way in approving the equality of the sexes about which we have been talking this evening.


Mrs. GLADYS STRUM (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, before the bill passes I think I should say something about it. I do not often agree with the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), but on this occasion I agree with him almost completely. What we want in this country are full-fledged citizens who will discharge the duties of citizenship whether they are men or women. I do not think we should

debar women from doing things because they are women. I do not think we should debar them from the professions or refuse to pay them the same wage for doing the same work if they can do the job on the same basis as other people do it. I do not think we should deny them administrative posts because they are women, as we so often do. For instance, I do not think we should let them raise all the money in our churches and then not permit them to sit on church boards or be ministers, as we always do. I do not think we should discriminate against them in one field and then say they must do something in another.
I would hope that as women attained to the full stature of citizenship, as practising democrats and as responsible persons, they would be willing to sit on juries and give jury service in the same way as other citizens give it who happen to be men. I would oppose anything that says you must pick out women because they are women. Also you must not disqualify women because they are women. I would hope that we would permit more women to practise law and become judges. I do not know why we should force women to sit on juries and then tell them that they cannot be judges in any court that amounts to anything. If we give women the full rights of citizenship, then outstanding women should be permitted to be judges or act in the same capacity as other outstanding persons in the legal profession. I could not support anything that discriminates as between men and women in connection with the rights and duties of citizenship.


Mr. BENOIT MICHAUD (Restigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the last two speakers. If the bill had the effect of establishing the equality of men and women I would be ready to support it, but I cannot read that into this bill. As far as New Brunswick is concerned, this bill would be of very little use. I have acted as crown prosecutor in the county of Restigouche for seven years and I do not recall one instance of a woman being brought to trial by jury. There may be isolated cases here and there, but they are few. Of course that is to their credit.
Unfortunately I have not the act here, but in my province we have a provincial jury act the same as other provinces, and in that act the qualifications of jurors are set out. Certain classes of persons are debarred from serving on juries. For instance, barristers are disqualified, and there are other professions which are also disqualified.

Criminal Code


An hon. MEMBER:: And members of parliament.


Benoît Michaud: Yes, members of parliament and medical men. Firemen, if they are not debarred, at least have the privilege of refusing to serve. There are a number of classes who are either debarred from serving on juries or have the privilege of refusing to act. I am wondering whether there is any demand that women should serve on juries. I have heard of no such demand from my province, and if there is no such demand I suggest that we should not interfere with the present state of the law.
As I said a moment ago, in order to make this proposal operative, our present jury act would have to be amended considerably.
The last speaker referred to some sort of handicap under which females suffer in the professions. In my province ladies are admitted to the bar and quite a few of them are actively engaged in the exercise of their profession. We have no female judges as yet, but we may have. I do not think there is anything in any provincial or federal law debarring ladies from being appointed to judgeships.
I have said that I acted as crown prosecutor for a number of years, and there is hardly ever a case, particularly in connection with offences against morals, where the situation in the court room is not at times tense and delicate. It is difficult enough to get ladies who testify to tell the real facts about some unfortunate matters which come before our courts, and I suggest that very few women would enjoy sitting in a juiy box and listening to the dirt that comes out in the evidence in a great many cases. For this reason I am of the opinion that it is no decent place for ladies, even if it is only in connection with the trial of female offenders.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill in its present form. I would have no objection perhaps if it were in a more general form, but in its present form I certainly object to it.


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I shall have to oppose the bill which the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has introduced, but in doing so I should like to make it clear that I am not at all opposed to the principle of equality of opportunity for jury service as * between men and women, or, as it is expressed in the English act, equality of liability to jury service, because it is ultimately more of a
liability than an opportunity, as the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) has said.
The debate in the first ten or fifteen minutes seemed to proceed on the assumption that what we are deciding in this bill is the principle of equality of opportunity as between the sexes, but the bill is not as simple as that. The bill is a definite and specific proposal, and that proposal is that there should be in those provinces where the jury consists of twelve, four women on the jury, no more and no less, where the accused is a woman. As some speakers have pointed out, there is something illogical about the rigidity of a provision of that kind. It may be that in some cases the jury should consist entirely of women; it may be that in some cases the jury should consist entirely of men; but certainly I can think of no good argument why there should be four women, no more and no less, on any particular jury. I think the bill is exceedingly faulty in that regard.
If my hon. friend had introduced the principle which was introduced in England about thirty years ago of equality of liability to jury service as between men and women, with the provision that the judge might make exceptions in particular cases, I would say there was a great deal to support that principle in the Dominion of Canada. But then I would have to pass on to certain other features of this bill which we cannot overlook, and the most important of those features is the principle, which has obtained in our system of criminal law and procedure since confederation, of adopting the qualifications of jurors set by the respective provinces.
The British North America Act provides by section 91 that the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to:
27. The criminal law, except the constitution of courts of criminal jurisdiction, but including the procedure in criminal matters.
Section 92 provides that the provincial legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to:
14. The administration of justice in the province, including the constitution, maintenance, and organization of provincial courts, both of civil and of criminal jurisdiction, and including procedure in civil matters in those courts.
As I shall point out a little later, some of the cases raise a doubt as to whether the prescription of qualifications for jurors comes under the heading of procedure in criminal matters or under the heading of constitution, maintenance and organization of the criminal courts. I would not contend, nor would I
Criminal Code

admit that this parliament has not jurisdiction to pass a bill such as my hon. friend proposes. All I can say is that the matter is not free from doubt under the cases as I read them, and I shall refer to that later. I am under the impression, however, that the matter is covered by the heading, "procedure in criminal matters", and is therefore within the jurisdiction of the dominion parliament. But whether it is within the jurisdiction of this parliament or not, the question arises, as it so often does, as to the propriety and the desirability of breaking the long practice of relying upon the provisions of the nine provincial jury acts which prescribe the qualifications for jurors. The section which provides for such reliance is section 921 of the criminal code, which reads as follows:
Every person qualified and summoned as a grand or petit juror, according to the laws in force for the time being in any province of Canada shall be duly qualified to serve as such juror in criminal cases in that province.
2. Seven grand jurors, instead of twelve, may find a true bill in any province where the panel of grand juroTS is not more than thirteen.
That section has a long history and, although it may weary the house, I should like briefly to sketch it.
By a statute of the province of Upper Canada passed in 1800, namely 40 George III, chapter 1, the criminal law of England was introduced to the province of Upper Canada as such law stood on September 19, 1792.
By the Upper Canada Jurors Act passed by the parliament of the Province of Canada in 1850, being 13-14 Victoria, chapter 55, a whole code dealing with the qualifications, calling and challenging of jurors was introduced. This act was superseded by "An Act to amend and consolidate the jury laws of Upper Canada", passed by the parliament of the Province of Canada in 1858, being chapter 100 of 22 Victoria. This act repealed all former acts relating to jurors and provided a new jury code covering the whole field of selection, qualification, summoning and challenging of jurors. This act was carried forward into the consolidation of the statutes of Upper Canada of 1859 as chapter 31 thereof.
The act which is a counterpart of the 1859 act in Lower Canada is found in chapter 84 of the consolidation of the statutes of Lower Canada 1860.
Following confederation, the provisions respecting form and challenging of juries formerly in the jurors acts, to which I have referred, passed into "An act respecting procedure in criminal cases and other matters relative to the criminal law", of 1869, being chapter 29 of 32-33 Victoria, while the provisions res-

pecting the qualifications and summoning of jurors passed into the jurors acts of the new provinces. In this connection, the latest preconfederation criminal procedure act was chapter 99 of the statutes of the Province of Canada, 22 Victoria. The Criminal Procedure Act of 1869 provided by section 44 as follows:
44. And for avoiding doubt, it is declared and enacted, that every person qualified and summoned as a grand juror or as a petty juror in criminal cases, according to the laws which may be then in force in any province of Canada shall be and shall be held to be duly qualified to serve as such juror in that province, whether such were laws passed before or be passed after the coming into force of the British North America Act, 1867-subject always to any provision in any act of the parliament of Canada, and in so far as such laws are not inconsistent with any such act.
This provision was carried forward as section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the Revised Statutes of Canada of 1886 as chapter 174 thereof. In the criminal code of 1892 55-56 Victoria, chapter 29, the provision appears as section 662 with the deletion of the explanatory part thereof dealing with laws in force before the province was admitted to confederation. The provision as it now appears in section 921 in the criminal code, first appeared as section 921 in the revision of the code in 1906, being chapter 146 of the revised statutes of that year.
I have traced this sequence very carefully, because it shows clearly that no substantial alteration has been made in this section, which purports to adopt the provincial law in respect to the qualification and summoning of jurors for purposes of criminal law, since first enacted just after confederation.
I have here-possibly I had better not weary the house with it-also an analysis of the other jury sections of the criminal code, sections 922, 923, 924, 925, 926. 927, 928. 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938 and 939. I will simply sum up the effects of the research that has been made into the history of these sections by stating the conclusion that is to be drawn from them. My conclusion is, of the nineteen sections of the present code dealing with juries, eleven appeared first in the act passed immediately after confederation in 1869, one deals exclusively with Manitoba, and another with libel. It is safe to say, I think, therefore, that no substantial changes have been made by the federal authority respecting the policy in connection with jurors and juries since confederation. It will also be noted that at no stage since confederation has the federal authority concerned itself with the qualifications of jurors in criminal cases, but rather, this field has been left exclusively to the provinces by virtue of section 921. Sex, being

Privilege-Mr. Gardiner
one of many qualifications, is noticeable by its absence from the criminal code.
It is interesting to examine, for the purposes of comparison, the legislation in England with respect to jurors and juries. The governing act in England is "The Juries Act 1870", being 33 and 34 Victoria, chapter 77. The application of this act, which encompasses special and common juries, is restricted to England and Wales. Section 5 provides that "The word juror shall mean male persons only". The act sets out the qualifications and method of summoning jurors in a manner not dissimilar to many of our provincial acts. "The Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919", being 9 and 10 Geo. V., chapter 71, by section 1 removes disqualification on account of sex or marriage from the exercise of any public function and provides inter alia "A person shall not be exempted by sex or marriage from the liability to serve as a juror." The section further provides:
Any judge ... or other person before whom a case is or may be heard on an application.. . by . . . the parties (including in criminal cases the prosecution and the accused) . . . make an order that the jury shall be composed of men only or of women only ... or may on an application made by a woman to be exempted from service on a jury . . . grant such exemption.
The section further provides that rules of court may be made exempting women for medical reasons.


Mr. CHURCH:: May I ask the minister a question?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Thomas Langton Church: Will the minister kindly consider making the jury in the case of the trial of a female prisoner all females, and, second, grant a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada as to where the jurisdiction lies; federal versus provincial, in criminal cases? The minister is right; the organization of these provincial courts is provincial, but the criminal law which is covered by this bill is all federal, and under the control of the federal parliament. You appoint women as judges; and I hope the minister in his general bill to amend the code will consider this.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have a great deal more that I want to say on this bill, because I want to deal with the jurors acts of the various provinces, but I shall be unable to do so tonight.
On motion of Mr. Ilsley the debate was adjourned.


James Horace King: The hour reserved for public bills having expired, the house will revert to its business prior to six o'clock.



PRIVILEGE


James Garfield Gardiner: On a question of privilege,
before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He had left the chair.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I say that there has been appearing in the press for two or three days some reports of discussions which have been taking place in a committee of the house, and as a matter of privilege I should like to bring before the house a situation which has been created as a result of having waived the rules of the house in connection with certain discussions. At page 543 of Hansard, at the bottom of the page, the following appears:



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Proposed Committee on Cost of Living-Opportunity for Discussion in House
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Bracken' (Leader of the Opposition) :	May I direct a question to the Prime
Minister? He has already indicated that in a week's time he proposes to move a motion to set up a parliamentary committee to consider the question of price spreads. The question I wish to ask is this: once that motion is passed and this matter is before the committee, is the position going to be taken that in the debate on the speech from the throne, or at other times, under the rules hon. members cannot discuss the question of rising prices? If so, then we have only two days in which to discuss the speech from the throne, including this matter. I should like the Prime Minister or the government or the Speaker to assure us that if that matter is referred to a committee hon. members will not be denied their ordinary right to discuss it in this house.
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, I have anticipated in
a reply I made to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), what my hon. friend has just inquired into. I think I said that the committee would be a committee to let in light where information is needed, certainly not a committee to prevent light from coming in. If the wording of the resolution were such that it named a specific matter to be sent to a committee in concrete terms, it might be necessary, as is frequently done, to interpret its terms very strictly. But it is certainly not the intention of the government to seek to prevent anyone from discussing the general question of prices in any way he may wish because of such a motion being on the order paper or carried.
The point I wish to make is this. The other night in committee of supply members of the prices committee asked questions which, under the rules of the house, I could have refused to answer; but because of the undertaking given, I proceeded to discuss with those members questions which are
3S38
Pension Act
[Stage Direction]
before the committee on prices. All I wish to state tonight is that if the procedure is going to be followed in the prices committee which has been followed since my estimates went before this house in committee of supply, I shall have to insist, when I am back in supply, that the rules of the house be followed and that those matters which are before the prices committee be not discussed in the house.
Stanley Howard Knowles: How was that a question of privilege?


An hon. MEMBER:: It certainly is.



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 126, to amend the Pension Act-Mr. Gregg-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: I
wish to say a few words, Mr. Chairman, on this bill now before the committee. I do not intend to review the many points and arguments so well put forward by the hon. member for Royal this afternoon, except to say that I agree with and concur in all the many points and arguments he raised. Like the hon. member for Royal and the other members who spoke this afternoon, I was happy to hear the minister announce that a 25 per cent increase had been made in the basic rate of pension. While this increase was considerably less than the amount to which the veteran was entitled, and less than the amount he expected, I am sure it will be a source of satisfaction to the members of the present veterans affairs committee in this house to feel that they have been able, through their combined efforts, to obtain this increase for the many veterans.
It appeared to me that it is a strange state of affairs that the government, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his department could be so much out of touch and out of line with the general feeling in Canada, the feeling of the legion and the veterans themselves, that they believed an increase of |10 a month would be sufficient to meet the increased cost of living or to bring the veterans' pensions more or less up to par with other allowances.
No one will argue, that the veteran has not a legal claim against this country for any disability that he has incurred while in the armed services. When it is remembered that

these veterans have had no increase in well over twenty-three years, that they received no cost of living bonus during the war years, that they had to pay income tax on their pensions, I think they are to be commended because they never thought of or considered making any organized attempt to force the government to raise their pension during the war years. With regard to the veterans' organizations that have appeared before the present veterans affairs committee, in my opinion their demands were moderate in every way, were well advanced and were supported by ample evidence.
It is interesting to note that in at least one province at the present time the total amount allowed for 100 per cent disability under the workmen's compensation act is $100. I mention that because I do not think it is unreasonable to compare the total amount payable in Ontario to a civilian injured in his employment, with the amount paid to a veteran who received his disability in the defence of freedom and of this country.
I am still of the opinion that this country can do much more for the veteran. There has been too much talk in this house and before the veterans affairs committee as to what the cost of this increase is to be. The minister himself, speaking before the veterans affairs committee on April 13, as reported at page 156 of the proceedings, made this significant remark:
Regarding disability pensions, the government cannot see its way clear at this session of parliament to go further than their present proposal, which is now before you.
That proposal was an increase of $10 a month; then there was a second announcement that it would be increased to $12 a month. It might be interesting for the minister, while this bill is before us, to explain to the committee what caused the government and himself to change their minds from April 13 until today when he announced that the increase would be 25 per cent. This is just another illustration of how much out of touch the government and the minister are with the feeling of the veterans and the feeling of the public; because every member in this house has received resolutions, letters, telegrams and briefs from all sorts of bodies, individuals and associations on this matter.
I should also like to ask the minister if he would say, while this bill is before the house, if in his opinion this increase of 25 per cent which he announced this afternoon does justice to the veteran; and if, in his opinion, it is all the veteran is entitled to. I for one still hope that the house will, at some later day, bring forward a further amendment to the Pension

Pension Act
Act, whereby the basic rate will be increased to $100 a month for 100 per cent disability.
The members who served on this commission had the privilege of having appear before them a delegation composed of veterans who had 100 per cent disability. There were blind veterans, veterans with double amputations, paraplegics, and blind veterans with one or two amputations. As I looked at those boys, one thought occurred to me. When you read in the press something about a blind veteran or a paraplegic, it simply does not register on your mind. But when these boys appear before your eyes and speak to you; when they state their case and argue it, when you compare your own whole body with those of these young Canadians appearing before you; when you realize that these boys carry their disabilities twenty-four hours a day and will carry them for the rest of their lives, the situation is brought home to you. I was ashamed and humiliated to think it was necessary for these young Canadian boys, many of them still only in their twenties, to come to Ottawa to appear before the veterans affairs committee and plead their case on behalf of themselves and their comrades, many of whom have still more serious disabilities. This thought ran through my mind: what member of that committee sitting around the tables would for one minute consider trading his whole body, with all his limbs and faculties intact, with that of one of these boys for the sum of $100 a month which they were asking to cover their serious disabilities? I may be entirely wrong in my opinion and judgment, but when I saw those boys and heard them plead their case I felt that $100 a month was a very small sum. Several of these 100 per cent disability cases spoke to the committee, and I should like to read briefly from what one of them said. It appears at page 337 of the proceedings of the committee for April 23. That veteran said:
May I say a word? After all, I am one of those chaps about whom you are talking. In 1M7, because I was an able-bodied citizen of this country, I was able to be in the front line at Vimy Ridge. At three o'clock one morning, on a raid, because I was able-bodied, had good eyesight, good arms, good legs, I lost two eyes and one arm. Now, I would not have anybody in this country think for one minute that there is enough money in the country to compensate me for what I lost. I want that very clearly understood. There is not enough money in the country. When I joined the services, I volunteered against the better judgment of my employer because I was a war worker. I volunteered because I thought it was the manly thing to do, and I still think I did the manly thing. So strongly do I hold those views that my children served in the last war. Now, that is one thing.
The salary I left was greater than this grateful country has given me as a pension in the
last thirty years. Now, I have taken it. I have never peddled my disability but I am going to say right here and now that the thing which kept me going was my loyalist background and the guts my ancestors gave me, not what the government did for me.
Others of these boys spoke before the committee, but I need not comment upon their remarks, because all the members heard them and could form their own opinions. That same day a very fine brief was presented by Mr. A. J. Wickens, K.C., dominion president of the army, navy and air force veterans. I was very much impressed with his presentation, and in his opening remarks he brought to the attention of the committee a matter which perhaps had not occurred to those members who did not belong to the legal profession. I should like to read a short paragraph from his remarks:
In approaching the question of the disabilities that follow from war casualties, I suppose a reasonable number of this committee are members of my profession, the profession of law, and will know the elements that are considered when you are assessing damages arising out of injuries received in civilian life. In civilian life there are six bases of estimating damages. The first is the loss of earning power from the disability, the permanent injury. That is under the heading of loss of income. The second is the loss of employability. The third is depreciation of the prospects of marriage. . . . The fourth is loss of participation in social activities and sports. The fifth is a most important one,
. . . the shortening of his expectation of life. The sixth one which enters into a civilian claim is pain and suffering which inevitably follow injuries.
With all those six items which enter in varying degrees into the damage which an individual suffers when he is injured, there is only one of them that has ever been considered as a basis for war disability allowance compensation. That is the first one, loss of income.
The fourth of the points so ably presented by Mr. Wickens was the loss of participation in social activities and sports. I remember one young veteran telling me that, when he appeared before the pension commission, because of his disabilities he knew he would never again take part in any sports. He mentioned what sports had meant to him in the past, and what this would mean to him in future. He was rather abruptly told that anything of that kind was not taken into consideration in any way. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that is an important point, because when a veteran suffers a disability as a result of which he may never again be able to participate in sports of which he was very fond, he will have to change his whole mode of living.
I need not comment further on the evidence given before the committee, except to say
Pension Act

that in my opinion the veterans who appeared with the various delegations presented a perfect case. It was well argued, and the exhibits were right there before our eyes. These exhibits were described by Padre Lambert as his "shattered fragments,'' and one only had to look at these shattered fragments to realize that the boys had proved their case to the very hilt, and that certainly $100 a month was not an extreme amount. However, the government has not seen fit to increase the basic rate of pension to that amount. All I can say is that the public of Canada, the parents, the wives, the dependents of the veterans and the veterans themselves will pass their own judgment on this decision by the government.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to hear the minister announce this afternoon that the recommendations with respect to certain objectionable features in the Pension Act, such as wilful and deliberate concealment, the record on the medical sheet, the benefit of the doubt, the deadline re marriage, and the stabilization of world war I pensions were acceptable to the minister and the government. I suggest that, as soon as this bill is passed, the minister arrange to have the pension commission review all cases in which the decision was affected in any way by these various provisions which now are being struck out of the act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Unfortunately when the minister made his statement this afternoon I was not in the house, but was attending the meeting of another committee. However, one of the hon. members has kindly given me a copy of the amendments that are to be moved when the sections of this bill are under discussion. Before proceeding to make my remarks, which will be brief, I should like to say that as a member of the committee I appreciated very much the regular attendance of the minister and the kind and courteous way in which he approached every question with which the committee dealt or which individual members had to bring up. I also want to say a word in appreciation of the work of the chairman of the committee. I think he is doing an excellent job. It is true that he has attempted to discipline me a few times, but in my opinion the chairman has been very fair, and has guided the committee in an excellent maner. It is a pleasure to serve on this committee. Regardless of party affiliations, I know the first concern of every member is the welfare of the veterans of this country. I must also pay tribute to the excellent presentations made by the two

large veterans' organizations, the Canadian Legion and the national council of veterans.
I am going to be brief, Mr. Chairman, because I want the bill to pass as quickly as possible, so that those people throughout the country who are looking forward to this extra 25 per cent will receive their cheques just as soon as they can be issued. While I fully appreciate the arguments which have been put forward by other hon. members in support of an increase greater than 25 per cent, I must say I am delighted that the government has seen fit to accept the unanimous recommendation of the committee for an increase of 25 per cent in pensions.
I might say on this point that I should like to make an explanation, in fairness to members of the C.C.F. group in the house. I have been informed that, while the debate was taking place this afternoon, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie) made an interjection which indicated that a member of the C.C.F. group opposed the 33 j per cent increase, and another amendment for a greater increase than 25 per cent. That is not correct.
I am not at present officially a member of the C.C.F. group, and I voted for the 25 per cent increase in pensions. I did so because I was the mover of the motion for the 25 per cent increase in pensions. My motion was seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). That is why I supported the 25 per cent increase.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You voted against the 33J per cent increase.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want it clearly understood that no member of the official C.C.F. group opposed either of the two amendments to my resolution.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: What are you-unofficial?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: You know, Mr. Chairman, these hon. gentlemen who surround me are really frightened about the C.C.F., and they express it in minor ways.
I wish now to deal with the amendments which the minister suggested. They are:
1.	The deletion of the phrase "wilfully and deliberately concealed" from section 11(1) (c) of the Pension Act, and the inclusion of a definition for the phrase "recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment."
This is not exactly what the committee recommended, but. I for one am delighted indeed to see the deletion of the words "wilfully and deliberately concealed". I am sure members of the committee appreciate

Pension Act
very much that essential consideration of the committee's recommendation. Then:
2.	A further amendment to schedule A of the Pension Act to provide that payment of pensions be made at the nearest multiple of five, except where the disability is less than five per cent, for which compensation by way of a final payment is provided.
I know that amendment will be of benefit to a number of pensioners. I know from personal experience that, while it may not be so important from the point of view of dollars and cents, it will certainly remove the ground for some discontent among veterans who did not clearly understand the administration of the Pension Act. Then:
3.	The advancement of the deadline respecting marriages and births from May 1, 1944, to May 1, 1948, for world war I.
I am pleased to see this, because it gives effect substantially to the wishes of the committee. Then:
4.	An amendment to section 62 of the Pension Act to provide for the deletion of the words "be entitled to draw and shall" in the fifth line of that section.
That also is an acceptance of the recommendation of the committee in that regard. I am pleased that the committee's recommendation has been accepted by the government, Then I understand this further amendment is to be made:
That in respect of world war I pension awards, no reduction in the assessment of disability shall be made, providing such assessment has been in effect for three years or more.
This amendment gives effect to the principle of stabilization of pensions. I am sure this will be welcomed by thousands of world war I veterans throughout the country.
As I said before, I am not going to speak at length. I am anxious to see this bill carried, because I know there are thousands of people in Canada who are anxious to receive these cheques. Again may I say how delighted I am to know that the government has gone so far in accepting the recommendations of the veterans affairs committee.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman, first of ail I should like to endorse wholeheartedly the remarks of my colleague the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), and more recently those of the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White).
This bill, and the proposed amendments, have had a most interesting history, especially during this session of parliament. On December 10 the hon. member for Royal moved the adjournment of the house for the purpose 5849-244i
of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely the plight of war veterans and their dependents due to the government's failure to increase the basic rates of pensions and allowances to meet the high cost of living, with the result that pensioners and recipients of war veterans allowances were suffering extreme hardships. Then, there was reference to other matters.
On December 19 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) announced in this chamber a pension and allowance increase averaging ten per cent, which would be retroactive to October 1, 1947.
Speaking on February 6, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) dealt at some length with this matter, pointing out the inadequacy of the proposed increase in pensions and allowances. I believe he did a splendid job on behalf of the veterans in his speech that evening.
Following that, on February 16, the Prime Minister announced that a bill was being prepared and that it was practically ready for presentation. He said the bill would grant an increase of 16| per cent rather than 10 per cent in pensions and allowances, as had previously been announced.
On March 8 the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) introduced in the chamber a motion that a select committee be appointed to consider legislation relating to pensions, treatment, re-establishment of former members of His Majesty's armed forces, and to make recommendations from time to time in respect thereto. That is the background thus far.
Then, on March 11 the Minister of Veterans Affairs introduced Bill No. 126, to amend the Pension Act. It was set forth at that time that the original act came into being in 1916 and had been amended in 1919 and again in 1925. That was the last, until the present day.
It is interesting to note that prior to 1925 there had been a bonus system following the first great war, and that system had been followed until the bill of 1925.
The main feature of Bill No. 126 is the provision for an increase in the basic rate of pension, over which there has been so much1 controversy. Other clauses which have been referred to this evening are all to the good. When that bill was presented the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough dealt most effectively with the inadequacy of the proposed increase. I thought he did a first-class job in his observations at that time.
Pension Act

After second reading of the bill, it was referred to the special committee on veterans affairs. Some eighteen meetings of that committee have been held, and worthwhile discussions have taken place. Presentations were made by the Canadian Legion, by the paraplegics and by other organizations, all of which made able presentations before the committee. I believe that was most effectively dealt with by my colleague the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough within the last few minutes.
Anyone who was privileged to listen to those presentations could not but be moved. There was a large attendance. Many of the casualties were wheeled in, in the chairs in which they will have to spend the remainder of their days. The vast gathering in that large committee room was silenced; they had nothing to say after the presentation made before them that day. It was the most impressive presentation I have witnessed since I have had the privilege of being a member of the House of Commons.
On March 19, as reported at page 97 of the proceedings of the committee, the Minister of Veterans Affairs stated that the amount shown in the bill was in his opinion the distance the government was prepared to go. May I add that that was the increase of 16f per cent to which reference was made at that time. We had considerable discussion then, because it appeared as though we were sitting in the committee in vain. This proved to be wrong, when we realize the significance of what the minister said this afternoon.
The government has gone a long way since that committee sat. At a meeting on April 27, an amendment was proposed by my colleague the hon. member for Royal which would have provided for an increase of 33J per cent. After considerable argument, that was voted on and it was defeated by a vote of sixteen to fifteen.
An amendment was then proposed by the hon. member for Swift Current, which would have granted an increase of 25 per cent plus a cost of living bonus, on the basis of that in the' early twenties, to which I have already referred. After considerable discussion, the vote on that was fifteen to fifteen. The chairman voted "nay" and declared the motion lost. Then the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) proposed a straight 25 per cent increase, and the committee voted unanimously in favour of that motion. In view of some of the remarks that have been made this evening and this afternoon, I should like to indicate that the details of those votes may be found on pages 350 and 351 of the pro-

ceedings of the committee of April 27. Those votes were recorded, so that if anybody wants to follow up the little debate that took place in this corner of the chamber he can refer to the proceedings and find out exactly how every member of that committee voted on the various motions.
As has been pointed out tonight, it is strange that when the government could not see fit to grant the 33j per cent increase the same bill provides for an increase of 33^ per cent for the fifteen commissioners who will administer the act. The government were ready to grant that increase for those people, but they refused to grant it to the recipients of the pensions.
Hon. members have pointed out that the pension is based upon the ability of the pensioner to perform labour in the labour market. It has been said that labour rates average about fifty-five cents an hour throughout Canada which at the rate of eight hours a day would amount to about $100 a month. However I think it must have been a few years ago that that average of fifty-five cents applied. I have in my hand the April, 1948, issue of the Labour Gazette, which is published monthly by the Department of Labour. At page 377 it is stated that for January last the average hourly earnings for those engaged in manufacturing was 86-6 cents an hour. On page 356 it states that the average farm wage rates for last January were $100 a month. At page 267 it states that farm wage rates are now 303-1 over 1939. That is quite interesting, because it shows an increase in farm wages of slightly over 300 per cent since 1939. The same publication points out that of those gainfully employed during the past year in Canada, 25 per cent were employed on farms. That is a most significant statement, as well as the one with respect to wages.
I have the latest statistical summary of the Bank of Canada for April, 1948. On page 72 are set out the details of the cost of living. This legislation proposes that any increases will be made retroactive to October 1, 1947. The index for the cost of living for September, 1947, was 139-4, but for April, 1948, it is shown as 151-6, or an increase of 12-2. There has been a steady increase every month and it is still increasing at this time.
Many things have happened in the past few weeks. We all remember the controversy we had in this chamber over the increase of 21 per cent in freight rates right across the board. For many of the people living in seven of the provinces of Canada the increase is actually more than 21 per cent. In the committee I cited the case of a young chap

Pension Act
who was operating a poultry farm under the Veterans Land Act. The rate to ship a 15-dozen crate of eggs was increased from thirty-five cents to seventy-five cents, or 114 per cent. These rates have certainly increased the cost of living of veterans and their dependents as well as others in at least seven of the nine provinces. No account of that has been taken up to this particular time in any of the cost of living indexes.
I had the privilege at one time of serving on a municipal council. It is my opinion that the type of government closest to the problems of the people is the municipal government. They have to deal with the daily problems of the people. They are usually a hard-fisted lot of people who watch where the dollars are being spent. They are a taxing body, and it is interesting to note that many of these bodies across Canada have sent resolutions to this government asking for an increase of 33j per cent, which would raise the basic rate from $75 to $100. We should not overlook the fact that so many of these taxing bodies asked for the 33i per cent increase.
As was so well stated this afternoon, it is amazing the way in which the standard of living in this country has changed from 1925 up to the present time. There are many things that people require today which were hardly available in 1925. Many more things are necessary in the home and the cost of these things is not counted in making up the cost of living index.
I am sure we all appreciate the government going as far as they have in this, especially in view of the attitude of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs earlier in the session and on other occasions. I have made reference this evening to the dates and incidents. This increase will be appreciated, but it is still far short of meeting the increased cost of living of many veterans and their dependents, and this cost is still rising every day. Much of the cost is the result of legislation passed by this House of Commons within the past few weeks.
I think I have said enough to substantiate our asking for the 33^ per cent increase. As was pointed out on other occasions, it is expected that when the budget is presented next week a surplus of approximately $800 million will be shown for the past fiscal year. Thousands of these people have done so much to save democracy for us. In view of what is happening in other countries throughout the world, I am sure that we appreciate our way of life today on the North American continent. Surely we might have granted this increase.
The increase agreed to will mean another $18,000,000 per year, but the increase asked for would have meant only an additional $6,000,000, or a total of $24,000,000. That does not seem a great amount when we hear the Department of Finance boasting daily about this great surplus which has been taken out of the people by taxation and which is expected to amount to approximately $800 million for the past fiscal year.
Like the previous speakers, I want to see this measure put through so that the cheques may be sent out just as rapidly as possible. I know these people will appreciate the increase they are getting, meagre as it is when compared with what we think they should rightfully have..


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate because I think there has never been a time, during my parliamentary career in any event, when the civilian branch of our population has been so much interested in the increases of pensions and other disability compensation which normally should come to the veterans of both wars. That is evidenced by the fact that increases have been endorsed, as stated by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) a moment ago, not only by resolutions from municipal taxing bodies all over Canada but by every kind of conceivable organization composed of both men and women throughout the country who have been most emphatic in their pleas to the administration to give what they consider is nothing less than a square deal to the veterans of Canada.
I often think those of us who were not privileged to serve in either war should not allow the veterans of either war or both wars to cariy the whole load in their plea and claim for better compensation, for higher pensions and for greater allowances, because it is not just a veteran's problem. Primarily it is a veteran's problem, but it is also a problem which is part and parcel of the whole of the Dominion of Canada, and it is time that the civilian population of this dominion should team up with our veterans organizations and our veterans generally to see to it that we march together as a great Canadian nation seeking to do justice to the veterans and not allow the whole burden and obligation to fall upon those who have served. They have given much to this country in the past, and for that reason I think we who have not served have a definite obligation to see to it that we lend them our support, not just in mere talk, but in doing everything we possibly can to see that the veteran to whom we promised so much during each of the wars shall not feel

Pension Act
that those promises have in any respect not been carried out by the population who were not privileged to fight.
In my own case, as most know, several medical doctors in both wars prevented me from taking .any part in either one. For that reason I was not on the veterans affairs committee; but I did think this was a proper opportunity, in view of the fact that civilians all over the dominion are so much aroused on this question, that there should be a voice raised by someone who is not a veteran in support of the pleas which have so eloquently and so properly been made by our soldier members.
Some who are not familiar with parliamentary procedure may perhaps raise the question why, when the motion made in the yeterans affairs committee by my fellow member the hon. member for Royal, supported by others from this and other parties, for a 33! per cent increase in the pension rates was turned down in the veterans affairs committee, a similar motion is not made here to make the 33! per cent increase effective. I think the public ought to know that the rules of this committee prevent that. Otherwise the motion would be made, because that is the position which has been taken and it is one with which I am proud to associate myself as a civilian.
A minimum pension of 1100 a month for a 100 per cent disability pensioner has been endorsed by almost every civilian organization across our land, and a 33! per cent increase in the basic pension has been endorsed wholeheartedly and unanimously by the taxpaying people of Canada and our organized citizenry everywhere. During the wars there were no questions raised about how much we could spend to win those wars, and now the human instruments who won those wars have a just and proper claim that money and financial obstacles should no more be allowed to stand in the way of their getting justice than they were allowed to stand in the way of our winning the war when it was being fought, because after all, Mr. Chairman, this claim is just part and parcel of the payment we still must make for the winning of both wars. The two claims cannot be separated; they are inseparable, and for that reason, among others, I think we should so far as possible try to raise the pension rates up to the amounts which have been suggested.
The government has made some moves which have been acceptable so far as they go. I am going to make still one more plea to the minister, who I know has the interest of the veterans at heart, and that is to see to it, before we go any farther in connection with this matter, that we take public opinion as it 
is. You will have no trouble with public opinion; that is the last thing you need worry about. Governments often base their policies on public opinion. In this case there is nothing to fear. The public will not stop you or place any obstacles in your way. The public will endorse the government's action if it will now say that the pension shall be increased by 33! per cent and that there shall be a minimum of $100 a month for the 100 per cent disability pensioner. There is nothing standing in the way, and so I urge the government now to take that stand. I urge it on behalf of the great civilian population of Canada, who, with the veterans, I assure the government are definitely and wholeheartedly behind that step.
In connection with the stabilization of pensions for the first world war, one hears everywhere, not just among veterans, but among civilians who perhaps have not been as close to veterans affairs as others have been privileged to be, that the time has come, so far as veterans of the first world war particularly are concerned, to wipe out once and for all the red tape in connection with their pensions and war veterans allowances. What I mean by red tape is this. I think the time has come- and I am hopeful that the minister in his amendments will deal with this; indeed I have been told that it is to be one of his proposals, and if it is it will have our wholehearted support because it is a proper move and long overdue-when we should by legislation declare that never again shall there be an examination by any doctors of a pensioner of the first great rvar, aimed at reduction of pension. Call off the doctors, so far as trying to bring about a reduction in his pension is concerned. Surely, after all the veteran has gone through, it stands to reason that now, after all these years, there cannot be much improvement in the health of the veteran who served in the first world war.
One of the reasons I have been prompted to rise tonight and mention this is the case of a veteran in my own constituency. I shall not deal with it except to illustrate a general principle. This veteran for years upon years fought to get a pension following his service in the first world war. Less than a year ago he got that pension, and then within the last three or four weeks he found that his pension had been reduced as a result of another medical examination. After twenty years of fighting to get a pension, he was granted it, and then, within a few short months, the medical examiners reduced his pension by a considerable amount. Those things should not happen. It is that kind of thing which makes trouble

Pension Act
so far as our society is concerned. The dollars and cents involved matter nothing to the taxpayers of this country, who can well afford to give a square deal to the men who made it possible for us to pay the taxes and to be here and live in a democratic country.
And so I conclude with this. I know it is out of order, Mr. Chairman, but I shall be finished before you can call me to order. So far as the war veterans allowance is concerned, I think we might well wipe out the red tape there too, and when the minister brings down his amendments dealing with that, let us get rid of the infernal means test. Abolish it altogether so far as the recipients of the war veterans allowance are concerned. Case after case of hardship has been brought to my attention, and I say to the minister and to the government: The public is behind you if you will make a move in that direction. Public opinion will support you if you will give the veterans of this country their 33J per cent increase and the minimum of $100 a month for a 100 per cent disability. I know whereof I speak, because I have never seen the civilian population of Canada so aroused and so conscious, yes, and so ready to support to the last ditch the justified and legitimate claims of the men who fought for us and made it possible for us to carry on in this democracy.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Mr. Chairman, the
pensionable veterans of Canada and the people of Canada generally will be glad that this bill is going through. Having said that, may I say I think they will condemn rather strongly the fact that the bill, as it stands, is quite inadequate to meet the needs of the situation. A pension of $100 a month for a veteran who is 100 per cent disabled is an absolute minimum. The Canadian people are willing to accept that. In fact I shall go a little farther and say that today even that kind of pension is not enough. A situation exists today which should be met by legislation at this time particularly.
The original bill with the 16 per cent proposal raised a storm of protest across this country, which apparently had its effect in the committee, and the government itself has raised its ante to a 25 per cent increase. The $75 a month pension for the 100 per cent disability, which has been the standard in Canada since 1926, is a shameful reflection upon the way in which Canada has treated her veterans, particularly when the cost of living has been permitted to increase the way it has. If some of these hon. gentlemen behind the curtain will take their places in the committee I shall be glad to talk to them
if they disagree with me. The government has to take its share of the guilt, since the removal of the subsidies and the granting of an increase in freight rates have added so much to the increased cost of living at this time. There is plenty of evidence to show that the dependents of the veterans and the veterans themselves all across Canada are suffering as a result of the low standard of basic pensions and the cost of living which has gone so high.
The proposal which I intend to speak on tonight is one which I think is the only one advocated which will take care of that situation. With the cost of living continuing to rise and with the increase in freight rates which was recently allowed, the effect of which has yet to be felt on the cost of living by the Canadian people, there is nothing in the economy as we have it today to prevent the disabled veteran from being in exactly the same position one year hence as he is today. The pension may be entirely inadequate to meet the cost of living at that time. That is why the proposal which was made by the representatives of this group in the committee was put forward that there be a cost of living bonus added to the minimum, pension of $100 a month for the 100 per cent disability pensioner, which would take care of further increases in the cost of living. Unfortunately the proposal for the cost of living bonus was defeated in committee.
I hope the door is not closed even at this late day for the government to bring forward further proposals with regard to doing something to take care of this particular part of the situation. The cost of living as it is today results in this. First of all, the disabled pensioner will be far short of the amount needed to keep himself and his dependents in a proper standard of living. The granting of a 25 per cent increase in a pension which was already far too low is certainly far short of what we should have when we have had, in recent years, an increase in basic commodities amounting to almost 70 per cent.
The other place where this act is terribly inadequate is that it makes no provision at all for further increases in the cost of living from which the veterans might suffer. The bill as it stands at the present time cannot be described in any other terms than a patched-up job to take care partly of an immediate situation. If the suggestion that we made about the cost of living bonus could be implemented and brought into this act it would have the support of the house. I am not going to repeat the arguments that have already
Pension Act

been made here this afternoon. The discussions on the bill have been all to the good. It is pretty generally recognized that this bill is simply not adequate.
If this government fails to implement something which will take care of that situation it alone will have to take the responsibility. It will not be forgotten either by the people of Canada or by the veterans themselves.


Mr. BAKER:: As a responsible citizen of Canada, I should like to say a few words on this matter. I had not intended to speak because I had discussed all these matters in the veterans affairs committee. I am a member of that committee. Some rather impassioned speeches have been -made here today. I do not think this is the time when passion should be brought in. We should try to deal with this matter in a level-headed manner. I am not afraid to say what I think. I think a 25 per cent increase is a fair one;
I support that. I am not going to recommend a 33$ per cent increase unless I think a 33$ per cent increase is needed at this time. Whether it will be needed in the future or not, I do not know. I think 25 per cent would meet the situation now. I hope that the debate will be kept on the high level it started on.
The hon. member for Peel introduced the political aspect, and it recalls to my mind what happened between 1930 and 1935, during the depression years. There was no veterans committee at that time. It seems to me that they taxed the veterans rather than helping them out at that time. We must bear these things in mind, because it is all very well to make an impassioned plea from the opposition benches at this time, but what was done then? Let us try t-o keep this discussion on a high plane and tiy to help the veteran out by putting this legislation through as quickly as we can before the other place adjourns, and let these veterans get their increase in pension.
The one complaint I have had from the veterans is this. They ask me, when are the veterans to be paid? When are we to get our cheques? They will get their cheques just as soon as we complete this bill. I am not saying that the bill is perfect. I think we have gone as far as we can go at the -present time. We should pass this bill now. I would suggest that we get on with the business of the house. I am not going to talk any further on this matter. I will be quite frank in my statement. I think this is a very fair bill.


Mr. McKAY:: I wish to say just a few words on this bill. It is not my intention

to delay its passage very long. First I wish to support what the hon. member for Swift Current said this afternoon with reference to the action of the veterans affairs committee on the 25 per cent increase together with the cost of living bonus which was proposed by the members of our C.C.F. group. I want particularly to refer to the fact -that when I spoke previously -on veterans pensions in this house this year I did advocate -a 25 per cent increase based on the cost of living index, together with a rider which would provide one per cent increase for each rise of one point in the cost of living index over 143 points. The reason for the selection of 143 points is probably obvious enough if one not only examines the cost of living index but also considers the scale of wages and other factors that go into what we call today the standard of living.
The index now stands at 151-6, which is eight and a half -points higher than 143 which was set as suitable for a 25 per cent increase, that to be established, of course, as a basic pension not only for pensioners but for those on allowances as well. Therefore I suggest that the government should take into consideration in future some program which would involve attaching the pension scheme, and possibly allowances as well, to the cost of living index. Unless an arrangement of this kind is made, the house will face a frequent argument for increase in pensions, possibly as often as every year, until the cost-of living in this country is stabilized.
I am more -convinced than ever that we cannot do too much for these lads who have disabilities, after having sat in the veterans committee for a good many weeks -and having seen entering that committee room boys who were paraplegics-boys who would probably never walk again-and many others who were blinded because of the war, and still others who were amputation cases. I do not think any of us who witnessed what we did in that committee can possibly feel that we can give enough in the way of pensions to these young men.
As a matter of fact, a good m-any of us voted for the 33$ per cent increase and we did that conscientiously. Later, the same group in many cases supported the 25 per cent increase, together with the cost of living bonus. IVe finally all got together and voted for the 25 per cent increase which is now before the house. I still feel that it is inadequate. I do not believe the taxpayer of this country will complain at the increased expenditure which this bill will involve. I do not see any reason why he should complain, because "the wages

Pension Act
of sin is death", and the wages of war is an increased pension bill. There is not any doubt about that. Wars are a costly business in human wastage and in the drain upon the taxpayer's pocket as well. But the men who defended this country and returned maimed for the rest of their days must be an obligation which every taxpayer must recognize; and on the whole, I think the taxpayers do recognize this obligation. I feel, as does the hon. member for Peel, that there will be no complaint from them if we increase the pensions of these disabled veterans by 33-j per cent and even more.
I commend, however, what the government has done in giving this 25 per cent increase. It will be appreciated by the thousands of veterans across the land. I feel, however, that it would be a still wiser program to follow if the 25 per cent increase that we proposed in the committee had been accepted, and with it the plan for a one per cent increase in the basic pension allowance rates for each point increase in the cost of living index. That would solve the question,
I believe, for all time to come. When the prices of goods recede and the cost of living declines, the pension could then be reduced accordingly, but not below the 25 per cent basic increase which has been proposed.
I urge again upon the minister and the government that this proposal be taken into serious consideration, with the hope that the not too distant future will see something done in that regard.


Clarence Gillis: This Bill No. 126, Mr. Chairman, received its first reading in the house on March 8. At that time some of us enumerated what we considered to be some of its shortcomings and suggested that the minister and those who were to serve on the committee might give study to some of the things we mentioned, with the end in view of bringing in amendments to cure those shortcomings. Not being a member of the committee, I find myself at a disadvantage in discussing the bill. A great many amendments have been made to Bill No. 126. Except to a few members who were on the committee, the amendments are not available. Actually most of us are discussing something we do not know anything about, or at least something we have not seen. Before the bill came back to the house to be discussed and put into final shape, I think it should have been reprinted so that the amendments would be contained in it. Had that been done, each and every member of the house would have some knowledge of exactly what the bill contains. The minister indicates that there is a desire to get it through as fast as possible, and so forth and so on. I am
never in a hurry to put anything through. I am always anxious to see that the job is done right, so that we shall not have any regrets afterwards.
With respect to the 25 per cent increase, I do not think we have done a great deal in that regard. I think the recommendation should have been: 100 per cent pension, $100. When it is considered that the great majority of pensioners are in the category of anywhere from 15 per cent to 35 per cent disability, the amount of money involved in the 25 per cent increase will not be so great. I think the yardstick by which we must measure that pension is whether or not it has any relationship to the cost of living. It must be remembered that in determining matters of this kind we are fixing standards and we are asking a man who is 100 per cent disabled to accept a standard of living of less than $100 a month.
I do not think any member of this house, either single or married, would say that would be a decent standard of living for himself and his family, if he had been totally incapacitated in the service of his country. These men are in that condition because they offered their lives in order to maintain institutions such as the one we are in here tonight; and I do not think we can clap ourselves on the back and say that 25 per cent increase is adequate, and establishes any kind of decent standard for those who are 100 per cent disabled.
Back in 1940 and many years before that, the minister and the veteran members of this house will remember the difficulty we had in determining pension cases where the doctor could say, "Well, this disability is of congenital origin; it was a constitutional defect" and for that reason, or for psychiatric reasons, the man was ruled out, and no pension given. We quarreled for years over that particular clause.
In 1940 the pension committee of this House of Commons removed that clause from the act. I was a member of that committee, and I had in mind at that time that we were removing from the act something which was a thorn in the side of those who administered the act, and had been for a great many years. I thought that, when this war was over, the veterans coming back would not be faced with that business of, "Well, despite the fact that you are in this condition, it is something that is hereditary; it is of congenital origin." That went out. Nevertheless that attitude is still being maintained. It is maintained in the decision now that the disability was of preenlistment origin. It is merely changing the wording. The administration is exactly the same.
I am thinking now in terms of the fact that 25 per cent of all medical discharges from the
Pension Act

army in this war were men who came out because of being broken down physically. They were not the calibre of people who were built to stand the stress and strain of war. They were discharged as psychopathic cases and no disability was recognized in that particular category. The man is placed in an institution. The fact of the matter is that the man is a war disability. His services were requisitioned by his country; he was placed in abnormal circumstances, and if he was not able to stand that kind of thing the responsibility was on the doctor who classified him as 100 per cent fit for service. I am disappointed that something definite and specific has not been written into the act at this time, stating that if a man was declared fit for service on a certain date and went into the service, and did not come out in the same physical condition, the wreckage caused during the interval should be attributable to war service for pension purposes. That is what is done in Britain. There is no quibbling about it there, and that is what should be done here. By leaving this question unsolved we are simply side-stepping the issue. I am bringing up these questions now, because I believe in the matter of disability pensions this will be our last chance to say anything until the next session of parliament, and in the interim a great many people will suffer. As I said before, this affects twenty-five per cent of all those discharged from the services for medical reasons during the last war, and something definite should have been written into the act to protect such men.
There is another matter I should like to mention. I am giving you all credit for what you did, but you do not improve these things in that way. I am trying to put my finger on the spots where nothing was done. Take this business of divorce, which I have emphasized in this house on occasions. It has been a problem since 1919, and has been discussed over the years. It was a small problem then as it affected Canadian soldiers, but it has grown to considerable proportions today.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You cannot put that in the Pension Act.


Clarence Gillis: You do not have to.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is what we are discussing now.


Clarence Gillis: Just a minute and I will tel-1 you what we can do about it. My hon. friend heard this matter discussed in the veterans affairs committee.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, but may I suggest that a subcommittee of the veterans affairs committee has been appointed to look into this 
matter of divorce and bring in a report before the end of this session, to see what can be done.


Clarence Gillis: That does not mean a thing, and the hon. member who made the statement knows it. You can write all the reports you like; you can bring them into this house and table them, but that is usually the end of it. The legislation passed in this house is the only thing that counts; and, as I am now pointing out, this question of divorce definitely has to do with the matter of pensions. Today there are widows who, because of United States divorces, have been left without any means of support after assuming for twenty-five or twenty-eight years that they were legally married to ex-soldiers. Certainly the sore spot is the Canadian divorce law. As I suggested in the house before this bill went to committee, I have sufficient confidence in the judgment of those who administer the act to believe that if a clause were written in dealing with these borderline cases and giving the commission power to adjudicate on them, there would be no necessity to change the Canadian divorce law. Leave it as it is until the people of Canada want something done about it.
I believe that, in connection with pensions and war service disabilities, some discretionary power should be given the commission to handle problems of this kind. You will have a number of them from the old country. Girls are going back now to get divorces in England, and the men are left here in Canada. What is their status? What is the status of the children who are left behind? They have no status. Our own divorce laws are rigid and restricted, and perhaps they should be; lam not arguing that point. I do say, however, on behalf of all those who served, that something should be done to protect the widows, the dependents and the soldiers themselves through the medium of this Pension Act; and it has not been done. There is no need to study the matter; it is not something new. I have gone over it all with the chairman of the pension commission, who was good enough to have the files brought in and to sit down and go over them with me. The facts are known. It is merely a matter of facing up to the problem and doing something about it. To have a committee study the matter and bring in a report of some kind next year is, in my opinion, just a way of side-stepping the matter in the hope that Divine Providence may solve the difficulty in the meantime. Well, things just don't happen like that.
Another matter I think we overlooked is the question of merchant marine service for pension purposes. They are covered now

under the civilian personnel provisions of the Pension Act, but that coverage is very much restricted. You almost have to prove that a man suffered a direct hit from a torpedo before you can get a pension for him. There are men going around with legs off, casualties of war, for whom pension cannot be established. I think we should have gone at least as far as to grant them pensions. We have denied them every other privilege that has been granted other members of the armed services. We have refused to give them any status whatever along those lines, with one or two minor exceptions. We did, however, make a feeble gesture toward them in the matter of disability pensions, and I think we should have gone all the way with it. We should have given them exactly the same protection and the same latitude in the matter of disability compensation that we gave those in the armed services, but we have not done so. They remain as they were. In my opinion they performed some of the greatest service ever seen, but unfortunately they served private shipping companies who merely exploited them during the war, made what profits they could and assumed no responsibility for the wreckage of war. I think at least we should have included them in this act for disability pension purposes.
Another defect that has not been corrected is, I believe, in connection with the disability pension dying with the pensioner. As the situation now is, if a man receiving a pension of fifty per cent or better passes away, that pension is continued to his wife and dependents. If the pension is under fifty per cent, however, it dies with the pensioner. I think, to be fair about it, if a man is receiving even a five per cent or a ten per cent pension it should be continued to his dependents after his death, because in my opinion the recipient of a small pension often leaves his family in worse circumstances than one in receipt of a pension of fifty per cent or more. I think it would have been only fair and just and reasonable if the committee had recommended an amendment continuing payment of these disability pensions, no matter what might be the percentage of the pension. That provision would be there, then, as a matter of right; but that has not been done.
I have had only a quick look at the proposed amendments, which were shown me by the hon. member for Swift Current. I understand that the deadline in the matter of marriages has been shifted to June, 1948.


Milton Fowler Gregg: May.


Clarence Gillis: But from May, 1944, to May, 8948, is a period of about four years. The
Pension Act
person married during that time has no status, because the deadline now being established is not made retroactive. As I say, I am only speaking from memory after a quick look at the amendment, but I believe there is a four-year period during which those people are being dealt out of any adjustments under the Pension Act. I suggest that if the deadline was not right in the first place it should not have been established; but if you are going to remove it to make the pension effective up to May, 1948, at least it should go back to the time the first deadline was struck. Many of us argued against that deadline at the time it was established.
That is about all I have to say on this bill.
I have touched on what I think is wrong about it. Having served on these committees, I know what a difficult job it is. I know how hard it is to get unanimity of opinion. I know the job the minister has with treasury board when it comes to spending money. While I appreciate everything the committee did or tried to do, I still contend that the defects I have pointed out are glaring and specific, and that something should have been done in this bill to remedy them, because I believe this will be the last chance we shall have until next session.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Mr. Chairman, I did not have an opportunity to be a member of the veterans affairs committee. I have not had a chance to study the bill as closely as some may have had, nor have I had a chance to speak on it until now.
Some hon. members have mentioned the number of petitions they have received from their constituencies. Let me say that I never have received so many resolutions on any subject-and I include price controls and railways-from boards of trade, municipal councils and veterans' organizations as I have had in support of the plea for $100 a month for 100 per cent disability cases.
After every session, when I return home I hold meetings at different points in my constituency, and in those meetings I attempt to explain the legislation of the session. In this instance I do not know what I am going to tell my constituents, because there does not seem to me to be any reason for not giving $100 a month. In my view the only question we should ask is this: Can health and decency be maintained on any less than $100 a month? The answer of course is no. With the cost of living at present levels, no one can live in decency or comfort on less than $100 a month. So that, in itself, condemns anything less than $100 a month as a pension.
Pension Act

The second question is: Can Canada afford $100 a month? The answer is, yes. If $100 is not enough, and we have the money, why are we paying less? Surely there is no justification for what we are doing. Certainly there is none, so far as I can see.
Some mention has been made of impassioned speeches on behalf of the veterans. I say any plea made on behalf of the veterans could not begin to compare with the enlistment pleas, the bands, the speeches and the publicity which went out warning us that our country was in danger-and it was-and that it would fall, as it would have, if these men had not given life and limb and health in the defence of our country.
Now when our country is intact, when our industries are more productive than ever, when our agriculture is geared to a new high in production, when we have markets and income and production, what possible justification can there be for denying a decent living to those men who made all this possible? I can see no justice or logic in the government's position.
It is time we got away from the old idea of charity in connection with these pensions. We still think in. terms of a hand-out. This is not a case of charity; it is a case of simple justice. Anything less than comfort and decency is a reflection not only upon the veterans but upon our own consciences, and upon our record as a nation. So I plead with the minister, even at this late day, to reconsider the sum mentioned, and to give at least a minimum of $100 a month for 100 per cent disability.
Again I voice the sentiments of the hon. member who said a few moments ago that public opinion would be behind the minister if he were to do that. The cost of living index stands at an all-time high for Canada. It is more than 151 at the present time, and is still going up. We are told that the price of meat is to increase, and there is no indication whatsoever that we shall have a return to price controls. Increased freight rates will certainly increase the cost of everything that has to be shipped-and that is everything; period. That includes meat, wheat, bread-everything; and there is no indication that these prices will come down.
The housing bill brought from the minister the other night a statement to the effect of rentals at $80 a month, This sort of living allowance must mean, therefore, that a veteran will have to live in the worst street, in the worst house, on the poorest of food and with the poorest of cultural and recreational 
facilities at his disposal. Surely that is shabby treatment for the people who made the present prosperity in Canada a reality.
There is no reason why the families of these men should have the poorest clothes or live under the poorest living conditions on the street. And that is what you are condemning these families to, when you condemn them to that sort of living.
A further point to be considered is that these pension moneys would go immediately into the spending stream in Canada. They will help maintain employment. This is not the kind of income which would be saved and salted away. It is a type of income which, along with family allowances and old age pensions, will be poured into the stream of everyday spending to maintain our Canadian economy at a high level.
So I plead with the minister even at this day to do something about granting this request, so just, so fair and so reasonable.


William Henry Golding: Shall section 1 carry?


Frank Exton Lennard: I do not rise at this time to repeat what has been said so ably by many hon. members in the debate. I do not believe in repetition. In my view the case has been well put this afternoon and this evening.
I rise merely to make one or two observations. It was hinted a short time ago that we should get down to business and pass these sections, so that the bill could be sent to another place, because they were in a hurry to get away for a period of time. That does not concern me one bit. They can wait until we are ready to send the bill to the other place. They can deal with it then, and wait there until they receive it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They have got their pension.


Frank Exton Lennard: Another comment I
should like to make is that, as a member of the veterans affairs committee, when I voted in support of the motion for 33^ per cent I did so conscientiously. I felt the veterans should have it; and I assure you, Mr. Chairman, there was no political skulduggery in it, so far as I am concerned.
One other comment would be along the lines of those of the hon. member for Cape Breton South, when he criticized the failure to distribute copies of the amendments before they were brought in this afternoon by the minister.
I found it necessary to attend another committee meeting this afternoon. I came into the house shortly after this discussion had begun. For some time I was at a loss to know

Pension Act
what the discussion w7as about, because I did not have a copy of the proposed amendments.
I would suggest that in future, when there are amendments to legislation, at least a few copies of those amendments should be available to members of the veterans affairs committee.


Mr. LOCKHART:: I should like to say a word or two on an angle different from that mentioned thus far. First of all, may I concur in most of what has been said. As I sat listening to the splendid thoughts which have been expressed by so many in connection with the work of the veterans, the thought struck me that the mere mention of dollars can never become a compensation for a disabled body. That is something which far transcends money considerations. We have heard a good deal about 33J per cent and 25 per cent. Like some other ban. members, I was not privileged to be a member of the veterans affairs committee. I do not know what went on there. I can say, however, that I am one who has had unanimous endorsation from hundreds of people, and to a great extent women's groups. This has impressed me, and I find it significant because the woman of the house knows what it costs to maintain a family.
Two things which have come up within the last two or three weeks have disturbed me considerably. One is the new fear that seems to dominate the mind of the pensioner, either the man receiving only $5 a month or the totally disabled man. A week or ten days ago I had occasion to talk to three men who had been re-boarded' in Hamilton. They had been accompanied by a 100 per cent pensioner who went along for something to do. These men had the fear that something would happen every time they went up before the board. One man had a crushed kneecap and another had torn sinews in his arm. It was his left arm and he w'as not receiving a large pension, but he is fearful that every time he goes before a board a reduction will be made. On the one hand these men find their cost of living going up, while on the other hand the only safeguard that they have is likely to be reduced. I emphasize that point to the minister.
There is another point I should like to bring up, and perhaps the minister can sleep on it. This has to do with housing, but I do not intend to get out of order by discussing housing except housing for veterans. A day or so ago we heard a statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) or reconstruction or what have you.


William Henry Golding: That is not in this bill.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I am not going to refer to any discussion that took place in committee; I am going to confine myself entirely to a matter which dovetails into this pension bill.


William Henry Golding: This bill has nothing to do with the housing problem. Before we commenced we agreed that there would be a general discussion, that hon. members would not be confined to discussing the first clause; but if the hon. member is permitted to discuss housing as it affects veterans, then the chair will not be in a position to stop anyone else and it may go on and on.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I hope I did not give the impression that I intended to enlarge upon the housing problem. I merely said that what I was going to say had to do with the housing problem of veterans. As I say, within the last two or three weeks these men have developed a fear in connection with the homes over their heads. A veteran must have a home so that his pension will adequately provide him with a livelihood. The cost of living has been referred to and 1 presume that I will be in order if I refer to it again. These increasing costs make the veteran feel that the 25 per cent increase will not take care of his needs, the cost of which is mounting all the time.
Perhaps I dare to mention the cost of living; perhaps I dare to mention housing and perhaps I dare to mention many other things. Without being too specific, without creating ire in your mind, Mr. Chairman, without any thought of transgressing the rules, may I say that when these young men came back from the last war many of them counted on their gratuities and re-establishment credits. I shall not discuss details, but they have found that these have slipped away because of the increased cost of living, the increased cost of housing and so on. They feel that their security has slipped away.
I say to the minister in all good faith that this fear has crept into the hearts and minds of the veterans, if I could enlarge upon the causes I feel I could convince the minister. So I say to him to deal as leniently as he possibly can in his amendments and endeavour to wipe out the growing apprehension that has developed within the last month on account of the number of causes that have been mentioned here tonight. I have detected this quite recently and I wanted to bring it to the minister's attention tonight.
Pension Act


Mr. MOORE:: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister one clause in the Pension Act which, in my opinion, ought to be changed. It has been dealt with already by a number of hon. members this evening, and it was also before the veterans affairs committee. I refer to the clause dealing with pre-enlistment condition. A large number of returned men are denied pensions because their condition is supposed to be of pre-enlistment origin. The Pension Act should be changed, so that a person who served in the armed forces for a period of years and then went into the permanent army should be considered as being eligible for pension, should anything happen to him during his military service. I am sure that many hon. members have received communications from veterans with two or three years service in the permanent army who have been denied pensions. I believe this is one change which should be made at the earliest possible day.
Another point which should be brought out is that the 25 per cent increase granted by this bill is not as large as it would appear to be. Many veterans have from 15 per cent to 40 per cent disability. When one considers that it is forty per cent of the 25 per cent increase he finds that the actual increase is 10 per cent of the total pension. In the case of smaller pensions the increase is reduced still more.
In the majority of cases the actual increase will not be more than $7.60 a month, while those receiving a 15 per cent (pension will have an increase of only $2.85 a month. When we consider the increase in the cost of living I think we must admit that the 25 per cent increase will not meet the need of the serviceman in maintaining a reasonable standard of living.
The third point I want to bring up has to do with the merchant navy, which has already been dealt with by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I believe that our Pension Act ought to be altered in such a way that veterans of the merchant navy will be considered veterans of world war II and, therefore, be pensionable.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Mr. Chairman, just before the bill carries, I should like to say a word or two. In a general way there is some cause for the country to take comfort when it looks over what we are doing for our men of world war II as compared with what we did for the men who came home from world war I. But our efforts are still far short of what they should be.
The vote on the 33i per cent increase in the veterans affairs committee was, I am told,

as follows: fifteen voted for and sixteen voted against the 33i per cent increase. The veterans throughout the country and their parents and loved ones across Canada can derive comfort from that fact, because it shows how the realization of Canada's responsibilities is gradually dawning upon the members of this house. I am glad to say, and I am saying this for the sake of Social Crediters all across the dominion, that the Social Credit members of the committee all voted for that 33i per cent increase. I think every member of the Social Credit party throughout the dominion, if he had been a member of that committee, would have voted for that 33J per cent increase. If this house consisted of Social Credit members they would have voted for that 33^ per cent increase and a good deal more than that.
Too many members of this house, Mr. Chairman, I fear, still fail to appreciate the realities of the situation as regards the veterans and Canada's responsibilities to them. Let us rc-member that before these boys put on the king's uniform every one of them was a potential husband and father. He probably was a preferred man with the girls of his community. When a good many of those boys came back they had very little chance of finding favour in the eyes of those girls, much as the girls might have sympathized with them, because they were broken. Every one of those boys once had a potential career before him. Now, as a result of what they went through, for many of them there can be no career. We cannot give them a career, but we can, if we treat them fairly in respect of financial considerations, give them something like a chance to become husbands and fathers.
May I say once more what I have said several times on the floor of this house. This Dominion of Canada at the present time cannot afford to disregard potential husbands and fathers. This country needs babies, and it needs many of them. I am amazed that one or two people are smiling in the face of what I am saying. Cannot hon. members be realistic? It has often been pointed out that a small population like ours of 12,000,000 people cannot hope to hold such a magnificent heritage as Canada is without having the necessary population. There is only one way to get good Canadian population, and that is to raise them. Why not face that fact and look upon all these boys as potential husbands and fathers? We can make of them, so long as they have lived decently, husbands and fathers if we will only use the financial means with which to do so. Surely we ought to do that even in our own best

Pension Act
interests as a Canadian people, without considering the veteran himself at all. This is one thing to which we should give serious consideration.
Let us briefly examine the increase which has been given. I do not wish to minimize that increase at all, but let us face the facts and give it something like a correct appraisal. The pension, as it was before the present increase, was approved in 1925, and was at that time considered by the good people who then sat in this house a fairly adequate allowance for the veteran. But. what has happened since 1925? The ordinary labourer in those days received 100; I am using that as an index figure. The ordinary labourer in 1947 received 197-4. In other words the ordinary labourer on the street has been able to increase his earnings by 97-4 per cent since 1925. But these veterans, choice men who went overseas, and who were the best we had and were taken over there because they were the best, are deemed to be not worth any more than a 25 per cent increase. How can ordinary members put those figures together and get sense?
Again, living costs have risen from 100 in 1925 to 125-9. Apparently that 25-9 has been the figure which has been in the minds of those who, with meticulous care, limited the size of this pension increase.
But they have utterly disregarded a good many other factors. The purchasing power of the pension, which was 100 in 1925, had already fallen to 79-4 before this increase That is, before we increased the pension, we were giving veterans only 79-4 per cent of what the same pension was in 1925. So that the 25 per cent increase is actually 25 per cent of 79-4 per cent of the 1925 pension. That is a serious matter to bear in mind. Meanwhile the purchasing power of unskilled labour had risen from 100 in 1925 to 142-2 in March, 1948.
I notice that in all those figures which were provided for members of the veterans affairs committee, of which I was not fortunate enough to be a member, a great many of the little things which are essentials, which are almost "musts," are disregarded. For example, the ordinary man wants to go to a barber and get a haircut. So the ordinary veteran of course wishes to indulge himself in the luxury of having a good haircut by a skilled barber. But what has happened to the price of haircuts since 1925? In 1925 you could get a good haircut for thirty-five cents. What do you pay today for a good haircut? Fifty or sixty cents.
I am not sure that a man had to provide his wife with a hair-do in 1925, but today in any home the wife becomes unhappy if she is unable to have a hair-do once in a while to make her look something like the other girls with whom she associates.
The veteran has no consideration in little matters of that sort which figure so largely in the emotional life of the people, the girls they marry, and their daughters as they grow up.
Here is another little thing, but a thing we should not overlook. In 1925 the very best show would cost about twenty-five cents. Today you pay between fifty and sixty cents for the same kind of show with a tax included, and I do not suppose there would be any provision for relieving the veteran of the necessity of paying that tax on theatre tickets. It is callous to say that veterans do not need to go to shows. Are these men who went through the hell of war, whose minds are filled with horrible pictures, too terrible even for them to turn and glance at occasionally-they almost faint when they look at some of the pictures of things that they were obliged to look at in those terrible days-to be forbidden the privilege of going to shows just because they went and fought and saw horrible scenes which have been stamped indelibly on their minds? These are things which affect the lives of our men.
Let us remember that in the recent war we had a nation at arms; practically the full manhood of this nation was under arms. Therefore, when we are dealing with veterans we are dealing almost with Canada. Everything we put in this bill is affecting the veteran and the veteran's wife and children and his dependents, all over this nation from coast to coast. It is no small matter. Although I commend the minister and the veterans affairs committee on the fine work they have done, yet I feel that they should go right to work the day after this bill is passed and revise the act and have it all ready for us when we get back here next session. The new revision should be on adequate lines.
One thing comes to my mind. This bill, notwithstanding that the disabilities and the disadvantages which I have already indicated in it were sufficiently glaring, fails utterly to recompense the men for the suffering which they have gone through. Many of these men go through excruciating suffering.
One man came into my office just the other day. He is one of the men on the staff of messengers. He had a beautiful band of ribbons on his breast. We asked him how he
Pension Act

was feeling. He said that he had quite a lot of rheumatism in one of his feet. We asked him one or two little questions and he said, "Well, not all the men have had to sleep, where I have had to sleep". We elicited from that man that he had been through the Sicily campaign and the Italian campaign. He is an illustration. Yet he is relatively fortunate. No matter what financial considerations we give, we do not make any reimbursement for that suffering. We do not make restitution for the disfiguration, the humiliation and the conspicuousness that the men feel when they are disfigured, when they know that every step they take or every move they make they are noticed by everybody. Too many members of this committee do not know what it is to have a physical disability; and unfortunately for the disfigured veterans, a good many of the returned men who were elected to this house, who were sent here to help the returned men out, did not receive any disablement at all. If the people had sent the disabled to this house to tell us how disabled men feel after a war, probably more consideration would have been given than is being given by some of the boys who went through the war with scarcely a serious injury.
There is no recompense for the unhappiness. I referred to that a minute or two ago. Consider those who have been right in close, the veterans who went right through the hell of the thing, went right through those awful scenes, saw men, for instance, blown to pieces by booby traps, or who hastily scratched the soil over fallen comrades in order that the morale of the men following would not be destroyed. They did that hour after hour! They think of the awful scenes. You can do nothing to eradicate from the minds of such men the horrible pictures. You cannot remedy the distortion of their personalities, wrought by such things in their minds all the time. Many of these'men will almost jump out of bed at night or scream aloud, because their minds in dreams are working around some of the awful things they went through. We are doing nothing to recompense these men for these dreadful things. If we gave everything they asked in the way of money we would still be deeply in debt to the ordinary soldier for what he went through over there.
Under the circumstances, I feel that we ought to have let the boys have what they
asked for. After all, they were moderate enough in their request. They said, "Give us S100 for full disability; give us 33^ per cent"! Well, all we would have had to do would be to give them $72 more a year, and we would be giving them what they asked for. Instead of that, we told them what we thought they ought to have; and we are giving them what we think they ought to have, instead of what they ask for.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: We should at least give them, even yet, what they asked for, the full 33J per cent.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is it the intention of the committee to try to put the bill through tonight?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No.
Mr. BROOKS': I had hoped we would get through tonight. Since we shall not, would it be possible for us to have the bill with the amendments tomorrow?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I inquired into that, Mr. Chairman, but it will not be possible. If it is desired to go on with the bill tomorrow, which I should like to do, it will not be possible to have the bill reprinted, but we can provide ample copies of all the amendments attached to the existing bill, if that would be satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.

Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: Tomorrow we shall consider the amendment made by the senate to Bill No. 7, respecting emergency payments to assist in meeting increased cost of production of gold. It is a minor amendment and, I understand, will not take any time. Then we shall continue with Bill No. 126, which we have just had before the committee tonight; then second reading of Bill No. 208, to amend the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act; that is contentious, I understand. Then we shall take second reading of Bill No. 280, to amend the National Housing Act, 1944.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 12, 1948