Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, a few weeks ago I placed with the king's printer an order for 4,000 copies of a twelve-page Hansard reprint. Before doing so I consulted the schedule of rates for reprints furnished to members of parliament over the signature of the king's printer under date of December 1, 1947. From that schedule I learned that my order would cost $46.


Mr. MacICINNON:: Cheap.


An hon. MEMBER:: Too much money.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was not worth it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The replies I am getting from those to whom I sent the speech indicate that it was worth much more. However, under date of April 2, I received a bill from the king's printer for this order in the amount of $62.72.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to note that the increased value of my speech is recognized. When I complained about this increase, Mr. Speaker, I was told to look at the statement made in the House of Commons on February 25 by the Secretary of State. The relevant sentence is this, as it appears at page 1610 of Hansard:
Parliament has left it to the king's printer, under the provisions of the Printing and Stationery Act, to set such charges as he deems necessary to meet the cost of printing members' orders for reprints of speeches contained in Hansard.


Mr. McCANN:: So what?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The king's printer had fixed these charges and furnished to members a printed card setting out the rates. No revision of the rates has since been furnished to us, and I contend that it is high-handed of the king's printer to act in this way.



EXCHANGE OF NOTES


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I desire to lay on the table exchange of notes between Canada and the United States of America constituting an agreement concerning the operation and maintenance of the land line communications system between Edmonton, Alberta and Fairbanks, Alaska.



CHANGE IN PERSONNEL OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved:: That the name of Mr. Thatcher be substituted for that of Mr. Maclnnis on the special committee on prices.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. DOUGLAS (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Does the government intend to pay freight on feed grains east from Fort William beyond July 31, 1948?


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: The government has decided to extend, from July 31, 1948, to July 31, 1949, the period over which the terms of the order in council apply, providing for the payment of freight on feed grain east from Fort William.



INCREASES ORDERED BY TRANSPORT BOARD- OUT-OF-LINE AND BACK HAULS

Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. I sent him notice of it, together with a copy of a telegram on which the question is based. Is it correct that the railways are interpreting the order to increase freight rates as covering what are technically known as stop-off, out-of-line and back hauls? If so, does the minister agree with such interpretation?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the hon. gentleman for having sent me a copy of the telegram which he received from the commissioner of the Saskatoon board of trade. I received a similar telegram. With reference to what are known as stop-offs, these are not freight rates. They are services which were specifically covered in the application made by the railways to the board and which are specifically mentioned in the order of the board. So far as out-of-line and back hauls are concerned, the question whether the prohibition against increasing rates on grain would apply to back hauls on grain would appear to be a matter of clarification or interpretation by the board, and I am so advising the commissioner of the Saskatoon board of trade. I am informing him that if he wishes to make application I shall facilitate it for him.
The second question was: Does the minister agree with such interpretation? The answer is that since this is a matter for clarification or interpretation by the board, the minister does not express an opinion.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to address a question to the Minister of Labour? It arises out of a telegram received' from the merchants service guild, communications association, Halifax, Nova Scotia, and it has to do with officers and other personnel who were affected by the strike with the Canadian shipping companies. Has the minister been advised that they have accepted the McNiven report as a basis for settlement of the strike, with the proviso that the officers affected will be returned to the posts they held previous to the strike? Can the minister inform the house whether his department has any statement to make in that connection?


Humphrey Mitchell: Similar inquiries having been made of myself by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair), the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) and the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey), I would say that the official position has not changed from that outlined in my statement appearing on pages 2668-9 and 2670 of the House of Commons debates of April 6, 1948. That is to say, no settlement of a general nature has been made.

Agreements have been consummated between the Federal Commerce and Navigation Company Limited and the Elder - Dempster Company Limited, and the three unions involved in the strike, and the ships of these two companies are sailing. In both cases the companies have agreed to implement Mr. Justice McNiven's recommendations in full, and in the case of the first-named' company have agreed to arbitrate two points in dispute. In the case of the second-named company, the arrangement is the same except that the two points will be dealt with at a conference between the employers and1 the unions.
Telegrams were received yesterday and this morning which indicate that the parties are in direct negotiation, on both the west and the east coasts, and we are hoping for a. clarification which may lead to a settlement of the entire dispute within a few days. We have proposed that agreements when made provide that officers will be re-employed without discrimination.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: Yesterday the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Probe) asked me a question concerning the mail service to Palestine, and I said I would reply today.
The parcel post service from Canada to Palestine was suspended last February following information received from the British postal service through which this mail service operates. However, gift parcels intended for members of the British armed forces in Palestine and the Palestine police force may still be mailed. Last month it was found necessary to suspend all remaining mail services by surface route to Palestine. Air mail service will be continued for the present.
The air mail service between the United States and Palestine is the only service in operation.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT AMENDMENT- QUESTION AS TO EXTENSION TO OATS AND BARLEY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. BENTLEY (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister inform the house whether the government has approached any provincial government with a view to having enabling provincial legislation to make effective clause 29 of part IVA of Bill No. 135?

Business of the House


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Thomas John Bentley: Just what I thought.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, April 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent (for the Prime Minister):
That, notwithstanding any other order passed by the house in relation thereto, on and after Wednesday, the 7th of April and every day thereafter until otherwise ordered during the present session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except the introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers, and from 8 to 9 p.m. on Fridays, private bills.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Coldwell.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it became apparent yesterday, when this motion was moved, that a large number of members of the house desired that there be some time available for the consideration of public and private bills. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) moved, in amendment to the motion which is on the order paper, that Tuesdays and Fridays from 8 to 9 p.m. be devoted to these bills, but he also moved at the same time that the order of priority provided for by standing order 15 be reversed. I think that would mean that there would be no time for the consideration of private bills during this session, and though no one has any special interest in private bills, the standing orders do provide that they may be introduced in the expectation that they will get consideration, and to some of us it would seem to be unfair to do something which would shut them out at this time.
It may be that standing order 15 should not be in the form in which it is, but that, it seems to us, is something which should be considered not as a temporary provision for this session. Rather, it should be considered by Mr. Speaker's committee to revise the general rules; and if that change were made in the standing order, giving priority to public bills over private bills, it would be known to the public and those making applications for private bills would be aware of the risk they were taking.
I would like therefore to suggest that there be these two hours on Tuesdays and Fridays for these bills but that they be considered in the order which is provided by standing order 15.
My attention has been called to the fact that this is the fifty-eighth day of the session and that a similar order was made in this house last year on the fifty-ninth day of the session. There is no desire on the part of anyone to minimize the importance or the interest of the other matters placed on the order paper by private members, whether they sit in the front benches or in the back benches. That makes no difference to their rights in this house or to the consideration that should be given to their desires. But there is on the order paper a large volume of important public business which we feel it will be the desire of most hon. members of the house to have considered. For instance, this afternoon there is the bill to amend the industrial relations act, and the bill to amend the act providing for allowances to veterans. These are matters which I am sure rank in importance with any that can be placed upon the order paper. I hope therefore that members of the house will be agreeable to accepting the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to strike out the words "the former having precedence" -that is to say, giving precedence to public bills over private bills-and substitute the words "in accordance with standing order 15," which would leave the priority as established by the general rule.
It may be, though the indications at the present time do not appear to be any too hopeful, that such progress will be made with the public legislation as to allow, at some later date, other arrangements to be made. But hon. members will realize that we have not yet started on the consideration of the estimates. While we made a move yesterday to make a start in that direction, there is a matter of considerable importance which will have to be discussed and disposed of before the house can go into committee to consider the estimates. I hope that this may be regarded as a sincere effort to meet the desires of members of the house generally that there be some time for consideration of public and private bills that are on the order paper, and that public bills be not in such position that discussion on them would shut out any consideration of private bills. There is one private bill which has already been before the house on two or three occasions and on which there has been, I think, a fairly full debate. Hon. members say that they wish these matters to be brought before the house not merely for the purpose of providing an opportunity for making speeches about them, but for the purpose of getting the decision of the house with regard to them. I would hope that there would be no desire, under a rule of this kind, to talk out any of these bills, but rather that they be
Business of the House
[Stage Direction]
allowed to go along in the regular course and get to the stage where there can be a decision upon them. For the purpose of making that possible, I would ask my colleague to move, in amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, that the words "the former having precedence" be struck out and that they be replaced by the words "in accordance with standing order 15."
Mr. ILSLEY:: I so move, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I may point out that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is at page 2721 of Hansard.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would call the attention of the house to the fact that in the main motion which was introduced yesterday, these words appear:
Notwithstanding any order passed by the house in relation thereto, on and after Wednesday the 7th of April . . .
That will have to be changed.
Mr. St. Laurent moves, seconded by Mr. Usley, that the amendment be amended by striking out the words "the former having precedence" and substituting therefor the words "in accordance with standing order 15". The question is on the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Just before you put the amendment to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, as mover of the amendment may I say that the government has met the purpose of the amendment at least in part, and to that extent I think it is satisfactory. I wish to point out to the leader of the house that certain of the standing orders have been set aside this session, and while standing order 15 does give precedence to private bills, that is no reason why it should not be set aside again.
I am going to suggest still another variation. We now have the two hours for private and public bills, one on Tuesday and one on Friday. I am going to suggest that we give one of those days to private bills and the other to public bills-say, on Tuesday, private bills and on Friday, public bills. I cannot see why private bills should have complete preference over public bills. As I say, the house has varied the standing order considerably this session, and I do not think there should be any objection to varying it to this extent in order to give hon. gentlemen who are interested in public bills an opportunity of proceeding with them forthwith.


Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: I should like to say a word or two on this matter, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary

of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) mentioned the fact that if public bills preceded private bills, as is suggested in the amendment of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), there would be no opportunity in fact for private bills to be discussed. Those are his own words. My obvious answer to that is that if private bills precede public bills, then there is equally no opportunity for the discussion of public bills.
The second point was that when the sponsors of these private bills presented them to parliament they expected that the bills would be discussed and voted upon. May I say to him through you, Mr. Speaker, that when I introduced my public bill I expected that it would be debated and voted on; and I am quite sure the other sponsors of public bills had the same expectation. I had always understood, in my own political philosophy, that the general interest came before special privilege. If private bills and the interests of private corporations and individuals are placed ahead of public bills, I certainly do not think that principle has been followed out.
I agree, however, that some compromise should be effected. The present situation is that there may be, at tag end of either of those two evenings which have been referred to, five minutes left over, in which case somebody might be able to speak for a few minutes on a public bill; but the debate, if any at all, would be a series of tag ends. So far, with regard to private bills, we have had all the time taken on just one, with little expectation of that debate being closed. Therefore I suggest, as the very least sort of compromise, that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar be adopted and that at least on one occasion in the week public bills and members' resolutions have precedence over private bills.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I am amazed, Mr. Speaker, at the stand taken by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair), because I think he is settling for less than he should settle for if he is anxious to get his legislation before the house.


James Sinclair: I certainly am anxious to get it before the house.


Gordon Graydon: All right, then; I think the hon. member ought to have stood out a little more strongly against the government with respect to the amount of time he would require.
I want to make clear our position with respect to this matter. Everyone seems to have overlooked the fact that on the order paper there are other things than public and

Business oj the House
private bills. There are thirty-five private members' resolutions, many of them dealing with major points, to be debated and brought before the government. We are rapidly reaching the position of piling precedent upon precedent, and that is what alarms me. I do not want to be rising in the house day after day quibbling over small matters-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: Oh, yes; anything coming from here of course has not the magnitude it would have coming from the intelligentsia over in that corner, but I am glad to know you assess your worth at least somewhat higher than some other people do.
This is more than simply a question of what we are going to do for the rest of this session. If w'e keep on with this procedure session after session, with a wartime complex being carefully carried year after year into the peacetime period, we are going to reach the point where someone will say: Well, the days of private members' notices of motion may as well be forgotten, because they are only gathering cobwebs on the order paper as things stand.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has made one constructive suggestion. I think it is constructive because I was going to make it myself, and I suppose it is only natural for one to feel that his suggestion is a little more constructive than that of the other fellow. Now, however, we are to have all the private bills put ahead of everything else for two hours, under the government's motion. To my way of thinking that is not right. On the other hand we have the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar yesterday under which public bills would be considered to the exclusion of all private bills. Neither should have the monopoly, as the hon. member for Vancouver North said. There should be a fair division of the time in that respect. I would be in favour of asking the government to make that change, because at least that would be something.
What was said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) is quite true; this is the fifty-eighth day of the session. We have sat something like three hundred hours since this session of parliament opened. Now, though private members have not had any opportunity worth speaking of to do anything in those three hundred hours, at this stage of the session-and this is what I want to point out to the hon. member for Vancouver North-we are giving up nine hours a week, I say without enough protest, for a measly one hour on Tuesday evening. That is not good enough. We cannot afford to play
around with this business and not make a strong protest with respect to the position of the government.
I want to make it clear that I still think our suggestion of yesterday, that right of way be given for a week or two to urgent government business, is good; but then let us take a couple of weeks or longer, if necessary, during which we may have our Mondays and our Wednesdays to deal with these matters which are so important from the point of view of private members. I protest against people taking this so easily and being willing to settle for one hour a week instead of nine hours. Either this is a principle worth fighting for or it is a principle not worth discussing.
I realize that probably the best the government will do is to give us one hour a week. On the basis that half a loaf is better than no bread we may have to accept that; but if they are going to leave the resolution as it now stands, with this subamendment, I am afraid we shall have to vote against it. It is not good enough if it leaves out public bills altogether, or if it gives no consideration at all to notices of motion. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, with all the effectiveness I can summon, that the government should alter the motion along the lines I have suggested.


James Sinclair: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, because of the inference just left by the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Gray don) that my opposition to this motion has lessened because I concurred in the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I can assure the hon. gentleman that my opposition has not lessened, but I am supporting a practical amendment, which is more than the hon. gentleman put forward yesterday. He put forward nothing but suggestions, and now, after criticizing me, in the next breath he goes on to say that he is going to support the position taken by the government.


Gordon Graydon: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I did not say I was supporting the motion brought in by the minister. I told the house I was voting against it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In spite of these questions of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I hope we may come to a unanimous decision on the best way to serve our respective constituents with the time that remains at our disposal. If that can be achieved by accepting the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, concurred in by the hon. member for Peel, I would ask that the subamendment now before you be withdrawn and that it be replaced by one which would read in this way-and I think I carry out the suggestion of the hon. member
Business oj the House

for Rosetown-Biggar: by adding thereto the following words, "on Tuesday, and the latter having precedence on Friday." That would make the order read as desired by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. It would provide for the consideration of public and private bills on Tuesday and Friday, the former having precedence on Tuesday and the latter having precedence on Friday.


Major James William Coldwell: That is all right.


Gordon Graydon: That is, private bills on Friday?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Public bills would have precedence on Tuesday and private bills would have precedence on Friday.


Gordon Graydon: Does that mean we are to leave out completely any reference to notices of motions by private members?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I did not want to make this statement, but I do not think the hon. member for Peel has been left out of very much. I had a tabulation made showing how the time of this house has been occupied up to the present time. So far 1,522 columns of Hansard have been taken by members of the party of the hon. member for Peel, while 1,148 columns have been taken by members on this side of the house. That is to say, 125 members have taken 1,148 columns and 66 members have taken 1,522 columns. The C.C.F. members have taken 858 columns. I am not complaining about that, but I am just bringing to the attention of the house the way the time has been occupied. I am not suggesting that it has been wasted, or that anyone has taken more than he should. I am sure every hon. member who spoke felt that it was desirable for him to do so in order to carry out his mandate from his constituents. But I hope that since we have had these discussions on many of these public issues, the actual business that has to be disposed of before prorogation can come about will not take as much time, and a little later on there may be opportunity to make provision for bringing in these notices of motions, which are very important but which after all do not result in legislation but merely in expressions of opinion.


Gordon Graydon: I would ask the government to give us some assurance that as the session progresses we shall again have an opportunity of debating this question, and, before the session ends, again opening up the two days to private members. I am not satisfied with the present arrangement, and I do not think it meets with the approval of the house, even though temporarily, for a few weeks, we may have to accept it.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: The suggestion of the hon. member for Peel can be discussed on any of the days when we are going into supply, and will receive consideration in the light of the development of the work of parliament at the time the question is raised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: About the fifth of August.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion, and to give permission to the right hon. minister to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


James Horace King: The Secretary of State for External Affairs, seconded by the Minister of Justice, has moved that the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following words: "On Tuesday, and the latter having precedence on Friday".


Mr. CHURCH:: When this motion is passed will it rule out any discussion of the railway rates situation? We should have an opportunity to discuss that.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No.


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


Gordon Graydon: As a protest, it is carried on division only.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Put it again as amended.


Lionel Chevrier: Do you want that recorded in Hansard?


Gordon Graydon: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: It will be.


James Horace King: The motion remains-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Put it.


James Horace King: -as amended. Is it the pleasure of the house to carry the main motion as amended?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Gordon Graydon: On division.
Motion as amended agreed to on division.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 195, to provide for the investigation, conciliation and settlement of industrial disputes.
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words before the bill is given second) reading. The

Industrial Relations
principle and purpose of the bill is to lay down procedure for the resolving of industrial disputes, and as a means of fulfilling that purpose I would say the bill is timely. If, however, we are to enact a measure of this kind, and if it is to receive the support of employers and employees and the community, the measure as finally passed must be justly and equitably administered1. I mention that because in my opinion labour legislation now on the statute books is not equitably administered as between employers and employees.
The principle of the bill is that every employee has a right to be a member of a trade union and to participate in the activities thereof, and that every employer has the right to be a member of an employers organization and to participate in the activities thereof. No exception is made for any reason whatsoever, once an employees organization is certified as the bargaining agency. I understand that the law as it stands at present provides that an organization can be certified after a vote has been taken to determine whether the majority of the employees in that organization want the organization to act as its bargaining agency.
I would draw the attention of the house to the fact that in connection with the Canadian seamen's union, a vote was taken among the employees of the Sarnia Steamship Company and the Colonial Steamship Company and, if my recollection serves me aright, the vote carried, ninety-three per cent of the employees voting for the union. Yet these companies have refused to bargain collectively with their employees. Another steamship company, according to my information, has refused the Department of Labour the right to take a vote of the employees of that company.
This legislation can be effective only if it is administered without fear or favour, whether it be workers or employers who are concerned. There is no other way in which we can have law and order, in this or indeed in any other country. As I said the other evening, I am afraid the government is paying too much attention to representations made to it by employers organizations, and is not administering the law equitably in this country.


Humphrey Mitchell: I deny that, without equivocation.


Angus MacInnis: The Minister of Labour will have an opportunity to explain what has happened in the eases I have mentioned, and what action has been taken against those employers. My contention stands or falls on the explanation he gives the house in respect of those cases. If the explanation is satisfactory, then I believe the minister knows me well enough to realize that I will withdraw anything that would reflect either on him or his department.
When I spoke during the resolution stage I said I was receiving resolutions from employers organizations such as chambers of commerce and boards of trade giving advice to the government in regard to labour legislation. I have before me a copy of a telegram said to have been sent by the Vancouver board of trade to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), the Secretary of State (Mr. Gibson) -all of Ottawa-and to other individuals in British Columbia. I shall not read the whole of the telegram, but the part I shall read will be sufficient to direct attention to the point I am making. It states in part:
Further to Vancouver board of trade's recent letter recommending that federal and provincial governments co-operate to debar communists from holding office in labour unions in Canada . . .
That is not the full sentence, but as the rest of it does not matter I am abbreviating it in order to save time. I do not know exactly what it means. Is the government being asked to co-operate with the employers in order to prevent communists from holding office in labour unions in Canada? That is what it appears to me to mean. At the proper time I shall make my position clear with regard to the communist party of Canada and the Labour Progressive party, which is the communist party under another name. When I do that I shall not leave anyone in doubt as to where I stand in regard to those parties.
I suggest that if the government, and employers are going to co-operate in order to prevent communists from being officials of trade unions, they are in for a long job. They will have to stay in trade unions perhaps for a long time. But that is not the worst aspect of it. If this government says today, or acts as though it is saying, that individuals with certain political convictions cannot be members of trade unions, tomorrow it can take the same action in regard to members of other political parties. There is no way by which the government can act except by the adoption of the methods of the police state, to which I think all of us in this house are opposed.
If this parliament and this government will formulate correct policies, the trade unions of this country will take care of their own organizations. They are doing that already. I could give the house many examples if I wanted to take the time. I find this sentence
Industrial Relations

in a similar resolution passed by the Regina chamber of commerce:
The Regina chamber urges that a federal government supervised secret ballot be required in federal labour legislation, that the benefits of federal labour legislation be withheld from such organizations as are led by communists.
As I mentioned a moment ago, the government did take a supervised ballot in the industries I referred to, and yet the employers did not recognize that supervised ballot. What would be the situation and what action would the government take if after taking a supervised ballot the workers' organization did not recognize the validity of the vote? I eay again that we must have equitable treatment and just enforcement of the laws for employers and employees alike. That is all I wish to say at the present time.
I am afraid we are allowing ourselves to be intimidated, sometimes by one side and sometimes by the other. The government cannot allow that to continue if it wants to have its laws and administration respected, and I want to see laws and administration respected in Canada.


Mr. DAVID CROLL (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few observations to make on this bill. This bill is modelled on P.C. 1003, which, as this house knows, brought labour peace to this country in war time. With the widely differing provincial labour legislation that we have, there is a danger of labour war in peacetime. The house has already been informed that legislation was passed recently in Prince Edward Island which placed a ban on all but autonomous trade unions. It is true to say that the effect of that bill is virtually nil, since less than one thousand people will be affected, but I think it is well to note that the bill is a dangerous and disturbing one. It cuts under every labour principle that we understand. It is an attempt to punish all labour for the sins of the few. It is much like the Taft-Hartley bill in the United States.
One principle which above all others has been established for over a hundred years in Great Britain, and for a lesser number of years in this country, is that employees have the right to organize in a union of their own choice, free from employer control, and with a minimum of state interference. The Prince Edward Island bill places trade unions under licence which may well be cancelled on ministerial discretion. It is a dangerous bill. It points to a need that has been referred to in the house many times, the need of a national labour code to give guidance and to offset such ill-advise and retrograde legislation.

The provinces are ready to be guided; they are ready to accept dominion leadership. As a matter of fact reports in the press this morning indicate that the legislature of Ontario gave second reading to our labour bill which has not yet received second reading here. That legislature has shown that it is ready to adopt this bill holus-bolus.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Was that surprising to you?


David Arnold Croll: No, I am encouraged by that sort of co-operation. I am just a little disappointed that more of it is not forthcoming from time to time from the provincial legislature. I think it is a great mark of respect and confidence and a wise move on their part. Those of us who are familiar with the wartime labour regulations, P.C. 1003, will recall that they laid down some fundamental principles which have found their way into provincial legislation.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Did I understand the hon. member to say that yesterday the Ontario legislature gave second reading to this bill? I am anxious to know how they could do that when hon. members here have not yet seen it.


David Arnold Croll: That was the objection taken by some of the members in the provincial house. It is reported in the Globe and Mail of this morning that one member said:
In fact it has not even passed in another ho-use. The whole matter is irregular and wrong.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Let us get this thing clear. I think my hon. friend realizes that the legislation which was passed was enabling legislation which would bring the bill into force. The bill itself was not even there.


David Arnold Croll: My hon. friend is making it worse now. It is true that the bill itself was not there. No one had seen the bill. We got it yesterday. They had seen the previous bill. In spite of that, enabling legislation was passed by giving second reading to that bill. That is what I intended to say, and I thought I said it. I commend them for it-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Not for this bill.


David Arnold Croll: No, for the bill that was passed previously. I said that wartime regulations had found their way into provincial labour legislation, and the hope is, of course, that any national labour code which we establish here in peace time shall stand as a model to these legislatures.
I realize that the government is disinclined to act with respect to the Prince Edward Island bill. I think our answer to it could be

Industrial Relations
to pass a bill which will be a model not only to Prince Edward Island but to the rest of the country.
There is one disturbing element in connection with the Prince Edward Island bill which has already been touched on today by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Mac-Innis). That was the statement made by the minister who introduced the bill. The minister without portfolio, the promoter of the bill, said that "the bill was intended to keep communists out of the province." It has become quite popular lately to evoke the menace of communism in connection with anti-progressive legislation. I, too, oppose communism; but what I object to is the use of false and misleading motives for reaching a conclusion.
The hon. member for Vancouver East has just brought to the attention of the house the refusal of the Sarnia and Colonial steamship companies to deal with the Canadian seamen's union, which is the certified bargaining agency. They are using the same excuse as the one used by the minister in Prince Edward Island. It is a weakness in our collective bargaining machinery which we must, if at all possible, correct at the present session of parliament. A union's certification must mean something. For employers to flout that certification is a clear violation of the spirit of the laws that we pass.
So far as the bill outlaws company unions it is a forward step, because they have brought grief and mischief to this country. They are inconsistent with the principle that union organizations should be protected against employer influence.
The minister said that basically this was a middle-of-the-road bill. My purpose in speaking to it is to make sure that it stays in the middle of the road. It needs careful examination; it needs serious study. In my opinion the power given to the minister in this bill is far too wide. I think that power should be with the national labour board. The bill lacks a section to provide for the reinstatement of employees who are discharged. It was well brought out at the last hearing that a determined employer, if he was prepared to pay the price, could keep any man off the job if he so desired. Many unfair labour practices which are increasing from time to time are not sufficiently covered by the bill. The definition is too limited in its scope and application.
There is a section in the bill-I have not the bill before me; it is the wear-down section-which is particularly objectionable in that it permits the employer to challenge the union's certification time and time again before the board.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Does not that mean year by year? You cannot do it every month.


David Arnold Croll: There is no limitation on it- whenever he thinks they have not a majority. It is true that there is considerable provision in the bill for cool-offs and compulsory delays, but no one in this house believes that they are a permanent solution to collective bargaining. The bill is a good start. We must ask ourselves, is the bill fair? Will it promote labour peace? Will it increase government intervention in labour relations? With some modification, which I feel sure the committee will recommend, the bill ought to be acceptable as an honest effort. I am very happy to note that there is not much change between this year's bill and last year's, and that we are not attempting to mimic our friends to the south of us.
Given a chance, this bill will be improved by time and experience and I hope by the committee, and confirmed by the house. In my opinion it is a very good start.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to occupy very much of your time. I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), but I can never understand what he is driving at. He tore the bill to pieces for fifteen minutes, and wound up by approving it. I shall be interested in watching this thing in committee. I really thought the hon. member was going places until the wind-up, and then the old soft soap and salve were applied. He is a good friend of mine, and I hate to hurt him. I guess he is case-hardened.
I do not think this is the time or the place to discuss the bill section by section. The proper thing to do with it is to send it to the industrial relations committee. Because of the experience we had last year in dealing with a similar bill we have gained considerable knowledge, and in addition we gave the Canadian congress of labour the opportunity to prepare a code which they think is acceptable to the labour movement. We now have that to place alongside this bill "proposed by the minister. I think the committee will have a fairly good guide as to what is acceptable to labour. The proposal which the congress puts out is not an unreasonable one.
My purpose in rising at this time is to support to some extent what the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) had to say. I do not care what kind of legislation is brought down, unless it has an understanding administration it will not be any good to anyone. I was always opposed to judges and lawyers sitting in judgment on labour disputes.
Industrial Relations

They are all right in their field, but their field is not labour relations. Many of the difficulties in connection with legislation in the past have arisen from the fact that men who were trained in another field were given the responsibility of making decisions on matters with which they were completely unfamiliar. In their argument in support of the bill the Canadian congress of labour make that point very strongly. They say that the national labour relations board should be the supreme body in deciding what constitutes a violation of the code. After they make that decision the courts of the country could impose whatever penalties are laid down in the code.
I think the minister should consider that point very seriously, because when these matters are dragged through the courts there is delay, friction and frustration, and in many instances the intention of the legislation is defeated.
The hon. member for Spadina said that in Canada as well as in Britain certain principles had been laid down over the last ISO years with respect to labour relations. That is true, but the trade union movement in Canada is not comparable with the trade union movement in Britain. I do not think the hon. member would say he believes that the trade union movement in Canada should affiliate itself politically with the labour party of Canada, which is the group I belong to.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Certainly he would not; neither would I.


Clarence Gillis: Nevertheless that is the position in Britain, and if you are to go by the principles enunciated by the British labour movement you will have to go all the way with them; otherwise there is no use in talking about it. In the second place, the constitutions of the British trade union movement are written, whereas our constitutions are based not upon conditions prevailing in that country, as are the constitutions there. Most of the constitutions that guide the destinies of the Canadian labour movement are written in the United States and are based upon American conditions because of our international affiliations.
Most of our large organizations that function in the basic industries of the country have their constitutions written over there and not in Canada, so that we have a much more difficult job ahead of us in designing legislation that will satisfy not only the Canadian movement but also to a large extent the United States movement, because they are definitely integrated with us in the field of labour relations. To a large extent also the movement in Canada is influenced from the

United States, and I say wrongly in many cases, because the conditions in the two countries are not the same.
Both the hon. member for Spadina and the hon. member for Vancouver East stated that the Canadian seamen's union was the certified bargaining agency to bargain with the shipping companies. I have had several letters and telegrams from sections of that organization, the Canadian seamen's union, with respect to their dispute with the Canadian lake seamen's union. I wrote to the Minister of Labour about two weeks ago asking him if he would give me the facts in this particular dispute. Was Pat Sullivan's union, so-called, a certified bargaining agency, and was the Canadian seamen's union the sole bargaining agency in that industry? The letter I received in reply was to the effect that Sullivan's union was not certified as the bargaining agency, but neither was the Canadian seamen's union; that they held a collective agreement with the shipping companies but were never certified as the bona fide bargaining agency supreme in that industry.
I would ask the minister to clarify that point because I have written to several unions of that organization who wrote to me and I gave them the minister's answer. If that is true, then the arguments put forward by the member for Spadina and the member for Vancouver East are not valid. If it is not true, I want to correct what I have written to the sections of the union that corresponded with me, in order to clarify the point; because I accepted the minister's advice and I thought that he should know.
I am not going to say more on this question. I am a member of the committee and I want to see the bill get into committee so that we may do the job. But, as I said a few days ago, I would ask the minister when he is replying to clarify that point, as to whether we have the power as a parliament to enact an over-all national labour code. I ask him to do that because there is grave doubt about it. The member for Spadina is a lawyer, and I wish he had elaborated that. It was our stumbling block last year. The general opinion in the committee was that we could enact only a code that would embrace radio, the harbours board and the railways. Beyond that we could not go.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Unless we have provincial legislation.


Clarence Gillis: Unless we have the sanction of the provincial governments, and you will not get Quebec for a long time, so that it will not be national.

Industrial Relations


Mr. TIMMINS:: Look at what is happening in Ontario.


Clarence Gillis: I am not surprised at what is happening in Ontario. In my opinion, the reason why the Ontario minister of labour grabbed at it is clear. He took a look at it and said: It is ineffective anyway; it does not mean very much.


Mr. CASE:: That is not the right spirit.


Clarence Gillis: It hurts you a little bit, but that is true.


Mr. COCKERAM:: It does not hurt us.


Clarence Gillis: What are you squawking
about, then?


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I want you to be a good sport.


Clarence Gillis: I am a good sport, and I am explaining something you do not understand. Now here is a chance for me to get rid of a headache, because industrial relations in this province are a headache, where you have sixty per cent of industry in Canada concentrated. And it will become worse as time goes on. By accepting the national labour code., so called, which does not mean very much, the minister of labour in Ontario is in a position, at any time a dispute arises, to pass it back to the federal Minister of Labour. It is good politics for the Conservative government in Ontario to dump that load of labour relations into the lap of the federal government.


David Arnold Croll: And it is good imagination on your part.


Clarence Gillis: It is good sense. Don't kid yourself.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Don't you want a national labour code?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then, if
Ontario comes in, give them credit.


Clarence Gillis: They will step out quickly enough if you enact something that means anything.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Did you hear the member for Spadina say that the Ontario legislature yesterday gave second reading to a bill for enabling legislation to adopt this in the province? Show me any other province that has done that.


Clarence Gillis: Yes. They passed enabling legislation to adopt something that did not exist, because it will not exist until such time as it has gone through our committee, through this house and becomes law federally. I have no illusions as to why they grabbed it. If I
were minister of labour in Ontario I would have urged it long ago to get rid of the problem that he is getting rid of.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will not take up more of the time of the house, but when the minister closes the debate I wish he would say something about these two points: the British North America Act, and whether we are able to go forward with this as a national code; and also the matter of the certification of the Canadian seamen's union.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I want to speak for a moment on behalf of our party here and as a member of the industrial relations committee. I am amazed, sitting in this house where there are 245 members elected across the country, to find when we come to deal with these various problems that there is a group to my left which, no matter how right you are, tells you you are wrong because you do not belong to the socialist party in this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the trouble; the hon. member does not belong to it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The more I see of them, the more sick and tired I get of that group of people, who, because someone happens to be a little bit prosperous in this country, say that he is taking something out of the pockets of the people. No matter what you do, you are never right with them.


Angus MacInnis: Why do you complain when you vote with the government?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am complaining about the group that sits down there to my left and never has a kind thing to say about anybody except members of the socialist group. You cannot expect them to say anything against the communists because the communists have wrapped their arms around them.
What I wanted to say on behalf of our party is this. We do not intend to debate this bill. We do not intend to go into the various clauses of it. When it comes before the committee we will deal with those clauses and put forward whatever argument we have to put forward. We are in favour of the general principle of the bill. We are happy that our party which is in power in Ontario has adopted the principle of it and is willing to do everything it can to bring about a national code in this country, which is so necessary to labour peace. I hope that other provinces will follow that lead. I hope that public opinion in the province of Quebec- although some say that Quebec will be a long time in passing such legislation-will convince the government, whatever government it may
Industrial Relations

be, that it ought to line up with the others. But as far as the Progressive Conservative party m this house is concerned, we do not intend to debate the bill. We are glad it has been brought forward now. Let us hurry it along and enact it into law.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: The attitude of the Social Credit group on this bill is one of sympathy. This is an act to provide for the investigation, conciliation and settlement of industrial disputes. In our country it is necessary that we strive repeatedly for a greater and greater measure of justice, both for those who labour and for those who employ labour. We shall make progress in the direction desired by repeated efforts similar to those which are being made in this bill. We must strive for less and less delay and for less disruption of the Canadian economy whenever there arises unhappiness between capital and labour in any industry. We must strive for more and more good will and confidence on all sides.
As all will agree, Canada can be a land of plenty for all; it can be a land of glorious economic strength. Those who will recall for a moment or two the painful experiences through which we passed in 1946, when the steel strike was in progress, will realize afresh how easily our economy could be disrupted and our prosperity destroyed. It therefore becomes extremely important that we devote a good deal of attention to bills of this sort, thereby improving our machinery for settling disputes and avoiding them.
It is well to bear in mind once more, I believe, that it is utterly impossible, under the present economic and financial system, to give justice both to labour and to those employing labour; in fact, it is becoming increasingly difficult to give justice to either side. Into the meaning of what I have just said I will not enter at the present time. The mere fact that we are striving toward what in reality is an impossibility under the present financial system ought not to deter us from efforts toward the accomplishment of the desired objective.
The Social Credit group are anxious to see this bill pass and go to the industrial relations committee, there to receive such study and amendment as will make it as good as we can make it at the present time; for we realize that we must keep trying and struggling. So I will just say that we wish the minister well in his endeavours to build up a machine that will enable our industrial economy to function with the greatest possible efficiency and harmony.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to say a few words for the purpose of underlining a question which I hope the minister will answer when he speaks.
Reference has already been made this afternoon to the fact that the Ontario legislature has given second reading to a bill which accepts the framework of this bill for the province of Ontario. The legislature of Manitoba has before it a labour relations bill, section 60 of which deals with the same matter. As I understand it, that section provides that if there is uniformity between the Manitoba act and the dominion act, arrangements may be made under sections in both acts for the administration to be carried on in Manitoba by federal officials. Despite its shortcomings, the Manitoba act goes a little farther in this regard and provides that in the case of specific industries in which a dispute may arise, authority to deal with that particular dispute, if it is a dispute in common with disputes in other provinces, may be referred to the federal Department of Labour.
My question is this. Suppose a situation were to arise again similar to that created by the strike in the packing industry that we had last fall, would it be possible under this bill, and under bills like the one I have just described in Manitoba, for the federal Department of Labour to take a hand in seeking to settle that dispute? I contend, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) pointed out the other day, that we should go farther, and that we should have in this code provision for dealing with national industries such as meat packing, on a national basis, without any question. That is the main shortcoming of this bill, and in the committee we in this group who are members of it will seek to get that provision. But failing that-


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I ask how you would do that in the act? What would you put in there, for example?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate the question. I would say we could do something similar to what was done last year at the request of the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company, when they asked that, because their operations at Flin Flon, Manitoba, are in two provinces, the same be considered to be to the general advantage of Canada and therefore under federal jurisdiction.


David Arnold Croll: With the consent of both provinces; don't forget that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is granted. But we have passed some other bills in this house-

Industrial Relations


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I ask another question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I answer this one
first?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Elevators are, I think, the best example you have. Elevators have been declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. My only point was this. Where do you intend' to stop? If you keep on going you will end up with the province having no jurisdiction at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think we can go step by step and put under federal jurisdiction some of these basic industries that are clearly national in scope.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Oh, I agree; I am trying to be with you.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: That one company was only a small matter anyway.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Exactly. That was my complaint last year, that this one company was only a small matter, but it was able to get this provision. With respect to an industry like meat packing, which was clearly national in scope, we were not able to get it, though as my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton South said, if we had obtained it last summer we might have had less difficulty in the packing industry at that time. The question I am asking the minister to answer today is not whether he will accept this reasonable request that is being made from all sides of the house, but whether he can say that under the legislation as we now have it, it would be possible for the federal department to deal with a dispute of that kind.


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer is yes.


Mr. D. F. BROWN (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding which is largely industrial, and which of course is very much interested in this legislation.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Where is that riding?


Donald Ferguson Brown: The hon. member asks where that riding is. I may inform him, as I have done many times in the past, that it is in the sun parlour of Canada, where today we have cabbages and lettuce in the fields and potatoes planted for early consumption. However, that is quite apart from the legislation now before us.
As I have said, this matter greatly affects the thousands of people who live in my constituency. I am most anxious that as soon as possible the legislation be referred to the
industrial relations committee. I was a member of that committee in other years, but because of other duties of a national character which I have in this house it has not been possible for me to continue with that work. I trust, however, that the spirit of this legislation will be carried forward.
I should like to make one suggestion which I trust will be of some value to both labour and industry. In the main constituents I represent work in the large automobile, pharmaceutical and chemical plants in that area, and they have a sincere desire to make their contribution to the projects that have been undertaken. These people have contributed largely to the building up of great plants covering hundreds of acres. These corporations have constructed large buildings; they have branches in all parts of the world. I believe in Windsor we have the largest automotive industry in the empire and in my riding we have established the largest pharmaceutical centre in the empire, while in chemicals and other fields we have contributed largely to the economic life of Canada. This has been made possible to a great extent through the conscientious and sincere efforts of the industrial class; some may say the labour class, and there is dignity in labour. It is my hope that this legislation will lead, in the not too distant future, to a voluntary arrangement under which labour may share in the profits which have accumulated and which are being earned by these corporations. I am sure that as industry appreciates the desire of labour to make its contribution, and as industry comes to realize the advantage and necessity of creating a better and more harmonious relationship with labour, industry will voluntarily make some arrangement under which labour will participate in the profits that are made, and if this bill takes one step toward the realization of that goal I think it will have been worth while.
It is not my desire to take more time at this stage, Mr, Speaker, but as the provinces take this labour bill as a pattern on which they may mould their legislation, where the jurisdiction actually is in the provincial field, I am sure labour throughout Canada will benefit greatly.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not going to take much time this afternoon, except to answer questions in
Industrial Relations

a general way. This is not the committee stage; we are discussing second reading of the bill, but I do want to reply to one or two observations that have been made.
I believe it was the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) who discussed the differences between the two shipping companies and the Canadian seamen's union. I want to be perfectly frank with the hon. member; that disagreement is based on the fact that the companies will not deal with a union whose officers are communists. They have frankly said so. All the machinery has been gone through, and today the union appeared before the labour relations board asking for leave to prosecute. I think my hon. friend will agree that I should not discuss a matter which is before the board.
I think the hon. gentleman also raised some objection because the Vancouver board of trade, I think it was, and the Regina board of trade, had made representations to the government. Under our institutions I believe any Canadian who wishes may go to the foot of the throne and make representations.


Angus MacInnis: If the minister will permit an interjection, I was not objecting to individuals or organizations making representations to the government. I was taking issue with the kind of representations which were made by people who have always opposed labour organizations.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would not altogether say that. As I stated when I introduced the bill, I do not think all the angels are on one side.


Angus MacInnis: Quite true.


Humphrey Mitchell: There are plenty of good employers in this country; my hon. friend has dealt with them and so have I. I remember vividly the first agreement I negotiated when I was a trade union officer. It was with the Dominion Power and Transmission Company, the president of which was the father of the present Secretary of State (Mr. Gibson). The union enjoyed the best of relations with that company for many years, and do so today with the successors of the company.
I wanted to make that point, because the Minister of Labour receives many representations. I am often amused, if I may say so, when some hon. gentlemen rise on a question of privilege and read telegrams they received that morning. If they received some of the telegrams I receive, they would be afraid to show them to anyone; let alone get up on a question of privilege.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They would bum up the
wires.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. I have been in the game. It is the easiest thing in the world when you have a talk to the brothers in local meeting, and when the manufacturers talk among themselves in their organization meetings.


Mr. McIVOR:: But you are standing it pretty well.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, yes.
Another question was raised about which I should say something. Some criticism was made of judges. I shudder to think what would have become of labour relations in this nation had it not been for the contributions made by members of the judiciary who have acted as chairmen of many conciliation boards.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) was talking about workmen's compensation the other day. I say without fear of successful contradiction that the finest workmen's compensation law on the statute books of any country was passed after an inquiry by a royal commission presided over by, I believe, the late Chief Justice Meredith. The Ontario workmen's compensation law was the result.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: The first in the world.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, and the best.


Clarence Gillis: And forced by the labour movement.


Humphrey Mitchell: That may be true too. But do not let us take all the credit.


Clarence Gillis: Do not try to give it all in one direction, then.


Humphrey Mitchell: I had been talking about the judiciary. I played some part in the establishment of the workmen's compensation law in Ontario.


Clarence Gillis: Some judge capitalized on your work.


Humphrey Mitchell: Don't we all? Sometimes I think my hon. friend feels very proud of himself as the saviour of mankind. I have no objection to that; but let the other fellow make some contribution to it.


Mr. PROBE:: I suppose that is why there are so many ultra vires decisions on Saskatchewan legislation.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is not worthy of an answer.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member should be ashamed of that, and say so.


Clarence Gillis: He is asking for it.

Industrial Relations


Arthur Leroy Smith: He is not ashamed of anything, or he would be ashamed of that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, where were we?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend says, "Where were we?" At least I know where I am going.


An hon. MEMBER:: I hope so.


Humphrey Mitchell: And I hope it is * straight and narrow path, too.
A question has been raised about the courts. I know it is easy to criticize the courts, but I would rather take a chance on them than on some politicians; and I am looking at the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Probe). I believe in the rule of law with respect to both parties in an industrial dispute.
In connection with the judiciary, I should like to mention Mr. Justice McTague and also Mr. Justice Carroll who, in my judgment, in his time made a great contribution to the coal mining industry of Nova Scotia. I think, too, of Mr. Justice O'Connor of Calgary who has rendered yeoman service in the various fields to which he has been appointed, and of Mr. Justice Archibald and Mr. Justice Richards.
If my hon. friend does not have confidence in the judiciary and does not avail himself of it, of whom would be avail himself? People have faith in the impartiality of such men when they are made chairmen of various boards.
I do not believe I have much more to say. Some point was raised about the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company. As the hon. member well knows, the mine in question is in two provinces. The government was petitioned by the employees and employers to have an amendment made to the law to make it possible for this matter to come under national jurisdiction.
Let me say this to my hon. friends who talk so much about amending the British North America Act. In my judgment the only way to do that is to go to the people and get their consent. I remember sitting in the House of Commons when the first unemployment insurance bill, the eight-hour-day legislation, was pased on a national basis. The opposition of that day took the view that the legislation was unconstitutional, and it was later so declared. Tire next government which took office went to the country, and one of the planks in its platform was an amendment of the British North America Act to permit the adoption of unemployment insurance by the federal government. And that is the proper way to do it.
After all is said and done, this is the dominion government; but it is not the only pebble on the beach. The provinces still have some rights, as have also the employer and employee organizations. I have a simple way of expressing this thought. You cannot break a law by agreement. It is easy to say that an industry should be a national industry. It may be, however, that the employees do not want it that way; and they have a perfect right to go to the courts to argue their side.
Some years ago we had the famous Snider case in Ontario, concerning which the privy council said the federal government at that time had no jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and that decision has stood1 to this day.
Mention has been made about the province of Ontario. I suppose the work of my department spills over more into the provinces than that of any other department of government. Let me say that my relations with every provincial government have been most happy. While the minister of labour of Ontario does not belong to the same political party as I do, he has been a friend of many years. I have sat down and discussed with him legislation of this kind. Only this morning my office received a call for 100 copies of this bill. I think that is all to the good, when we find co-operation between the provinces and the dominion.
I believe I have said all I intended to say at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister answer my question? I had not asked about the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company. My question was this: With this legislation in effect, would it be possible for his department to deal with a strike such as the packing dispute of last fall?


Humphrey Mitchell: If the hon. member would read the act he would see that section 62 makes possible agreements between the dominion and provincial governments giving this government jurisdiction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It depends upon getting together.


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely. '


Clarence Gillis: The minister did not answer my question as to whether the Canadian seamen's union was a certified bargaining agency.


Humphrey Mitchell: With the Sarnia and Colonial companies, yes, in 1944. With the Canada Steamship Lines, no.

Export and Import Permits Act


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 196, an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946.
Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it was indicated that after the discussion of this bill legislation in the names of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Gibson) would be proceeded with. They are absent, attending an official function at government house. However the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is ready to proceed with item No. 14 and item No. 12.



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 138, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.
Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, we had no idea this was to be discussed this afternoon. May I have an opportunity to telephone someone who knows something about it? We were relying upon other legislation for the afternoon.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the first section of this bill provides a penalty for the giving of false information or the making of false representations. The second section of the bill provides for an extension of the legislation. The duration of this legislation is in a peculiar position today. The present act provides that it shall expire two months after the commencement of the first session of parliament in 1948. There is no session of parliament commencing in 1948; the current session started in 1947. I think it can be reasonably presumed that the next session will start in 1949. The amendment will make it quite certain that the act will expire on March 31, 1950. The next section provides for a report to parliament in the usual form. When the bill is in committee another amendment will be moved to permit permits being given to certain countries and refused to other countries. This is to enable Canada to take part in the work of ERP and to take parallel action with the United States in directing shipments to certain countries and withholding shipments from certain other countries.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: It would be interesting to know the kind of things that are being done. I take it that this bill deals with imports and exports to and from countries other than the United States; is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Could the minister give us in a general way the picture of what has been going on?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The act applies to a great variety of products. The purpose of the act is to hold in Canada a sufficient quantity of certain products for Canadian purposes. For instance, about 40 per cent of lumber is retained in Canada for Canadian purposes through the operation of the act. The act prevents the export of nails which are in short supply in Canada and also limits the export of products made of steel, basic steel being in limited supply. It applies to a great variety of commodities. As soon as any commodity is in ample supply, it is taken from the list of commodities subject to export control. Where a commodity is necessary to the Canadian economy and is in short supply, export control is applied.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Just what is the purpose of the act in connection with imports when there is a shortage of a particular commodity in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I suggest that with the Speaker in the chair this is hardly an appropriate time for questioning. If the bill could have second reading and go into committee my officials could be here and I would be able to answer questions which hon. gentlemen might care to ask at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Offences.
Mr. FRASER:: Why is this amendment being made? Were there cases where false applications were made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have had several cases where false information has been given and where permits have been issued on the basis of that false information. There was nothing in the bill that permitted us to do anything about the matter.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What do you do in these cases? Do you cancel their permits entirely?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Information came to hand after the material had been shipped, and as

Export and Import Permits Act
there was no penalty provision in the bill, we simply had to let the matter drop. There was nothing we could do about it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This is to take care of that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Mr. McMASTER:: To how many articles has the act been applied? According to section 4 of the act, a list was to be published in the Canada Gazette. That list may have been published, but I do not remember seeing it. Was such a list published?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
Mr. LOCKHART:: Is that an amendment?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is a new bill.
5849-176i


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I explain the purpose of the amendment? I understand what my hon. friend is going to say, and I agree with him. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that materials available in Canada for export are used in a manner that contributes to the maximum effort in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Europe as envisaged under the European recovery program.
One of the keystones of the Hyde Park agreement whereby goods move without restriction from the United States into.Canada, is the understanding that this special position accorded Canada will not be subject to abuse, and that the export controls of both countries are sufficiently co-ordinated as to allow for this free movement of goods between the two countries without the possibility of their flowing to a third country.
It is an arrangement which has proven extremely useful to Canada, and one that should be maintained.
The United States authorities on March 1 modified their regulations, in anticipation of the European recovery program, to require export licenses for all commodities being exported to Europe and contiguous areas.
One can readily understand that, with the enormous demands which will be placed on the productive capacity of the United States under the European recovery program, it is desirable that there be no diversion of United States products to Canada for back-door trading, and that we shall be found working as closely and harmoniously together in this peace offensive as under the duress of hostilities.
It is hoped therefore that the proposed amendment will enable us to implement our obligation on this score, and at the same time serve a double purpose of ensuring Canada's own products going forward to the best possible use in Europe.
It is apparent that the continuing world shortages, and the intensified demands that can be expected once funds are available to European countries will entail in Canada as in the United States, the need for directing supplies to those countries whose requirements are most urgent, and in such quantities as to ensure equitable distribution.
I think the committee will agree that in the early rehabilitation of Europe and the United Kingdom lies one bright hope for world peace. It is important, therefore, that every shipment we send to European shores contributes directly to this purpose. There is need, however, for machinery to implement this objective, and this amendment, I believe, meets this requirement.
It will be noted that the amendment provides flexibility to the governor in council in

Export and Import Permits Act
determining the countries to which export control is necessary. It may well be that in the case of certain countries suitable control of the situation will be provided by import controls in those countries, in which case export control by Canada would be a duplication, involving unnecessary paper work. The amendment, therefore, provides authority to the governor in council to determine the list of countries to which over-all export control will apply, and provides for additions to or deletions from such list to be made from time to time, as circumstances may warrant. In all probability the list of countries that will be prescribed will follow closely those which have been placed under control by the United States. Generally speaking, this includes practically all the countries of Europe.
I would ask my colleague to move this amendment.


Alphonse Fournier: I so move.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The bill we have before us is an amending bill and this amendment refers to the act itself.


Gordon Graydon: I am quite aware of that. That is not what is confusing me.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am amazed that we are asked to pass this bill in its present form. I do not see how we can possibly digest it. We started with an egg partly turned over, now we have a scrambled egg, and we are asked to unscramble it.
May I speak for a moment with regard to the general idea behind this legislation? Of course, during the war we had to have export and import controls. This country dared not allow itself to be short of certain raw materials, and it dared not prohibit certain materials from coming in. I realize that to a degree that must be the case in peace time. But when are we to be able to clear the channel of all these restrictions and controls so that we may return to the old-fashioned way of trading?
I know that ERP is on the boards now and it may be necessary to have a certain amount of control, but this honourable assembly ought -to know the extent of the control. If it is the old list, there are many items in that list, and the new list is not before us. I have not had the pleasure of perusing it and I should like to know what it contains.
The minister said in his previous statement that these controls were flexible and necessary for ERP. Yes, they carry the qualification- of flexibility and perhaps of necessity, but within the confines of the amendment as I read it, and of this act, which does not expire until 1950, there will be a good deal more than

flexibility in the administration of the measure. Arbitrary decisions will be made by the minister, and are provided for, and I believe that there will be as much in the way of arbitrary decisions as there will be of flexibility.
I hazard the guess that this legislation, and particularly the amendment, found its way here from Washington. During the war our officials or many of them sat at the feet of Washington, so to speak. They are still sitting there, and we are not displaying, to the extent that I should like to see, our autonomy as a self-governing nation. To a degree we have to help ERP and I am satisfied to go along to that extent. But let us in our generation refuse to be dictated to by another power which is to the south of us. Let us show our individuality and our entity in dealing with the great wealth of raw materials and other resources that are here for Canadians to develop and to handle. Let us have all these restrictions expire as early as possible.
I hesitate to go along even as far as 1950 under this bill; but I realize the magnitude of the amount involved, the seventeen and a half Marshall billions, and the six billions already arranged for Europe might take us along to that time.
The minister said that one of the main purposes of the measure was to conserve necessary raw materials in Canada. He mentioned lumber and there are a score of others that he might enumerate. To that extent., when this legislation does find its way onto the statute books, I hope that particular feature which is in his mind will be kept track of throughout and that raw materials necessary for increased production in Canada will be held here under this act for the benefit of Canadians, and that a minimum of export and import licences will be allowed.
I do not think the minister should ask us to pass this bill before six o'clock. If he has to send it to another place to have it rewritten, at least he should give us an idea by having these amendments printed, of what we are passing. He might also advise us whether in the other place arrangements have been made for the amendments which he at present proposes to add to the legislation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no desire to press the legislation today. When it is printed hon. members will find that the amendments are quite simple, although the wording we have received from justice looks complicated.
The first amendment gives authority to control exports by destination as well as by materials. At the present time we can control only materials and this gives the power to control both destination and materials.

Export and Import Permits Act
Hon. members will recall that the hon. member for Waterloo South a few weeks ago rose to complain that valuable machinery from his area had been purchased by Czechoslovakian interests and was being moved to that country. There was no reason for us to control the export of that machinery because there was no particular use for it in Canada, but we did wish to control the destination just as the hon. member wishes to do. Had this amendment been in effect, we could have done that. It so happened that there was a priority order on the machine from Canadian arsenals so that they could take it. It is becoming more and more evident, however, with the changing map of Europe, that we must have authority to control destinations as well as the goods themselves which are being exported.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: That is a new principle in the. act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, and it is all the more necessary in that we are joining with the United States in offering aid to certain countries, and it will be the purpose of the act to assist us in directing more of our materials to certain destinations where we have undertaken obligations, with the United States, to see that goods are supplied to those countries rather than to others.
The second amendment provides for two lists, one of goods and the other of countries, instead of the single list we have today of goods.
The third paragraph is the same as that printed in the bill, but renumbered. Hon. members will see that it is exactly the same as in the printed bill. The fourth paragraph of the amendment provides for two lists and there is no great change.
Unless hon. members see some objection, I suggest that we might allow the bill to be reported from the committee as amended, with the understanding that when it comes up for third reading at another sitting, if any hon. member wishes to have it recommitted to the committee the government will see that it is recommitted for further study. I know of no other way in which to have the bill printed in its amended form. If that appeals to hon. members as a course which might be followed, we can do that. If they would prefer to study the amendment in Hansard and give it second reading on another day, that also would be satisfactory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Naturally one cannot be expected to express an opinion too definitely on the subject matter of the amendments proposed by the minister without having time to study them. But I would say that, in general,
I think I am in favour of those amendments being made. I say that by way of preamble to the remarks I intend to make, because I do not want what I shall say to be interpreted as an attempt to block the legislation which the minister is bringing in.
The fact of the matter is that, even if it is something that I favour, I should like to see it done in a way that is right without question. Frankly I think we are violating some fundamental rules of parliamentary procedure il we permit these amendments to be made in this way. There is a clearly established principle that if one desires to bring in something that is substantially new, it must go through the usual process, including due notice, and not be introduced by way of an amendment to something else. I also find, according to May, at pages 404, 407 and 409, that when the house is in committee on a bill it is not in order to move to the clauses of the bill amendments that are irrelevant to those particular clauses. When the minister seeks to amend a clause that has to do with offences, by changing it or adding to it in such a way as to have it make provision for our participation in the Marshall plan, I think he must admit that it is quite an innovation in parliamentary procedure. In fact I wish the minister and the government generally would note the kind of precedent they are setting for us on this side of the house if they go through with this. If this procedure is allowed, it will mean that any time an amending bill is brought before the house, to amend some sections of an existing statute, it is in order to move amendments to those clauses in order to open up other sections of the existing statute.
At the moment I am not prepared to offer a suggestion as to just how to do this, except that it seems to me that the bill might be withdrawn and reintroduced altogether. In fact we might send the bill back to the other place, tell them to stick to their divorces, and have the bill reintroduced in this house. But I press the point, Mr. Chairman, that this is going beyond the bounds of anything that a private member would ever be allowed to do. I think that at least the matter should stand over for another day, that we should rise and report progress, and that this question as to the proper way of doing it should be further considered by the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: While the subject matter of export and import permits is immensely important, the changes made in this bill are, in my opinion, not of great importance. I think Canada would suffer more if this act were repealed immediately than it would if almost any other part of the emergency legislation

Export and Import Permits Act
were repealed-and from that I do not exempt rent control-because this is exceedingly important as a method of controlling supplies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member for Dan-forth has suggested that we should get rid of it. I agree. There is no more disagreeable task than that of administering this export and import control. Nevertheless-


Joseph Henry Harris: I said, as soon as possible, ERP being considered.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. Every country in the world today has export and import control.


Joseph Henry Harris: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to sit in my seat in this chamber and allow the minister to put words into my mouth. The Minister of Trade and Commerce just now said that I wanted to get rid of these controls. That is quite true. I think perhaps the whole house does. But we must face circumstances as they are today. My question of privilege is this. I want the minister to give the full sentence that I used, namely, that we want to get rid of them, but in view of ERP, and in view of the present world situation, let us extend them as long as is reasonable, but not too long. I would ask the minister to give the whole sentence. The minister said that the hon. member wanted to get rid of controls. I want him to give the whole sentence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said I was completely with the hon. member in favour of that. I want to get rid of them too. I certainly did not mean to misquote the hon. member, and I did not mean to suggest that if it were his decision, he would get rid of them. He said it was desirable over a period to get rid of them, and that is all I intended to say. I feel the same way about the matter.
Nevertheless, in the economy as we have it today, and in the world we are living in today, I think every hon. member will agree that we must have export controls. I am sorry to say that I think we must have them for a considerable time. Whether at the expiration of this measure in March, 1950, it will not be necessary to ask for a further extension, I cannot say; but I have the feeling that we shall be back asking for a further extension. I make full apology for the condition of the legislation that I am bringing in today. The difficulty is that the bill was introduced in the senate. At that time the necessity for a further amendment was not evident. As my hon. friend has suggested, the bill can be withdrawn and we can start all over again. But I think the easy way to deal with the situation would [Mr. Howe.J
be to allow me to have this amendment printed, report the bill and, when it comes up for third reading, I shall be glad to recommit it to the committee for any changes that hon. members may wish to have made at that time. That is the easy way to do it. Of course, if there is any objection to it, we shall not do it in that way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In reply to the minister's statement that this is the easy way to do it, may I ask him this question? If we consent to this, will he support us in our attempt to follow the same easy way in amending other amending bills that are brought in?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the hon. member's amendments are as innocuous as mine are, we shall.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even innocuous amendments should be made in the right way.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This, I believe, is creating
a precedent.


William Ross Macdonald: I should like to make a suggestion. In May's, fourteenth edition, at page 509, there is a paragraph headed "Admissible Instructions", which reads as follows:
(1) Extension of objections-An instruction is necessary to authorize the introduction of amendments into a bill, which extend its provisions to objects not strictly covered by the subject matter of the bill as disclosed on the second reading, provided that these objects are cognate to its general purposes.
Would it meet the wishes of the committee if the committee rose and reported progress today and asked leave to sit again; then when the order is called at the next sitting of the house, that the minister move that instructions be given to the committee to amend the bill in accordance with the amendments which he has submitted today? That might be more in keeping with parliamentary procedure, I believe.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That certainly is better than the procedure we are now following. You raised this point so quickly, Mr. Chairman, that I have not had time to look it up. But I think there is an item in Beauchesne which says that such instructions to the committee must be moved the first time the bill is referred to the committee, but that after it has once been referred, it cannot be done. Perhaps we might pardon the minister this time and give unanimous consent to the procedure.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am only suggesting that unanimous consent be given to-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not wish to press the point. I believe this is desirable legislation, but I do not think we should waste too much time

Export Credits Insurance Act
on this matter. We can go back to the senate and ask them to withdraw the bill and start all over again, if necessary. That will delay the bill a month or two, but that can be done if hon. members insist. But in order to get on with the business of the country I suggest that we allow this bill to be amended, and then consider it as it will read when amended.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I proceed with what I was saying when I was interrupted. I think your suggestion should be carried out, Mr. Chairman, with the understanding that it will require unanimous consent for the minister to move his instruction to the committee, when we are back in the house with the Speaker in the chair. The minister can then move an instruction that the committee has the power to make this amendment. The only time unanimous consent will be required will be to give him the right to move that motion; then it becomes a debatable motion and hon. members can discuss it if they wish. I agree that it is desirable legislation, but I think it should be put through in the right and proper parliamentary way.


William Ross Macdonald: If I may reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I believe, if it is found fitting when the house is in committee to change the bill and make it much broader than the bill which was considered on second reading, the procedure is for the committee to rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again. Then when the order is next called in the house the minister, on notice, can move that the committee be given an instruction to bring in the amendment.


Mr. POULIOT:: I wish to say just a word. In the first place I want to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the way he is dealing with trade, and on the splendid Canadian exhibit that will be shown at the British industries fair. I need not say more about that just now, because I shall have other occasions to speak about it; but I should like to say one thing to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I can tell him that I admire his industry; and it was precisely because I appreciate the fact that he has read May, Bourinot and the other writers on parliamentary procedure and practice that I voted for one of his amendments the other day. But he should have no illusion about it. If he becomes too punctilious then he will become a Philadelphia lawyer, and I shall be unable to support him any longer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Heaven forbid.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: While I know nothing about the rules of procedure, it seems to me that the suggestion which has been made is wise. But I wish to add that while I recognize, unwillingly, that probably this has to become law, and that probably the amendments suggested are sound, nevertheless I think we should just not be asked to pass this measure in any formal or perfunctory way. It seems to me that the fact we are asked to give these powers should put us on the alert to cut down those powers as far as may be reasonably possible. Therefore I am glad this matter is to be deferred until we have a look at what we are doing, because at the present time we have not had that look.
Progress reported.



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act, to empower the corporation, with the approval of the governor in council, to enter into insurance contracts for a term or in an amount in excess of that which the corporation would normally undertake; moneys required to discharge liabilities of such contracts to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.
He said: The purpose of this amendment is to increase the effectiveness of the export credits insurance corporation by providing the means whereby insurance contracts up to an additional $100 million can be underwritten by the corporation under special conditions.
The act under which the corporation operates is one of the measures introduced by the government to strengthen Canada's post-war trade and to improve our economic position on a long-term basis. At the end of the war the outlook for the private business man interested in export trade was not encouraging. The need of devastated Europe for the goods Canada could supply was indeed great, but there were factors other than demand that had to be considered. Pre-war trading connections had been broken. In the search for new markets, Canadian exporters found that the field was limited. No longer could they spread their trade all over the world so that the risk of complete or total failure was but a remote possibility. The widespread destruction in so many European countries, the liquidation of foreign investments during the war, the increasing exchange difficulties and general shortage of dollars, the new political and administrative uncertainties and limitations facing
Export Credits Insurance Act

[Stage Direction]
private trade-all these were factors that had radically changed the trading picture of prewar days. Elements of risk above and beyond those the exporter might normally be expected to incur were introduced. If Canada's export trade were to be placed on a firm basis, within the framework of free enterprise at the Canadian end, some new measures were necessary to face the facts of life and adapt our trading system to the changing international scene. One of these measures was government-sponsored insurance.
Before introducing the Export Credits Insurance Act in 1944, a careful study was made of similar schemes which had' operated successfully in Europe before the war. Of particular interest was the experience in Great Britain where such a system started about 1920 and continued in force throughout the war. Incidentally, the British scheme has today a surplus in excess of £2 million. Under the act, which first began to function in Canada in 1945, the exporter is insured against the hazards that are not covered by commercial policies. By the removal of this particular unpredictable portion of risk involved, he has been encouraged to expand his foreign trade.
Through the operations of the act over the past twm and a half years, an increasing amount of export trade has been insured, and a portion of this is trade which undoubtedly would not have materialized had it not been insured. At December 31, 1947, the current policies of the corporation covered an estimated export volume of $44-5 million, or double the amount covered on the same day a year before.
Through the corporation the government is supplying a service that cannot be provided by private insurance firms. The Export Credits Insurance Act protects against those unexpected and unpreventable losses that occur in spite of every precaution of the policyholder. Some of the risks covered by the act include insolvency of the foreign buyer, cancellation of an import licence in the country of destination, or the risk of adverse changes in foregin exchange regulations. While the corporation will insure against delays in collection that are not the fault of the exporter, it does not cover trade disputes as to quality or quantity of goods received. Nor does it cover straight repudiation on the part of the buyer. On the other hand the exporter is insured against blockage of funds or transfer difficulties which prevent him from receiving payment for his goods in the currency agreed upon at the time of the sale. Such calamities as war or revolution in the country of the buyer are also covered. All these risks tend to have a
[Mr. Howe.J
political tinge and result from the fact that so much of our export trade, other than that with the United States, is concentrated in countries that have not yet recovered from the blows of war. Most of our overseas markets have still uncertain economic and exchange equilibrium which represents additional risks of a non-commercial nature to the Canadian exporter.
The Export Credits Insurance Act is administered in such a way as not to interfere with the normal business activities of the exporter. He is given freedom to extend credit within certain maximum limits without reference to the corporation. And it is up to the exporter to maintain a constant scrutiny of the credit-w'orthiness of his foreign buyer.
The act in no way subsidizes the exporter, for he still has to compete on the basis of quality, price, credit terms, service rendered, et cetera. But by insuring one of his most important liquid assets, the exporter finds it easier to obtain financial assistance from his bankers. The policy he holds gives him the benefit of the advice and assistance of the corporation in recovering as much of his loss as possible in the event of default. And finally, by being given coverage against the principal forms of loss arising out of overseas trade at the present time, he is able to expand his exporting business and so help in building up Canada's future foreign trade.
The corporation does not compete with commercial enterprises in the insurance field. It is nevertheless administered on a sound and businesslike basis. In all its policies, it adheres to the principle of co-insurance and will pay up to a maximum of 85 per cent of the contract price, leaving 15 per cent to be borne by the policyholder.
This maximum applies to all policies covering capital goods. Under general commodities policies, the same maximum of 85 per cent is set for any loss sustained in connection with individual shipments, but the maximum liability is limited in each policy to 50 per cent of the exporter's annual sales.
Also in keeping with another basic principle of insurance-that there should be a broad spread of risk-the corporation endeavours to cover as wide a range of countries, commodities, exporters, and contracts as possible. In this way the premium rate can be kept down. In 1947, out of 170 policies, 150 were for general commodities sold on short-term credits, and twenty were capital goods policies of short to medium term. More than seventy different countries received a variety of agricultural products, raw materials, and manufactured goods from Canadian exporters, insured by the corporation.

Export Credits Insurance Act
The corporation is operated on a selfsupporting basis. It is not a profit-making institution, nor does it attempt to subsidize export trade. In the setting of premium rates, the tariff charged is sufficiently high to cover ' operating expenses and probable losses. Because of the favourable credit conditions of the last couple of years, the losses of the corporation have been negligible and an underwriting reserve of some $584,000 has been accumulated from the excess of income over expenditure.
I have dwelt at some length on the Export Credits Insurance Act, as well as the woTk of the corporation, for the bill I am speaking to will extend its scope to meet a situation that has been developing for some time. Under the present act, the corporation can take on liabilities up to a maximum of ten times its $10 million of paid-up capital and surplus. That is, the maximum liability at the present time cannot exceed $100 million. The proposed amendment will permit the corporation to issue contracts involving liabilities up to another $100 million, in addition to the maximum liability now in force. Contracts issued under this new section of the act will be those that are considered to be in the national interest, but that, because of their size, would not normally be covered by the corporation. Any losses from these contracts-which will have to be approved and authorized by the governor in council-will be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.
The reason for introducing this amendment to the act lies in the number of requests the corporation has been receiving for individual contracts ranging from $5 million to $35 million. In view of the corporation's policy of spreading its risks as widely as possible, it was felt that covering such contracts would take up and centralize an undue proportion of the corporation's maximum liability of $100 million.
To give one example, the projected sale of aircraft to the United Kingdom by Canadair involves $35 million. Underwriting this contract alone would tie up one-third of the corporation's maximum insuring capacity. On the other hand it is obviously an excessive risk in one contract to be undertaken by one private company.
A number of these contracts are related to national policies and are dependent on the maintenance of an international equilibrium over which neither the seller nor the buyer may have any influence. The practical question of payment often depends more on the over-all balance of payments situation, which is sometimes affected by political considerations, than on the normal practices of commercial trade.
In the period following the war, the export credits which have been granted by Canada to European nations removed many of the difficulties I have just mentioned. With the assurance that the money to pay for the sale was right here in Canada, the exporter was not in the same need of insurance against the risks covered by an export credits insurance policy. But faced with the present balance of payments situation, Canada is no longer in a position to extend credits to other nations on the same scale as before. It is hoped, therefore, that this amendment will be able to replace some of the protection that was inherent in our export credits policy.
Because these contracts are for the most part much larger than those normally undertaken, the exporter finds that, in relation to his capital, he is unable to take on the contract without insurance protection. Then, too, the fact that payment may be spread over periods of months or even years makes it difficult for him to obtain the additional financing required, without the support of an export credits insurance policy. In many cases these sales are essential to Canada's well-being or will add materially to the development of her foreign trade.
The government has always encouraged the individual exporter and believes he should be free to carry on his business under his own initiative. But at the same time it must be recognized that state trading is operating in many countries of the world today, and it tends to place the Canadian exporter at a serious disadvantage if he is forced to operate without some government support. The amendment to the Export Credits Insurance Act will give our exporters competitive equality with exporters from foreign countries who already benefit from this kind of insurance, With the Marshall plan now in operation, conditions throughout the world are likely to cause an increase in large-scale government contracts, or those of a semi-political nature, that might be covered by this new section of the act. Where the risk involves political factors that increase the element of uncertainty in foreign trading and where a contract will prove beneficial to the nation as a whole, it is felt that the people of Canada, through its government, should bear some share of that risk, and by so doing place our exporters in a more favourable position with their competitors in the world market.
Before closing, I wish to point out that the policies issued under this amendment will be open to inspection by parliament. In its normal operations, the corporation, in setting premium rates, bases the premium for any contract on the class or type of goods sold,
2776
Export Credits Insurance Act
[Stage Direction]
the countries to which they are shipped, and the credit terms involved. To some extent it also takes into account the volume of the exporter's annual sales, the spread of risk on the part of the corporation, the previous loss experience of the exporter, and such relevant factors. Nor does the corporation neglect the fact that each exporter has his own markets, his own credit terms, problems and difficulties 

all of which must be considered. It has therefore been the practice of the corporation to consider rates of premium as strictly confidential between policyholder and the corporation. This rule of secrecy will continue in force for all contracts of insurance that have been or will be issued under the present sections of the act. But policies issued under the amendment now before the house, that is, those issued under section 21A of the act, will be treated differently. Because such policies will usually cover contracts with foreign governments or semi-public agencies, and because of the political factors involved, it has been decided that all such contracts should be open to scrutiny by members of parliament. Full information on these policies will therefore be tabled in the house.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, the minister has given us a most interesting report on the operations of this act and I think he has made out a prima facie case for its usefulness. I do not think that on the resolution stage one needs to spend a great deal of time in asking questions, and anyway the minister has given us considerable information. However there are some things which will require further explanation when we are dealing with the bill itself.
For instance, it is not immediately clear to me why private insurers could not write policies in connection with goods going to the United States. I note that the minister referred to that and it is not necessary now to ask for detailed information. Another thing I should like to know more about is this. The minister stated early in his remarks that government policies were written in cases where it was impossible for private insurers to act. I think those were substantially his words. The word "impossible" is a rather strong word and sometimes there are degrees of possibility or impossibility. Is this a case of whole hog or none? Could there be exports to certain countries where perhaps some policies could be written by private insurers, while others, because of their size or for some other reason, could not be taken up by private insurers but would have to be taken up by the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wonder if we could go into committee when it would be easier to answer questions?


William Alexander McMaster: I should like to say a few rvords and I wonder if we could call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


William Alexander McMaster: Mr. Speaker, I rise to register my opposition to this particular resolution, and in doing so I may say that I speak only for myself. I do not know what position other hon. members of the house intend to take. For reasons which I shall elaborate I have had the particular act to which this resolution refers under consideration for some time. It is one of the acts which I heartily disapprove. It is one of several acts that were passed about the same time during the war. These acts in their very nature were emergency legislation, as will appear from the preamble to the original act which was passed in the fall of 1944 and which reads as follows:
Whereas it is desirable to promote the revival of trade by establishing a corporation to insure against loss caused by insolvency, delay in collection and transfer difficulties in connection with the export of Canadian-produced goods, and during the period of transition from war to peace by providing for loans or guarantees to governments of other countries or their agencies.
Surely three years after the war we can hardly say that we are in the period of transition from war to peace. In fact, as long ago as June, 1946, the government realized that the preamble was no longer applicable and repealed it, so that in the extensive amendments which were made in 1946 that preamble no longer appears because I presume the government considered it no longer applicable.
I cannot quite understand why this government should want to receive power to enter into any contracts that they have not the power to enter into at the present time because, as I read the act as it was enacted in 1946, they have power to enter into contracts to the extent of $200 million as to guarantees given to other countries, and to the extent of $750 million for the purchase of securities. Incidentally, the capital of the corporation is $10,000,000. These amounts seem to me to be considerable sums of money for one more or less innocuous corporation about which we have heard very little during the past few years. Perhaps one reason we have heard very

Export Credits Insurance Act
little about it is that very little publicity was given to the type of work that the corporation is doing.
As I understand it, the act is divided into two parts: loans to other governments and their agencies; and policies of insurance sold to exporters. In a return brought down to a question asked by me in February of this year, return No. 116A, it was stated that at the present time the bank had guaranteed $12,750,000 to three chartered banks in respect of credit given to the Ming Sing Industrial Company of China to purchase ships from Canada. So far as I know, that is the only guarantee given to another government agency, although the terms of the resolution may indicate that some larger guarantees are intended to be given.
I should like to say a word about the policies of insurance issued. Perhaps I should say this first, since the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in his opening statement referred to it. Apparently all the loans made to other countries under the amendment of 1946, which allowed the Dominion of Canada to extend credits to the extent of $750 million to countries other than the United Kingdom, were advanced under this act; therefore at the present time no responsibility rests upon the export credits corporation, because this money is a loan given to each country. Therefore there is no responsibility to be undertaken by the corporation; it has only to see that the money is properly handed over to a country and that the money is expended in Canada. It may be that up to the present time it had no great responsibility in that regard. One of the things I object to very much is the policies of insurance which the corporation is selling. Before the dinner recess the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) asked why private people could not issue these policies. The answer may be in the amendment that was made in 1946, but it does not seem to me a very compelling reason for the government to enter into a business which can be carried on privately in an economy that is supposed to be competitive. One of the amendments of the 1946 act says that the corporation may:
(a) for the purpose of facilitating and developing trade between Canada and any other country, enter into a contract of insurance with an exporter to insure hiim against any risk of loss in connection with the export or an agreement for the export of goods by reason of the failure of the exporter, for any cause not avoidable by the exporter, to recover the selling price of the goods.
That is a very practical guarantee. Certain exporters who buy one of these policies of 5849-1771
insurance will be guaranteed against loss which is not caused entirely by the negligence of the exporter. I presume he has to give some evidence of good faith and allow proper time to recover the money. Once before I asked a question about the reasons for these guarantees of insurance, and I know now why I have not received the answer. Therefore I have devised another way of trying to get some idea of the cost of these government agencies. In the return which I mentioned a while ago of February of this year, I received the following information: issued policies as of December 31. 1947, $23,964,827. I then asked a question as to the size of the policies, and the answer is as follows: one of $3,281,000; one of $2,550,000; one of $1,649,000; two of $1,000,000 each; one of $700,000; one of $580,000; one of $575,000, one of $550,000, and one of $500,000. Who are the fortunate people who received these policies of insurance because, as the minister stated in his opening remarks, goods were shipped all over the world? This is substantiated by the return of the corporation for the year 1947 which, incidentally, happened to come to us through the mail today. If the minister held off his resolution until this was available I want to thank him for doing so because we are in a little better position with that information. On an analysis of the countries of actual risks undertaken during the year 1947, I find a whole page. I think there are about sixty countries to which insurance guarantees have been given. The exports to foreign countries range from $1,000,000 to $3,300,000. Several had over $1,000,000. In the case of the United Kingdom the sum is $6,391,000. Therefore at different times there were guarantees to the extent of $28,000,000 given. Some have been repaid. In other words, guarantees are extended with respect to goods shipped to every part of the world. I cannot see why the government should be expected to give these guarantees and I believe that a considerable loss will be sustained in consequence.
The annual report for 1947 is somewhat better than that of the first nine months of 1946. It shows that the corporation had in their hands $10,000,000 advanced by the Dominion of Canada and on the amount they invested they received $196,000. They received $277,000 by way of premium on risks undertaken and their expenses were in the neighbourhood of $60,000, leaving a balance on hand of approximately $413,000, of which approximately $200,000 came from investments.
Now, $413,000 is just about four per cent on the money invested. If Canada is paying three per cent for money, and if, after this extensive trading in a year, there were no
Export Credits Insurance Act

actual losses last year, at least none being visible at the time of this return, the result is a surplus of 8122,000 to cover guarantees totalling at that time $23,000,000.
I do hot think that is good business. In my opinion the charge is far less than it should be. At one time I calculated it to be about one-fifth of one per cent, which is practically negligible so far as the exporters are concerned. Anyone can appreciate that even if there is not a loss at all it becomes a small charge to the exporter. I-fear, therefore, the people of Canada will suffer a great loss.
I realize that the directors are all government employees. The act- made provision for certain others to be appointed; but, apart from the general manager, the directors are all employees in the higher brackets either of the government or of the Bank of Canada. There is also an advisory council. I have nothing to say against the advisory council, which is composed of men of substance in the community, but I doubt whether these men have the time to look into many of these different transactions which this government is bound to investigate during the course of the year. I suggest that they can deal intelligently only with certain ones about which they have some knowledge, and the ones they know of would be corporations that would not require the assistance of the government, because they could make use of the insurance companies now available throughout Canada.
I object strenuously to this as I do to three or four other corporations of the kind, for the reason that we do not know what they are doing. We do not know who is borrowing money. The minister intimated, I gathered, that a list of the loans will be available to members of parliament. That will be in the future, because I do not believe that any member has seen it in the past. But I submit that making the list accessible under conditions of secrecy will not serve any useful purpose, because in that case, one may say too much, and then it will no longer be secret, or, if strict secrecy is observed, the information obtained will be of no value to the person who gets it. The information should be available to everyone.
It may be that these exporters do not want their business known. If they do not, they should not apply for the guarantee. They must take the consequence of asking for something which no one else will give them at a reasonable premium.
In regard to this particular corporation, I take the same position that I take with respect to any other department of government. I suggest that a minister of the crown or a

deputy minister should always stand on guard in his relations to friends or to other people who may have a persuasive manner, and1 if he has the knowledge that the people of Canada will learn of the transaction it will make it easier to say " no." I do not think any man seeking a favour would dare to ask for it if he knew he did not deserve it, and that the public would learn of the transaction.
I do not say that, in the matter of publicity, the facts need be widely publicized:, but the information should1 be available to everyone; otherwise it is not democratic. If it is a case where only seven, eight, nine or ten people know the facts in Canada, you have no democracy. In a dictatorship only one man knows, but the difference is merely that in one case ten men are dictators and in the other only one man is. I do not think that is in keeping with democratic government, and I do not believe the exporters of Canada, with their reputation for shrewdness and for sound1 trading, need be coddled by the government. They should stand on their own feet; otherwise the weaker ones will be in the same position as the strong ones. We do not want ambassadors all over the world. We want live trade commissioners who will look after the trade of Canada. For these reasons I am opposed to the resolution carrying.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: In the report of the corporation I do not see anything by way of reserve on account of outstanding policies in the assets and liabilities. I should like to ask the minister why the premiums were not disclosed before and why they are to be disclosed now. I should also like to know what losses have been sustained so far. What reserve is set up for outstanding policies?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will read the statement distributed for the year ended December 31, 1947, he will find that at the end of that year the reserve had been built up to $584,336.07. The capital of $10,000,000 which was credited to the corporation on its formation is still intact.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: On what basis are the reserves arrived at? The outstanding liabilities must be very large. I believe the outstanding liabilities under policies outstanding are $27,000,000 and it does not seem to me that $584,000 is sufficient.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Reserves can be built up only from earnings. We have the $10,000,000 capital.

Export Credits Insurance Act


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Reserves are a different thing from surplus. I am talking about reserves.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The surplus that my hon. friend talks about is built up from earnings just as the reserves are built up from earnings.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Excuse me; you have two different things. One is reserves and the other is premiums.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All the premiums received to date are in the underwriting reserve.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What reserves have you on account of losses which will take place, out of this 827,000,000? All you have is something like $485,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You have $584,336.07 along with the original capital of $10,000,000 invested in the company.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Can the minister give us some idea about how these reserves are arrived at?


Clarence Decatur Howe: These reserves are the total earnings of the company, the total receipts from premiums less the cost of operating the company.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not think that is correct. The minister has the two things mixed up. First of all, you have a surplus which is a different thing altogether. What you have, as a matter of fact, and what you must have are reserves on account of unearned premiums. What are those reserves on account of unearned premiums? What is the basis of arriving at those reserves?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Call them what you will, everything that has been paid into the company is in the form of reserves as shown in the statement. That is all the money there is, and there is not any more. This company was given $10,000,000 when it started and it has collected $584,000 more than it has paid out in operating expenses. That is all the money there is. How can my hon. friend find reserves beyond that point?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not think the minister gets the idea yet. You have outstanding liabilities of something like $27,000,000. That is what you have. What reserve have you against these outstanding liabilities? What reserves do you put up? How do you arrive at the reserves which must be put up there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I arrive at the reserves by adding the capital and the earnings, and that is all the money there is.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I am trying to get at it from a different point of view. Your capital and what you have earned and so on constitute your surplus. But out of this $27,000,000 you will have some losses. What do you expect to have by way of losses and what reserve do you set up under this for those losses? That is what I want to get at, and I do not see it in the statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will read from the annual report:
The financial statements of the corporation show that an underwriting .reserve of $584,336.07 has been accumulated. Since the business of the corporation is to protect exporters against credit and political risks involved in foreign trade, it must be expected that there will be an appreciable loss experience over a period of years. The three years of the corporation's existence cannot be regarded as typical in this respect mainly because of the favourable credit conditions during this period. Accordingly, while no specific provision has been made for anticipated losses, the total excess of income over expenditure since the commencement of the corpora; tion's operations has been credited to the underwriting reserve.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I still do not think the minister gets the point. I understand what he has. For instance, you have here the excess of income over expenditures for the year ended December 31,	1947, which is
$422,000. That is what your excess of income over expenditure is. 1 understand that all right. But what anticipated losses have you? This statement does not tell me that. What anticipated losses will there be? What do you put in your statement here by way of a reserve for that? For instance, with regard to ordinary year by year fire insurance, the department of insurance in Canada requires that 40 per cent must be put up on your unearned premiums by wray of reserve against anticipated losses. Where does that come-into this statement? That is what I am trying to get at. What do you expect to have-by way of losses out of this $27,000,000? That, is the only way we can tell about this.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The inspector of insurance is satisfied with 40 per cent of the premiums as a loss reserve. We are taking 100 per cent.of the premiums. Surely we are being more conservative than the company my hon. friend is telling us about. All we can do is put all the money we earn into an insurance reserve.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Yes, I agree with you. You put it in the reserve. But w'hat do you anticipate your losses will be?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have had no losses to date. We have had a limited experience, but we have had no losses.
Export Credits Insurance Act


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is what I want to get at. How do you know your premiums are adequate for the risk you take? Or do you figure that the government of Canada will pay those losses anyway? Do you figure that we shall pay them anyway whether we get the premiums or not?


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, Mr. Chairman-


Douglas Gooderham Ross: No. I want an answer to my question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
Douglas Gooderham Ross: I just want to ask one other question which I asked before. Why should the rates of premiums on policies of this kind be cheaper, and why are you not to have them open for inspection now? What is the difference?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They differ between the different countries. They have some relation to the political risk involved. Naturally, we do not want all countries to compare their position in this insurance fund with that of others. There are obvious reasons why we do not publish rates. We like to look at the risk, decide whether we want it or not and, if we want it, the rate of insurance that we shall charge, just as any insurance company would do.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Are these policies which are being issued at the present time annual policies or for a period of time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We issue both types; we issue annual policies to cover general commodities and also capital goods policies to cover a particular risk. For example, if we are selling a ship paid for by progress payments, the policy will extend over the life of the liability.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not propose to delay the committee to any

extent now, but I should like to raise one or two points which I think should be gone into with considerable care when we come to the committee stage of the bill. When the Speaker was in the chair this afternoon the minister said, as I understood him, that the reason the public corporation was dealing with these risks was that private business could not take them on. Am I correct in that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have seen the report since this afternoon, and I have been studying it. Unless the ordinr ary insurers have changed their whole way of doing business, or want to go out of business altogether, it is hard for me to understand why they cannot take risks in Australia, let us say, or the United Kingdom, or the Netherlands, and I could mention some other countries. The minister has spoken about political risks. If people were shipping goods to Czechoslovakia or Hungary or Poland I can understand that there might be great political risks; but when we reach the committee stage on the bill I think perhaps the minister might give us some indication of what he bases his opinion on that this must be done by a government agency, and why no private corporation will undertake it. I propose to try to find out something more about that myself. In passing, I notice that we have guaranteed over a million dollars going to the United States of America. If I am correct in thinking that political risks enter into this and, while not the whole, form a large part of the reason for government intervention, surely the United States should not be included.
I do not want to take more time on this now. If the minister thinks it would be better to deal with these matters when we are in the committee stage on the bill, I am content; but it seems to me that we would require some evidence, let us say, far beyond anything I have read, that in the case of many of these countries private business has thrown up its hands, so we have to do this through a public agency.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a fact that there are no companies insuring export credits to any country except the United States. That is the fact, but I cannot say why. We wish they were, because wre do not particularly like this business; but there are risks today in shipping to almost any country, outside the United States, which risks a private firm cannot assess. There is the risk of devaluation of the currency; the risk of blockage of funds, and various risks of that kind which are peculiar to this period, which the government can assess

Dominion Elections Act
and probably work out, but on which no private firm could possibly take a chance.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Of course, wherever those conditions exist I can see the reason for it; but does the minister apply those words- "risk of a sudden blockage of funds," for instance-to the United Kingdom?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In spite of the over-all financial arrangements we have, does the minister mean that a private firm could not satisfy itself, in making a deal in the United Kingdom, that it might not suddenly find the funds blocked?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The fact is that, out of $28,000,000 of outstanding policies, over $6,000,000 are in the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact we have been approached for very large policies with respect to the United Kingdom, policies we could not take on because they would throw our whole insurance plan out of balance. But it is also a fact that many exporters, even though they are exporting through channels they may know all about, believe it is worth the price of a policy just to get the Canadian government behind their risk.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not going to pursue the matter further now, but frankly I am still puzzled. When the matter comes up again I may know more about it.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. HOWE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 197, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, to make provision inter alia for an increase of salary to the chief electoral officer.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Jean-François Pouliot: Some years ago I suggested the salary of the chief electoral officer should be increased, and at the time the circumstances were particularly interesting. There were two men. One was doing nothing and was receiving $10,000 a year. The other, the present chief electoral officer, was receiving only $4,000 and was doing all the work. This seemed strange and I suggested that the $10,000 should be given the man who was working hard and that the other gentleman should be given no more than $4,000. There was a compromise, and the chief electoral officer was paid $8,000.
He is doing splendid work, and I hope that some day a journalist will ask him for an interview and learn how he succeeded in having the ballots returned on time from all parts of the country after the last election.
It was quite an accomplishment, and he deserves special recognition for that. I know he is helped by his son, who has a very fine war record; and I also hope that the services -rendered by his son will be recognized in due course.
I am an old timer, Mr. Chairman; I remember elections when the electoral officials were .much better paid than they are now, at a time when money had more value than it has today. We are now at the resolution stage of this matter, and I hope that the minister will be good enough to look into the past and see what wras formerly paid in both urban and rural centres for the polling booths and to the returning officers, the deputy returning officers, the clerks and all the others who have to do with an election. I remember that in my first election a constable was at the door of every polling booth. That is a good thing; it inspires respect for justice on the part of everyone, even those who are not telegraphers. There are no such people in my constituency, but I speak now of the large, urban centres. In those days the rental paid for the polling booth was much higher than is now the case; and I suggest to the director of elections that all those in this country engaged in electoral work should be at least, as well rewarded now as they were twenty or twenty-five years ago. There is no reason why they should not be. And if the salary of the chief electoral officer is to be adjusted now-and I am for it-the salaries of all those engaged in elections work by the government should go up to the level they were twenty or twenty-five years ago. You know, sir, that the whole thing has been decreased gradually and that no one has noticed it. There are many new members who appear for the first time. They do not pay much attention to the amount paid to
Dominion Elections Act

these men. It is most important to reward them well, because they are doing their duty. If we want to have good men we have to pay them a reasonable amount for the time they spend on public business to help the country in the proper carrying out of elections. The minister must know that. He is not a newcomer but has been in the house for some time.
I was here before the minister came, and I remember the happy time when the adjustment of those salaries was more just than it is now. I shall not insist further, but I will ask for a complete tabulation of the amounts paid to all the electoral officers and for the renting of the polls at the present time and twenty or twenty-five years ago. I shall not ask for all the changes in the statute; that might take too much space in Hansard. I hope that the minister will accept my most reasonable request, which is made on behalf of thousands of people across the country.


Angus MacInnis: I am not going to debate the question at all, but I just wish to ask the minister why this matter is again referred to the committee when the committee appointed last year made an exhaustive study of the elections act and presented its report to parliament. I should hope that if there is nothing new the committee would not have to go over the same ground again.
The matter mentioned in the resolution, namely the increase in the salary of the chief electoral officer, was dealt with in the committee's report of last year. Before taking my seat, may I associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Temiscouata with respect to the chief electoral officer. He is, I think, one of Canada's most respected servants, and certainly I did not have any objection last year to increasing the salary, nor will I have any this year. But I should like to know just why this matter is again referred to a committee in view of the exhaustive study given the matter last year.


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: As the hon. member has stated, this bill was referred to a committee at the last session of parliament. That committee reported, but the bill was not reached before the session ended. In the interval between sessions the chief electoral officer has come across some minor amendments he feels should be made, and he has several further suggestions to offer. It was considered advisable to have a committee consisting of the same personnel as at the last session study these suggestions before the bill receives second reading. I have on the order paper a notice for the setting up of that committee. Hon. members will see that, with two

exceptions, namely the hon. members who formerly sat for Yale and Ontario, and both of whom unfortunately are no longer with us, the personnel is the same. If later I have unanimous consent I would suggest that we set up that committee tonight, so that when the bill receives second reading there will be a committee to which it can be referred.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the minister be good enough to say if he will table the tabulations for which I have asked, comparing the amounts paid now and twenty-five years ago to those engaged in election work.


Colin William George Gibson: I shall do my best to get those figures. I believe they should be readily obtainable, and I am sure the chief electoral officer will be glad to provide them, if he has them available.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister; he will find them in the statutes and in the regulations.
Let me say something further about the work of the committee. There was no unity in the work of the committee last year, and there was much repetition. I am reminded of what happened after Mr. Bennett was defeated. The committee sat for two sessions and the members worked hard. I give them credit for it. Someone had complained that the Conservative legislation was bad. It is true that it was bad. All members were anxious to improve it, and they worked hard night and day. There were evening sittings. At that time some of the discussions brought forth a considerable degree of acrimony and animosity. Hon. members on both sides were so convinced as to the justice of their arguments that there were almost fights in the committee room-a committee to which I did not belong.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Last year?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, in 1936 and 1937.


An hon. MEMBER:: And 1938.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let us say anything to please the hon. member. After two sessions of painstaking and strenuous work, the members presented a very fine report, which was the previous election law that was in force before Mr. Bennett took office. That work could have been done by a minor clerk. When I think that members had to waste their time for two sessions discussing, fighting and repeating the same story, working day and night for nothing, I am still sorry for them. I hope that the next time the matter comes before a committee other than the committee of the whole we shall not have a repetition of that condition.
I am surprised that the members who sat on the committee last year did not ask for

Dominion Elections Act
a comparison between the amounts paid a long time ago and those paid at the last election. It was most unfair; it was unjust. If there is an increase in the salary of the chief electoral officer, then it must go to all others; and I am most insistent upon that. When hon. members return to their constituencies they will know that what I say tonight is accurate and according to the facts. If they support that contention they will be rewarded by popular applause when they return home.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask one question relating to a matter which might be dealt with by way of study on the part of the chief electoral officer, might be studied by the committee the minister proposes to set up, or might be studied by the government itself. I refer to the question of arranging for having redistribution carried out by some body other than the House of Commons. When I raised this matter last year one of the chief objections put forward by the hon. member for Quebec South was that the issue was too much alive at that time to permit the time being taken up which would be necessary in order to work out proper legislation. The hon. member for Quebec South told the house that at a previous time, I believe when he was Postmaster General, he had had charge of preparing a bill to permit redistribution to be done by an independent commission.
When this question of an independent commission is raised when redistribution is actually being effected I realize that the argument can be brought forth that there is not time to do it. In other words, the time to reconsider the whole position is in the lull between redistributions. As the Secretary of State knows, we in Canada are backward in this respect. Most democratic countries, such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa, do it the other way. It is not the issue now that it was last year when we had a redistribution bill before the house, but it is a matter related to the elections act and I believe it would come under the supervision of the Secretary of State. I want to express the hope that some consideration will be given to the matter by the government, by the chief electoral officer or perhaps, if the Secretary of State so arranges, by the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is the reverse of the medal. I am strongly opposed to the proposition put forth by the former minister for air. It is a case of pure irresponsibility. Why should members of parliament entrust redistribution to a royal commission or to a judge? What judge would know about it except one
who had been a politician? Why not have the politicians do it themselves?


Angus MacInnis: Most judges are defeated politicians.


Jean-François Pouliot: They have learned their geography by running in constituencies where they got votes. I do not want to deprecate the bench, but that is the situation. Last year the hon. member for Quebec South suggested that it should be done by judges. Judges have enough work to do if they are to fulfil their job properly. We are always complaining that there are not enough judges, and we hear that six more superior court judges are to be appointed in Quebec. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, a good C.C.F. man, has more confidence in judges than I have.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not say judges; I said an independent commission.


Jean-François Pouliot: Composed of whom,
brokers?


Stanley Howard Knowles: A few intelligent men.


Jean-François Pouliot: Lawyers, teachers and
clergymen.


An hon. MEMBER:: Farmers.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is right;
there should be some farmers. The idea of giving everything to a commission, whether presided over by a judge or anybody else, is repugnant to me. Since confederation, and even before, the constituencies have been set up by members of parliament themselves. The senate simply ratifies the bill because it cannot affect them very much. It is our business. Why are we reluctant to do our business? It seems to be the idea of the C.C.F. that everything should be done by others. They seem afraid to assume any responsibility. They consider that when anything is done by somebody else it is a fine job. They are not sure of themselves. They do not have the satisfaction of having carried out their duty. They do not trust their colleagues.
Here we are, a bunch of Liberals, Conservatives, C.C.F.'ers and Social Crediters; I see no members of the Bloc Populaire, but that makes no difference, I shall argue even for them. I would be the laughing stock of the country if I rose in my place and said that we should pass the matter over to a commission, whether royal or princely or anything else. It is ridiculous; it is absurd. My hon. friend has not a sufficient sense of humour to realize that it is the summit of absurdity.
If it is taken seriously there will be headlines saying that the hon. member for Quebec South and the illustrious member for Winnipeg
Dominion Elections Act

North Centre have agreed on appointing a commission to do what the House of Commons should do, that they feel that the House of Commons cannot do it as well as a commission. It is most ridiculous.


William Henry Golding: I think all this discussion is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, I understand from an hon. member nearby that last year this matter was discussed in the committee and that it does come under the purview of the chief electoral officer. It seems to me that it is clearly in order, either with reference to this resolution or with reference to the resolution setting up the committee. I should like to have the assurance of the Secretary of State that the matter can be discussed in the committee this year.
I shall not take the time to answer the arguments of my genial friend, the hon. member for Temiscouata, other than to say that I was not proposing that we shirk responsibility. I was simply saying that we have no right as members of parliament to determine the boundaries of the seats that affect us. The history of redistribution by this parliament is not one of which we can be very proud.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to pay a tribute to the hon. member for Outremont for the excellent work he did last year in Quebec. I do not know what happened in the other provinces, but he certainly did a splendid job. I offer one serious argument in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I would remind him of two things. A distinction should be made between those appointed by order in council and those appointed by the house itself. The auditor general and the chief electoral officer are not bureaucrats. They were not put into their positions by orders in council, by the government; they were appointed by a majority vote of the house. They are both officers of the House of Commons. This is an argument which my hon. friend will quickly understand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree. Parliament
should appoint the commission.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, not at all; it is an
altogether different matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You want it in the hands of the government majority.


Jean-François Pouliot: Moreover, both the auditor general and the chief electoral officer cannot be discharged unless there is a majority vote in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes. Therefore they are our own officers, the officers of the House of Commons. Let my hon. friend name many others like these. There is Mr. Speaker; there is the chairman of the committee of the whole; there is the Deputy Speaker. Who else besides these are appointed by ourselves, are appointed by my hon. friend as by myself on the proposition of the government? The proposition could be made by anybody else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Dees my hon. friend not understand that I am proposing a commission to deal with redistribution on the same basis? I suggest that the commission be appointed by parliament under section 51 of the British North America Act.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I am trying to tell you.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
William Henry Golding: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is a different matter. I still believe in the brotherhood of man and in the fraternal spirit that should exist between all members of parliament. There are rules of the house that bind us when there is no mutual consent, but with mutual consent we could drive a big limousine through the rules of the house. Why not have mutual consent with regard to redistribution? The last redistribution was, of course, fair. It is inescapable-


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the one before that?


Jean-François Pouliot: The one before that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, when your friend Bennett wras in power.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was very bad. It was impossible to come to any agreement with the men who were in Bennett's cabinet. It was impossible to discuss with them. They were abnormal, and that is the reason the redistribution was so bad. Besides that, it was their last breath; they were about to expire; they knew their unpopularity, and they tried to steal-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You did the same thing; maybe this is your last breath.

Dominion Elections Act


Jean-François Pouliot: -Conservative votes from other constituencies. But that is an exception, and the only time it happened before was when a decrepit Tory government was about to expire in 1893. It happened in 1893 and 1894 when the Tories were just as bad as they were in 1934.


An hon. MEMBER:: And as they are now.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will not say that; I am charitable. We are still not very far from Easter time, and therefore I want to be generous. The fact is that when the Liberals were in power redistribution was always fair.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am serious when I say that. We were so fair that there was no complaint from the opposition. It means that it is possible for members of parliament to carry on that work successfully.
I will tell my hon. friends who are students of history that in 1893 Sir Wilfrid Laurier called the Tory redistribution of that year a gerrymander with a vengeance. He stigmatized what had been done by the Tories, and it is not-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for Lake Centre used similar language last year.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend should be the last man to quote the hon. member for Lake Centre because they never agree on anything. I will not insist too much on it because I believe in the intelligence of my colleagues and I bow to their pride as faithful members of parliament. I am so sure of what I say that I would have no objection to having the limits of my constituency not changed perhaps but supervised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If he changed it, if he made my county smaller or larger it would make no difference to me because they are all my friends. He is too practical to waste his time on that, but I will tell him something more. Leaving aside all political considerations, I do not know whether my hon. friend is familiar with the parish organizations in the province of Quebec. It must be the same in the other provinces. I have been there occasionally, but I have not lived long enough in any other province to be able to express a definite opinion on it.
There is the parish, which is a unit. It is a complete unit. People live together, and they have some tradesmen and some farmers. To a certain extent they are self-sufficient. Then the assemblies of these units that are the parishes of the county form the county itself.
There are particular boundaries between those who are within that unit. There may be wholesalers and others and the railway facilities. They join together and they go there. My idea of a redistribution is to respect and conserve these two units as much as possible and not pass the boundary of a constituency through the middle of a parish, not take a parish that has been for a long time within a county and put it somewhere else, but respect the customs and traditions of the people.
When some people are taken away from a constituency where their families have been living for a long time it creates a disturbance in their minds; it annoys them, and it causes them difficulties in their daily relations with the other people. The Canadian people have enough grounds for complaint without putting them in front of a judge who will be more compromising than anybody to create trouble. He will try to appease everybody. It will be the same thing as in Russia. The Russians have got everything by blackmail. There will be in front of a judge a party who will insist on having something unjust and create trouble by persistence. Then the judge will say, "Well, we will try to appease him"; and he will give him a slice of the other county to which he is not entitled. These are considerations with which everyone is familiar in the province of Quebec. I am sorry that my hon. friends of the west do not know so much about it; but if they come some day they will have only to let me know and I shall be glad to drive them around and show them that beautiful part of the country.
In cities it is different; there are not the same ties between people. People live in the same house and they do not know each other, but in the country it is hard to make a division like that. The ties are not so strong in large cities. Then there are certain traditions. There are people who do not know each other who sometimes go to the same store or send their children to a certain school, and when there are changes in constituencies it embarrasses them very much. All I shall pray for is that the wisdom of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will be just as useful to him as he wants it to be to others.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: I wish to ask the Secretary of State a question that is not quite relevant to the point, though it is as close as I shall get to it. Last year the redistribution committee put through a suggestion, or endorsed a suggestion to which the minister gave consideration. It had reference to air
Dominion Elections Act

transportation in those constituencies which, like my own, cover such vast distances. Will the minister give that suggestion real consideration this year?


Colin William George Gibson: I do not know that the matter is one to which I should give consideration. This bill is in the form recommended by the committee last session. The bill, in the same form, is being referred back to that committee for further consideration and for some amendments, and whatever consideration the committee feels should be given to the suggestion my hon. friend has made, will be given by the committee there. I would not care to give an undertaking as to what that committee will do.


Angus MacInnis: I have just one word to say. I doubt whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had any idea that he would start off so violent a debate-


Jean-François Pouliot: Don't you start one.


Angus MacInnis: -particularly when he was merely voicing an opinion expressed by the Prime Minister last year when he introduced the redistribution bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Angus MacInnis: The Prime Minister
pointed out to the house that redistribution should be done by a commission rather than by a committee of the house, and some of us agreed with him. We still agree with him, although evidently some at least of his own followers do not. I think the hon. member for Temiscouata must take it that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself are in fairly good company when we are with the Prime Minister. That being all I wish to say in that regard, I would ask the Secretary of State to make a reply to the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Colin William George Gibson: In the British North America Act it is provided that, after each census has been taken, the representation of the house will be readjusted by such authority, in such manner and at such time as the parliament of Canada may from time to time provide. The parliament of Canada then considers an act to readjust representation in the House of Commons, and when that bill is presented that is the time that any decision should be reached as to whether a committee of the house should be set up or some commission appointed. I do not think it is a matter that comes under the elections act at all but under the representation act.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 198, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.




Colin William George Gibson: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I should like to return to government notices of motions in order to move the resolution with respect to the setting up of the committee to consider amendments to the Dominion Elections Act. I move:
That a special committee consisting of Messrs: Beaudry, Bertrand (Prescott), Brooks, Cote (Verdun), Fair, Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont), Fulton, Gariepy, Gladstone, Hackett, Ivirk, Lockhart, Maclnnis, MacNicol, Marier, Marquis, McKay, MeLure, Murphy, Mutch, Richard (Gloucester), Robinson (Simeoe East), Richard (Ottawa East), Sinclair, Zaplitny, be appointed to study the several amendments to the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, and amendments thereto, suggested by the chief electoral officer, to study the said act, to suggest to the house such amendments, as the committee may deem advisable, and report from time to time, with power to send for persons, papers and records and to print the proceedings and that the provisions of section 1 of standing order 65 be waived in respect to this committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. MILTON F. GREGG (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of Bill No. 196, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this bill for second reading I should like to make a few general remarks. At present and for some time to come, the benefits relating to this bill will apply in the main to a small proportion of the oldi soldiers of the first great war.
In recent times my department, this house and the country as a whole have been giving, and quite property so, a great deal of attention to the needs of rehabilitation for the young veteran, and I should like to grasp this chance tonight to say a word on behalf of the smaller group of old-timers, contemporaries if you like of a good many of the veterans of the old war who are members of this house.

TFar Veterans Allowance Act
In the war of 1914-18 Canada had a total of approximately 646,000 men in the' armed forces, mainly in the army, a small group in the Canadian navy, and also a small group, serving under command, with the old Royal Flying Corps, of the British.
As closely as can be checked, that old 1914-18 armed force was distributed something like this: engaged in a theatre of war, which for the old war army was confined to the continent of Europe; for the navy, on or under the sea, and for the air force, the Royal Flying Corps, a total of 353,000; a total on service, but not so defined as engaged in a theatre of war, of approximately 293,000.
The War Veterans Allowance Act, to which this bill refers, applies mainly to the first group that I have mentioned. In it I said there were about 353,000. There is no means of telling exactly how many of them have survived the thirty years since their demobilization; but, as closely as can be learned, the figure today is in the vicinity of 200,000 survivors who took part in the fighting or in the theatre of operations in 1914-18, upon the sea, on the long land trail from Ypres to Mons, and with the Royal Flying Corps when flying was in its infancy, and when to go into the air in one of the old crates was in itself a hazard.
What has happened during the past thirty years to these men who were engaged in a theatre of war? After 1919 they set about the task of becoming Canadian citizens, and it was not too easy a one. They received little help compared with the new veterans; yet they were and still are the most forceful and effective sponsors of a better chance for the new veterans. I should like to emphasize the fact that, as far as I know, not one of the old-timers has ever raised a jealous voice in that regard. On the whole they have become valuable, productive Canadian citizens. They are Canadian citizens first, last and all the time. Many of them are leaders in various walks of our Canadian life. They spurned all temptations to carry over into the peace a solid ex-soldier group, politically or otherwise, and they have stood firmly down through the years against any temptation to demand money from their country purely on the basis of services rendered.
What is the picture regarding the whole 200,000 of those who fought and who have not yet died? Of those 200,000, all but approximately 25,000 are carrying on as Canadian citizens without any aid from their country, other than compensation for some honourable war disabilities which they still carry. A little
over 25,000 men therefore who, under our definition, saw battle service are at the moment in receipt of war veterans allowance. Their numbers, by the very nature of things, as they move on to the sixty, sixty-five and seventy age group, are bound to increase for the next ten years at least.
Hon. members are aware, I know, of the history of the War Veterans Allowance Act upon which this bill is based. In it our country attempted to see to it that this small portion of the 1914-18 force'-as it stands now only about five per cent of the total force-should not beg on the streets. Through old age, through premature aging due to battle strain or fatigue, through physical disabilities not pensionable, through hard luck and a score of other reasons beyond their control, they are unable to cope with life in full measure. Some of them remained bachelors. An extraordinarily large number did so; as far as we can record, the number was approximately 12,000. A total of approximately 13,000 married. And with nearly all of them who married, by the very nature of things children have grown up and have now gone away.
These men all gave honourable fighting service to Canada and they should be ensured an honourable old age. For those, and for others who may yet qualify, this bill proposes more generous terms. I should like to interject here that it is only as a very last resort that these older veterans will accept aid under this act. They prefer to earn their own living just so long as work within their capacity can be found.
It is not too easy in these days of streamlined industry to keep the employment door open to men of their age. With good support from employers of labour, the good offices of the corps of commissionaires, and services set up jointly with the placement service of the Department of Labour, over 100,000 veterans of world war I have been rendered employment services since April 1, 1946, when that service really got under way in the Department of Veterans Affairs. This will to work has had its influence on expenditures under the act. Many have been enabled to give up the allowance voluntarily and a large number now happily and gainfully employed would otherwise have been a charge upon the country.
Hon. members might like to have a general outline of present war veterans allowance beneficiaries and costs. The War Veterans Allowance Act came into operation in Sep-
War Veterans Allowance Act
[Stage Direction]
tember, 1930. Since that time and up to December 31 last, the following figures apply: Total applications approved in that 17-
year period	 45,679
Total approved applications later cancelled on account of death Or improvement of circumstances	 19,573
Total as at December 31, 1947, in receipt of war veterans allowances ....	26,106
That total is made up as follows:
Veterans of northwest field force .... 145
Veterans of South African war	 592
Veterans of world war I	 24,606
Veterans of world war II	 434
Veterans of dual service	 329
Total	 26,106
In addition to these men are widows and orphans, so that the complete summary as at December 31, 1947, is as follows:
	Total	
	Number of	Amount
	Recipients	lji ability
Veterans-all wars .,	. 26,106	$12,991,995Widows-all wars . ..,	. 4,790	1,934,938Orphans-all wars ....	. 53	25,596Totals 	, 36,949	$14,952,529
In addition to the matter of increase, this bill rearranges what was known as "casual earnings" and raises the ceiling of permissible income under the act to $1,105 a year, or approximately $92 a month for married men and to $615 a year, or approximately $51 a month for single mem. It is the intention to use the supplementary allowance to augment the recipient's income under these new ceilings. This will result in a flat increase to all recipients in an amount not exceeding $10 a month, made possible by the raising of the ceiling on permissible income.
For the purpose of dealing with the increases, recipients of the war veterans allowance will be divided into three classes by the department in working it out. Some 6,303 pensioners now in receipt of war veterans allowance will have their increase in the war veterans allowance, as well as the pension increase. Of this number, there are 3,702 married men receiving up to 60 per cent pension and 2,601 single men receiving up to 50 per cent pension. In the second class there are now 16,711 non-pensioners who are at present receiving the maximum war veterans allowance and who have no other income; and they will receive the full supplementary allowance. In the third class there are 10,284 additional recipients, also non-pensioners, who are not in receipt of the maximum war veterans allowance. They may have their allowance adjusted under the new ceiling.
It will be noted that in this bill there is the same amount of increase for both married and single recipients, that is, $10 a month in each

case. In the original act the scale was $40 for a married man and $20 for a single man. I think it was pretty well an arbitrary arrangement, that the married man should get twice as much as the single man, though I do not know what the plan was. During the last war, authority was given, based on need, to increase this scale to $60 for a married man and $30 for a single man, and when the act was amended in 1946 these became the new rates. It has been considered that in this there is some degree of inequity as between the rates for single and married men. In no other veteran legislation are man and wife together paid twice the amount paid a single man; and now that a further increase is planned it seems that this inequity might be corrected.
Let me briefly review some examples. Under the proposed pension rates a 100 per cent pensioner, married, will receive $117 a month; a 100 per cent pensioner, single, will receive $87 a month. Married veteran students now receive $90 a month; single veteran students receive $60. Married veterans awaiting returns, unemployed or temporarily incapacitated receive $70 a month; single veterans receive $50. It is suggested here that the time has arrived when the war veterans allowances, married and single rates, should be brought into some conformity with the other rates I have just indicated. Consequently the new rate proposed here is $70 a month for the married veteran and $40 a month for the single veteran.
The terms of this bill, will, I anticipate, receive careful study by the special committee on veterans affairs. In the main, Mr. Speaker, this bill is a further important step toward giving the old soldier who fought for his country the assurance that in his old age his country will provide him with some defence against poverty.
Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with interest to the speech of the minister and his recital of the history of the war veterans allowance. First let me say I agree that in the period since the war the young soldier should have been given the greatest attention, and as we know that has been done. As the minister has said, the older soldier made no complaint in that regard; he was only too anxious to assist. As a matter of fact I think the old soldier in Canada can be complimented, not only on his attitude during and since the second war, but also on his attitude since the first war. The Canadian soldier has never been very demanding of the Canadian people. When the attitude of our soldiers is compared with that of soldiers of other countries-and I might particularly mention the attitude of returned soldiers in the

War Veterans Allowance Act
country to the south of us-I believe our returned soldiers are to be highly commended. I remember that a few years ago, for instance, some of the returned soldiers in the United States marched on the capital of that country, demanding a bonus which ran into many millions of dollars.
Since the resolution preceding this bill was introduced, we have had an opportunity to review the legislation. At the outset may I say that personally I have found it disappointing, and I am satisfied that is the reaction of many hon. members. It does not contain what we expected it would. It is true that it mentions the matters of which the minister has spoken; and while we are not allowed, nor do I intend, to take it up section by section, we have certain small amendments, like the one concerning deserted children, which have something of an emotional appeal but really do not amount to very much as far as dollars and cents are concerned. There would be very few deserted children of soldiers in receipt of the veterans allowance, and I should imagine the provision in that section would cost very little. If we go on to the next section we see that it provides for an increase in the salaries of members of the pension board. I see you are stirring, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to deal with the sections individually, I am simply pointing out that some provisions of the bill are really not very important as far as the old soldier is concerned, about whose welfare the minister said tonight we were very anxious.
This legislation is going to the committee on veterans affairs, where it will be thoroughly discussed; there need be no doubt of that. I am sorry the bill does not contain more, because I feel that in other bills which have gone to the veterans affairs committee we have been, as it were, too circumscribed in our discussion of such legislation, and this bill is just another example. It contains too little; and the committee cannot make amendments, which I am satisfied we would feel like making, in providing benefits for our old soldiers.
The minister has told us about the history of the War Veterans Allowance Act. May I say at the outset that I have always considered it one of the finest acts, so far as veterans legislation is concerned. This act was brought into force in 1930, eighteen years ago. It was considered then that there were many veterans in this country who were unable to take their place in the labour market of the country and who, indeed, were entitled to assistance.
In 1930 the veterans under the War Veterans Allowance Act were given $20 a month. That
was, of course, a small sum, but it compared at that time with the Old Age Pensions Act, of which it was more or less a supplement so far as the soldier was concerned. As the minister pointed out, it has been increased to $30 a month; and now, under certain conditions, the veteran is to receive $40 a month.
In the minister's solicitation for the old soldiers of this country, I felt that Bill No. 196 should have been larger in its scope and should have given benefits to classes of old soldiers other than those mentioned in the bill. For instance, for many years in the house and in committee there has been one group of soldiers for the inclusion of which the Canadian Legion and other Canadian organizations have strongly urged. I refer to those soldiers who in the last war did not get any farther than England. To my mind those men should receive consideration and attention in this bill. I am expressing not only my own opinion, but the opinion of war veterans organizations in this country for many years. There are not many of these men, and the country would not be bankrupted if we included those men who served only in England in the last war. An estimate made in the veterans committee in 1946 placed the amount at less than $3,000,000 that it would cost the country.
In this connection I should like to read a letter I received only a few weeks ago. May I add that the letter comes from a constituent of the minister? This old soldier writes to me in these words:
Please excuse my writing you, but I note in the Legionary that the legion is again going to plead the case of the vets who only got as far as England in world war I before the parliamentary committee, so I thought I would like to state to you my case. First. I was R.S.M. No. 1 of the 13th New Brunswick reserve battalion. I applied to Colonel Fowler to be allowed to go to France, and his reply was. "No, you are too much value to me." When Major Stirling took over I .again applied, but the answer was the same. He went so far as to say they could get lots of men to go to France, but not to take my place. Colonel A. L. Barry now in the fisheries department. Ottawa, can and will vouch for this. I am barred from getting the war veterans allowance. Yet others who were in France but a day or two and saw no action are eligible. Hardly fair. I think. I trained and prepared hundreds of men for their job in the service.
I am seventy-nine years of age, cannot work and have to live on $20 British army pension and $30 old age pension per month, and pay $10 per month rent. Tough going.
I am not ashing you to do anything for me, but thought I would like to write you and to state my case, as it might be helpful to others.
The point this old soldier brings out is that he enlisted, went to England, served as a sergeant-major over there and was not allowed to go to France as he had wished. Now, when
War Veterans Allowance Act

he is an old man, he is barred from receiving war veterans allowance. I know; I am sure the minister knows, and every soldier member in the house knows that there were thousands of men who went to France and who have no more front-line service than did these men in England. Yet the fact that they sailed across twenty-two miles of water makes them today eligible for war veterans allowance, while these other men who, for no reason of their own, were compelled to stay in England, do not receive it. I say that is a grave injustice and one which I personally had hoped would be corrected in the bill which we have before us tonight.
There is another class of men whom I should like to mention, and who, I hoped, would be included. These are the imperials, the men who served from 1914 to 1916 in the same war in which we served, men who fought for the same things for which we were fighting, men who, if they had not given service, might have brought about a condition whereby more men from this country would have had to sacrifice their lives. Those men came to Canada and made their homes here. For many years they helped to build this country.
In the last war they served Canada again, as did also their sons and daughters. Yet those men who in the last war served alongside Canadian soldiers, and whose sons and daughters served alongside Canadian soldiers in the last war, are not included in the bill and do not receive the benefits of war veterans allowances. I claim this is most unfair.
A few minutes ago I said this was not my own idea. I should like to read to the house some recommendations which were made by the Canadian Legion. This one was made in 1945:
Be it resolved that the War Veterans Allowance Act be so amended that the same privileges and assistance may be granted to veterans who enlisted in the Canadian expeditionary force and served outside of Canada as are now granted to men who served in an actual theatre of war within the meaning of War Veterans Allowance Act.
That would mean the men who had served in England in the last war. The resolution referring to imperial veterans is as follows:
Be it resolved that we endorse the present policy of the legion which has been aforestated as follows:
"That we urge upon the dominion government action to extend the war veterans allowance to ex-imperial veterans under the same conditions as to Canadian veterans, other than on the question of pre-war domicile, providing such imperial ex-service men were resident in Canada on September 1, 1930, and have since resided in Canada or who may have had continuous residence in Canada for a period of 20 years."

That is, they recommend that imperial veterans who were in Canada in 1930, the date on which the War Veterans Allowance Act was passed, be included in the act, if they also served in the Canadian army during the last war. Surely that is a most reasonable request.
The cost of this was brought out in the veterans committee in 1946, at which time it was shown that the cost of including these imperial veterans would be in the vicinity of Sl,900,000. That is not a tremendous amount of money, as we think of money today. Why, one of the members of the cabinet not so long ago said that a million dollars does not amount to anything. So I say we could very well afford to give these men this consideration.
The war veterans allowance has come to be regarded as a social security measure for veterans and the distinctions that have been made are distasteful. Many of these men fought side by side in the same cause. There are Canadians who served in both world wars but who did not go overseas and who are now eligible for what was hitherto known as the veterans dual service pension. There seems to be no good reason for excluding the imperial veteran of the first world war who served with the Canadian forces in Canada in the second world war. Many men served with the Canadian forces in theatres of operation in the second world war, and if we excluded the imperial first world war veteran who served with the Canadian forces in the second world war we would be discriminating as between men who served side by side in the Canadian forces under exactly the same conditions.
There are other implications of these regulations. The widow of the Canadian soldier who served only in England during the last war is excluded from receiving benefits under war veterans allowances, and there are many hundreds of these widows in Canada. They see the widow of some other soldier receiving benefits. They realize that their husbands served where they were told to serve. Any man in the army goes where he is told to go and serves where he is told to serve, in Canada, in England, or wherever it may be. I say it is unfair that these women should not have the benefits of the war veterans allowances. The same thing applies to widows of members of the imperial forces.
These are the main points that I wish to bring up tonight. I approve the supplementary allowance of $120 a year, but here again there is a nigger in the woodpile. We find that a man must undergo a means test if he is to receive this increase of $10 a month. I contend that if a man is entitled to a war veterans allowance,

War Veterans Allowance Act
if he has had his first means test, then there should be no further means test as far as he is concerned.
There is a bad moral effect. You may have two men each receiving war veterans allowances. One man may not be inclined to work; he is lazy and indifferent. He is not thrifty and does not try to improve his situation, but he is eligible for the increase from $30 to $40 a month. Then you have a man who is thrifty, who wants to work and help himself. I am sure we are all disposed to encourage that type of man. If this man works hard he may be deprived of the benefits of the war veterans allowance.
I contend that that is a great flaw in our veterans legislation. It should be so drawn as to encourage the thrifty and hardworking man and not to encourage the man who is slothful, lazy and indigent. This legislation encourages men to lie about their conditions, to conceal the facts. Unfortunately the same thing is true in connection with old age pensions. I will not say all, but because of the means test some of the older people in this country who wish to improve their condition find that they must tell some white lies about their financial position. To my mind the whole thing is wrong.
I shall not discuss this matter any further. The bill is going to the committee and the sections will be gone into most carefully. I know my colleagues on this side and probably those on the other side will wish to discuss the matter very fully. I shall be pleased to give it further consideration when the bill comes before the committee.


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley) :: Mr. Speaker, I presume that this bill will be referred to the veterans affairs committee where all the details wrill be gone into. There is one way in which the United States house of representatives is ahead of us. They do not make political speeches when a matter is to be referred to a committee. The matter is referred to the committee where it is gone into in detail, and then it is referred back to their house. That is what should be done here in the House of Commons. If we do not like the recommendations of the committee, of which I happen to be a member, we can make our own recommendations and if necessary vote against the recommendations of the committee.
Personally I hope that the veterans affairs committee will, without political bias, take into consideration those veterans who served in England only during the first great war and the imperial veterans. I say again that I hope it is done without political bias and without the hope of Hansard recording a multitude of
views to be distributed in the respective ridings. I repeat that consideration should be given to veterans of the first great war who served only in England.
In many cases imperial veterans have lived in this country for twenty or twenty-five years or even longer and they have the right to every consideration. I do not want to discredit the position of anyone, but there are many people receiving old age pensions who have lived here for twenty or twenty-five years but who have never become citizens. They are entitled to pensions, but they have not taken out citizenship papers. After all, those who served in the British army were serving in defence of Canada and they are just as much entitled to war veterans allowances as they are to old age pensions.
I intend to foster that and carry it through in the veterans affairs committee. We had some discussion this afternoon about expediting business. I have no authority to speak for the veteran members of this house, but I believe I can speak for my fellow veteran members from British Columbia and even for all members from British Columbia on this side of the house and say we are satisfied to refer this matter to the veterans affairs committee. If we do not approve the recommendations they bring down, then we shall have our say.


Thomas John Bentley: Mr. Speaker, I agree in principle with what the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruick-shank) has just said. I have often thought that if it were intended to send a matter to a committee it should be allowed to go to the committee and then we could do our criticizing when it came back. However I would remind the hon. member for Fraser Valley that when you are in Rome you should do as the Romans do. Since I have been here this has been, I was going to say the time-honoured procedure, but it certainly has been the procedure, whether it is time-honoured or not.
I listened attentively to what the minister said and it appeared to me that he tried to make out that this bill was much better than it is. I agree in sentiment with much of what he said. It is true that the older veterans have not a spark of jealousy about the improvements in veterans affairs legislation affecting the newer veterans. My goodness, we spend years and years as members of the legion or other veteran organizations trying to improve their lot. So that when we see some improvement for the new veterans we are not envious; we are tickled to death. In that the minister was correct.
However this bill does not give the improvement to them when they become as old as
War Veterans Allowance Act

our veterans class is or for the remainder of our group who may require this kind of help. It does not improve the situation in anything like what was indicated by the eulogies that the minister paid to those old veterans, and nothing in comparison with what Canada could and should afford.
I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, some of the things-and I will not be very long; I will be as brief as I can because it was again suggested that this matter will be argued and debated in the veterans affairs committee-


Jean-François Pouliot: We always listen to you with great glee.


Thomas John Bentley: I am pleased to know that I have one good listener in the house. I appreciate it very much.


Jean-François Pouliot: I said "we".


Thomas John Bentley: That is splendid; there is more than one. That makes it plural. I am really glad to hear the versatile member for Temiscouata say that. He always says nice things to people, and I appreciate it very much.


An hon. MEMBER:: When he is not angry.


Thomas John Bentley: Yes. Like the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), we are unable to understand why we cannot re-define the word "veteran" in the act. During the 1945 and 1946 sessions of the special parliamentary committee, we had quite a lot of discussion as to what should be actually a theatre of war. Britain is actually one of those theatres. I see no reason why the veterans of world war I who served in Britain during that time, but *who were subject to be sent to any theatre of action, should not be included. And I say that, having been one of those who did not remain in Britain. I went along in the mud. We believe that the act should be rewritten, so that for world war I Britain would be written into the definition of a theatre of war. This would include a lot of .people, but they are people who are extremely deserving citizens and veterans in this country. I believe the minister should give serious consideration to accepting that recommendation either here or in committee.
Again the hon. member for Royal brought up another class of veterans who are not very numerous in this country but who are certainly very deserving of all the benefits any veteran has in this country. I refer to those who served in the imperial forces but did not have the residence, or were not domiciled in Canada prior to their enlistment in the imperial forces. These people came over after the war and settled here in some industry or work
(Mr. Bentley.]
or in business or on farms. They became part of the community and likely are citizens now. Probably they have families here as well as interests. They are going to stay here. We of this group believe that they should be included in all the benefits, and that section or provision which requires that they should have been domiciled here before enlistment should be struck out and those citizens treated as they should be.
Another thing that I find it difficult to understand, and people with whom I have talked have told me that they find the same difficulty, has to do with those who have not yet reached the age of sixty so far as men are concerned and fifty-five so far as women are concerned, which the act requires. Generally, although there is a provision in the act that the war veterans allowance board may look sympathetically on claims of people who are below that age but otherwise qualified, we believe it should be more generous, and we believe that the treasury board should not only permit but encourage the war veterans allowance board to be more generous with these people who are not yet of the age but who are incapacitated for some reason or another, burnt out, before they reach the limit of age in the act.
Next is something that we have had many debates on since I have been here and have tried to prevent. That is the cost of living which has gone up tremendously, but at no time has the allowance paid to war veterans been large enough to take care of their needs and keep them in comfort. It has been a bare existence under any circumstances. I believe it was not until the war that it was even increased by order in council from $20 to the $30 that it is now and eventually worked into the statute by legislation. We believe at the present time that, because of the high cost of living, the allowance should be increased, not by the amount mentioned in section 8 of the amendment but to $50 a month for a single veteran, with a corresponding increase for a married veteran. We see no reason why a veteran who has had the misfortune that the minister speaks about-I believe the description he gave of what happened to some of them was just plain hard luck-and is burnt out should be in any different position from that of one who was actually burnt out or disabled because of war services. I say that because these veterans are just as needy and require just as much comfort, care and security as the ones who were disabled by war conditions or by war action. Therefore we believe that the allowance should be raised. I do not think it would cause a great strain on the treasury board and break their purse-

War Veterans Allowance Act
strings entirely. I believe this country can afford it a lot better than it can afford some of the things which will be carried on over the next year by our government unless, of course, they give us an opportunity to defeat them this summer some time, which I hope they do.
I should like to mention something else, which is not mentioned in the amendment. In the original act, and very largely in this bill, besides his actual amount of 8365 a year a veteran is allowed to have an income of $125 from some sources, casual earnings of $125 if he can earn them, and an investment earning of $25. I see no reason why the incomes from these sources should be specified as coming from different sources. Why not say that he can have it from any source up to a certain amount if we are to continue to apply the means test which, incidentally, I do not believe in; but I know it is there and is likely to remain? WTe believe that all these various sources of income should be grouped in the amount that he is allowed, and whether he gets it from interest on a war bond or from rentals from some little property he may happen to own or whether he earns it, or by whatever means he happens to get it, it should be in the aggregate and not specified in different amounts.
Another matter that is not dealt with here- and I am surprised that it has not been given consideration by the government, by the minister and by his officers-is the case of a veteran who qualifies in every respect for a war veterans allowance, but who has not lived in Canada for three months prior to the decision to grant him one. A burnt-out veteran is just as badly off if he lives in Arizona or in Iowa as if he lives here. If he requires that his place of residence should not be here, if he needs the allowance he should get it; if he wants to live in some other place because of his health-or it may be a matter of sentiment; since he cannot work any more, or because he wants to spend his old age in the place of his childhood -is there any reason why sentiment of that kind should be penalized? I suppose almost everybody in this house could see some reason for anyone wanting to do that if he were able to do so. We say he must live in Canada, where the eagle eyes of the means tester can look down the back of his neck all the time to see that he does not earn one more nickel than the act allows. I do not think that is dignified treatment for a veteran. If he can qualify in all respects, then his place of residence should not be a deterrent to his receiving the war veterans allowance. At the present time he may live here, he may qualify, he may get the allowance. Then, after two or three years he
may feel that he would like to move out, but the moment he crosses the border and enters a foreign country he ceases to be entitled to that war veterans allowance. I know it does not say so exactly in the act, but if there is any dispute about that I can quote from a letter I received from the pension commission pointing out that that is the case in one particular instance to which I drew their attention.
Another thing I want to mention is this. The war veterans allowance is not payable to the married veteran and his wife as having married status if they live apart. This again is very unfair and undignified). The man is, of course, the breadwinner. He is the one who should provide for his family, and as long as he is working and is able to provide for them we expect him to look after his wife and children. That is proper and we have a1 right to expect it. But the moment something happens to him and he is no longer able to support them, possibly because of inability to work, though he and his wife may have spent forty years together, they find it necessary now to split up, one living with one married child, with whom there is room, the other living with another. The moment they are split up because of their financial condition, the veteran ceases to be entitled to war veterans allowance except under single status.
That, Mr. Speaker,, is unfair. The allowance should be generous enough, the administration should be generous enough and the whole spirit of the act should be generous enough to say to the veteran: We should like both you and your lifelong spouse to be able to spend your remaining years together if you so desire, and therefore we will make it possible for you to do so.
I know it will be said there are a few veterans who are so cantankerous that their wives cannot live with them, and I think it may be said there are some men who are not veterans who are also so cantankerous that hardly anyone can get along with them. There may be exceptional cases, but in the main I believe the veterans want to continue their married status. They do not want to split up. When, however, they have to separate because of poor financial conditions they should not be deprived of the veterans allowance. I do not think they should be deprived of it merely because they have decided that it is necessary for them to separate under those circumstances.
There are a number of other criticisms that I should like to offer, but I do not want to take up too much time, because the matter is going to the committee and no doubt others will deal with them. On the points I have presented tonight to the house and to the
War Veterans Allowance Act

minister I would ask that serious and sympathetic consideration be given, because I believe that every single one of them is justifiable, every single one of them is possible, every single one of them will do a great deal to bring a measure of happiness and contentment to the few individuals in the class we are speaking of who are still left, and it will give some sense of security to some of the veterans of this war who some day will have to face the same condition as some of our older veterans have to put up with.


Mr. QUELCH:: Mr. Speaker-


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up much more time, nor do I wish to take the place of the hon. gentleman, but since I do not belong to the committee I have some remarks to make to the house and to the minister right now. There are not many individual cases that I wish to mention tonight, although I have many files of cases that are pitiful and deserve special consideration.
There are two different bodies. There is the pension commission and there is the war veterans allowance board. If the pension commission were functioning normally there would be no necessity for the war veterans allowance board. It is precisely because the pension commission are procrastinators and never give the benefit of the doubt to the men who apply to them that we must have the war veterans allowance board, and in this respect I will tell the minister that I wish to pay special tribute to his parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). How many times did I not have difficult cases where the pension commission procrastinated so much that nothing could be done! I went in all confidence to the hon. member for Rosthern and explained the matter to him and the department was telephoned to in order to try to get something done. Among hundreds of cases I will mention one.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Has he not resigned? He is no longer parliamentary assistant, is he?


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know the personal dealings of the hon. gentleman with the department-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: He is in Saskatchewan now.


Jean-François Pouliot: -but I spoke to him last week about a case and he was kind enough to telephone. I do not know whether he has resigned, but when someone is kind to my constituents it is a thing I never forget, and if the hon. member for Rosthern had resigned ten years ago I would speak as I do tonight.

I do not speak to ask favours of him; I do not need them; but I know he is fair enough to fight the cases of men and women who are deserving. And, sir, I will mention an abomination that happened during the war.
A certain young man was in the army and there was a fire. He was a very delicate fellow-I knew him well-and he went to the fire, worked there, and contracted a cold which turned into pneumonia. He fell dangerously ill. He received the last rites of the church, and after that some officers came to him and said, "You must sign a paper so that your mother will have a pension." He was very sick. I do not know whether they held his hand, but the paper was signed. It was a resignation from the army, and instead of giving an opportunity to his widowed mother to get a pension it deprived her of all pension. He died a day or two afterwards.
It was an abomination, and the men who did that should have been whipped. The mother applied for pension and got nothing. Finally I brought the case before the predecessor of the present minister and he decided to give an allowance of $40 a month to the mother. It is a pitiful case where the pension commission has been more stupid than ever, where officers have behaved very badly, shamefully, and where an allowance was some kind of help to that widow.
This is a fact and I could mention many facts like it. The trouble we have now with the pension commission is that they never give the benefit of the doubt to the returned man. I have within my knowledge cases of men who have been declared fit, who have been accepted in the army and who have served for a long time. I have in mind the case of one man who was on guard duty at the forts at Levis. He was outside, and had no place to warm himself when it was cold, when the wind was blowing fiercely in the winter and when there were snowstorms. He lost his health. I asked for a pension. I was told that his illness was anterior to his enlistment How is it that some of the medical corps were accepting these soldiers into the army as fit? They served well. They followed the orders they received. Yet after they had served for some years they were not entitled to any pension and got nothing at all. I obtained no allowance for that man. He lost his health; yet he had nothing at all. His illness or his disability was said to be anterior to his enlistment.
All those doctors should be crucified. I have said on many an occasion that a large number of medical doctors were the scum of the medical profession. I received letters of protest, and to those who were protesting I sent the

War Veterans Allowance Act
issues of Hansard in which the facts and figures were mentioned, to the shame of the medical profession. One day the dean of the faculty of medicine of one of the universities wrote to me complaining of my language. I sent him Hansard which was just like a document produced in court. He said, "Well it is very sad." It was sad and unfortunate, but nobody was punished.
I have another case, that of a widow who has been deprived of a pension. This is a Toronto case, where a man was suffering from acute appendicitis. The doctor gave him a strong purgative and the poor boy died. The doctor was a murderer.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would call to the atfention of the hon. member the fact that this is an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act. It does not deal with the Pension Act at all.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know, Mr. Speaker, but it is correlative. It is precisely because the pension commission is inefficient that we must ask for an allowance. In the first case I have shown the necessity of an allowance. I have mentioned the case of that poor woman. Although I very often disagreed with the predecessor of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, in this case he accomplished an act of deserved charity. He did not always do that; but on that occasion he did well, and I give him credit.
I do not wish to insist on that point, Mr. Speaker, but I will ask the minister if there is any possible means of bringing the pension commission to their senses and making them understand that if the returned man, whoever he is, has a right under the statute, he should be given the benefit of the doubt. I do not say that on behalf of any particular class of veterans; I say it on behalf of all veterans. They are either entitled to something or they are not.
My contention is more than that, as I said before. It is that if the pension commission were working properly, there would be no need at all for any allowance to anybody, and the man would have his pension. The difference between the pension and the allowance is that the pension comes as of right. There is no humiliation when a returned man accepts a pension. He receives what is due to him. An allowance is a gift from the state, which is not at all the same thing. The allowance hurts the pride of the soldier and that of his relatives, whereas a pension does not. It is precisely because I have the highest respect and admiration for our soldiers that I hope the pension commission will receive definite
instructions from the minister so that there will be the least possible to do under the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Victor Quelch: We in this group, Mr. Speaker, are glad that the government have seen fit to bring down this bill amending the War Veterans Allowance Act, if for no other purpose than to have it thoroughly discussed in the veterans affairs committee so that the various veterans organizations can make representations regarding it. Amendments to this act are long overdue, but I am afraid that the proposals contained in this bill fall far short of those required to deal adequately with the situation. When the minister spoke he paid a fine tribute to the old veterans, and one that was well deserved. However, after listening to the minister, it is hard for me to understand how the government can bring down a bill of this kind and consider that they are doing justice to the returned men.
The War Veterans Allowance Act was first introduced in 1930. It made an allowance of S20 a month available at the age of sixty to the veteran who was permanently unemployable and who had served in a theatre of actual warfare. It has often been said that the act was recognition of the fact that a veteran had pre-aged by ten years and that, therefore, the old age pension was being made available to him at sixty years of age instead of seventy. I think it is well to keep in mind that fact and to note that at the present time the amount of the old age pension is in excess of the amount of the war veterans allowance. Later on the age limit was reduced below sixty years where the veteran was unable to maintain himself because of disability; some classes of widows were introduced and the amount of the allowance was increased to $30 a month.
The foregoing short summary, I think, goes to show that the war veterans allowance may be considered as the veteran's last resort. When he is unable to get a disability pension because of some technicality in the act or is, on the other hand, too old to work, he can apply for the war veterans allowance; and all he can get under the act is $30 a month. The same is true for the non-pensioned widow. I think all hon. members will agree that $30 a month today is not a living allowance. All that $30 a month does is to permit a veteran to struggle for an existence. As I have already said, he is not as well off as the old age pensioner. The new bill does not propose to increase the amount of the allowance. It merely provides for a supplementary allowance that may be paid in case of need, if need can be shown. Then the increase is limited to $10 a month for both single and married veterans. The new bill
War Veterans Allowance Act

also increases the amount of permissible income from $125 to $250 for single veterans and from $250 to $375 for married persons. But it cancels the provision for $125 casual earnings. Therefore it is true that the bill does bring about some improvement in the act. On the other hand, that improvement falls far short of what is required to deal adequately with the situation. The Canadian Legion and the Canadian council of veterans associations have asked that the allowances be increased to $50 for a single veteran and to $100 for a married man. That is to say, the national council of veterans associations has asked that the allowance for a married veteran be increased to $100, while the legion has suggested that it be increased to at least $85.
I know the question will immediately be raised as to whether or not the country can afford allowances of this size. Well, whenever that question is raised my mind always goes back to the veterans committee of 1936, when we were considering both the war veterans allowance and the matter of pensions. We were told by the minister of the day that unfortunately it was not so much a question of what the veterans should have but rather a question of what the country could afford; and he went on to say that the country was bankrupt. It may be true that the country was bankrupt at that time, because we were suffering under the financial policies of Hon. Charles Dunning, which in itself was enough to bankrupt any country. But that is not the situation today. Today conditions are far different from 1936. I noticed that the Canadian Press quoted the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) as saying on April 2 that Canada is enjoying a boom of unprecedented proportions, even though the people do not seem to be aware of it. Well, if the minister is aware of it that is something. It is only natural that the people would not appreciate it when they see veterans having to subsist on a miserable pittance of $30 a month, and old age pensioners receiving only $30 a month as far as the federal government is concerned. However, when we consider that today the national income is around $13 billion as compared with $4 billion in 1936 no one can argue, as it was argued in 1936, that we cannot afford to deal adequately with the veterans of this country.
The government have talked a great deal about our moral, obligation to look after people in foreign countries, and we in this house have voted hundreds of millions of dollars to help those people. I should say the first obligation of this country is to look after those men who fought and made victory possible, and that should be considered a first charge against

the national income before consideration is given to the needs of people in other countries. After all, there is an old saying that charity should begin at home. Well, veterans are not
asking for charity. They are merely asking for fair compensation for themselves and their dependents for services already rendered. I think it is time the government put an end to the hypocritical .paying of lip service to these men, and instead dealt honestly, fairly and squarely with them.
I want to give just one example of the type of niggardly assistance being given to veterans under this act; and mind you, Mr. Speaker, when I say this I am not for a moment criticizing the administration of the act. My experience has been that the people administering this act go just as far as the act permits; but that is all they can do. I know of a case right here in the city of Ottawa, of a veteran who has reached the age of seventy-nine years, while his wife is well over seventy. He was awarded a full pension of $60 a month for the two of them; but that was reduced to $38 a month because the veteran found he could not live on $60 and managed to get a few hours work a day which brought him in $10 a week. So his pension was reduced. He was paying $45 a month in rent. It was suggested by the investigator that perhaps he should find cheaper accommodation, but the investigator frankly admitted that she did not know where he would be able to get another apartment at that or any other price. If it is to be argued that a veteran is paying too much rent for the apartment in which he lives, then I think those administering the war veterans allowance will have to accept the responsibility of finding him cheaper accommodation. As long as he has to pay that rent that must be recognized as one of the expenses he has to meet. In view of the fact that this veteran's permissible income had been exceeded, he had to pay back a certain amount of money. I am glad to say that, instead of stopping his allowance entirely, the administration deducted $3 a month in order to make up the amount he had been overpaid, which of course further reduced his pension to $35 a month. The point I want to make is that this veteran is seventy-nine years of age and his wife is over seventy. He never applied for any assistance until he was seventy-seven; yet they had to check up and by the act they were forced to reduce the amount of his allowance in view of the fact that he was exceeding his permissible income. I believe that this question of the permissible income is something that should be carefully investigated. In my opinion that permissible income should be

War Veterans Allowance Act
increased to a figure which would make it possible for a veteran to live in a city where rents may be higher than in certain other parts of the country.
We of this group believe that the War Veterans Allowance Act should be amended to provide for the following changes. We believe that there should be an increase in the allowances to $50 a month for a single veteran and to $100 for a married couple. We believe that the means test should be eliminated:; or, if the government cannot see its way clear to go that far, that at least the permissible income plus the allowance should be equal to the amount of income tax exemption, which at the presenttime would be around 81,500 for a married veteran. We believe that, for the purposes of this act, England should be considered a theatre of actual warfare in regard to world war I; that already is the case with respect to world war II. As far as world war I is concerned), a veteran who got only to England is not eligible for a war veterans allowance. When we remember that many of those veterans who enlisted for overseas service and got to England were only too anxious to go farther but were not allowed to do so, it does not seem fair that at this stage of the game they should be barred from the benefits of the war veterans allowance purely for that reason. Furthermore we believe that the benefits of the act should be made available to persons who served during world war I as a member of His Majesty's imperial forces, whether or not he was domiciled in Canada just prior to the outbreak of war. I have had cases of veterans who had been domiciled in Canada for a number of years prior to the war but who went to England perhaps two or three months before war broke out. I had one case of a veteran who went overseas because of the illness of his father. It was ruled that this man was not domiciled in this country because he was in England at the time war was declared, and as a result he has been denied the benefits of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
These are matters which we believe should be thoroughly discussed in the committee, and we are hoping that when this bill goes to the veterans committee some of the changes we have suggested may be brought about. Most of the suggestions I have outlined I think were also made by hon. members speaking for the C.C.F. party and the Progressive Conservative party. As a matter of fact they are suggestions that have been made for a number of years by the various veteran organizations in this country. If the government are really sincere in their desire to see that the old veteran gets a
square deal, then they should find ways and means of making these suggestions a reality. As the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) has stated, this bill it to be referred to the veterans committee, of which I am a member. Therefore I shall not say anything more at this time but will reserve any further remarks until the legislation, is considered by that committee.


Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister said when he was introducing the bill, the benefits of the War Veterans Allowance Act applied principally to the veterans of world war I. There are a few recipients of allowances who served in previous wars, such as the northwest field force and the South African war. There are a limited number of veterans who served in world war II and who are eligible for the allowance. In the main, however, they are men of the first world war.
I should like to call attention to the spirit of those times, the conditions which existed in 1914. That was the first citizen army war in more than a hundred years. It had been over a hundred years since the Canadian citizen had taken up arms in the defence of his country. When 1914 came there was a rush of men to join the various regiments, and they proceeded overseas. There was very little information upon which to build veterans rehabilitation schemes when the war came to an end.
In this connection I would quote the remarks of the present deputy minister of veterans affairs in a speech he made in 1943, which I think indicates the rush that existed for men to get discharged from that war. He states:
The principal problem at the conclusion of the first world war was in the fact that Canada, with a population of about 8,000,000 at that time, had to fit back into civilian life approximately 423,000 men within less than a year. All wished to return to civilian life as quickly as possible.
I would emphasize the words: "all wished to return to civilian life as quickly as possible." The men of those years were not pension conscious. A great many men who perhaps had received some small disability, either by war wounds or exposure in the trenches, were anxious to get back into civilian life. They did not bother about declaring their disability. As time went on, those disabilities, not being declared, began to weigh more heavily on the men. And as the years advanced, the men became more and more dependent upon any pension or any allowance they might receive.
This war veterans allowance is really a form of retirement scheme for ex-servicemen who have fulfilled service conditions. I suggest that in a way it is really a contributory retirement
War Veterans Allowance Act

scheme, because the men made their contribution in service in the trenches, instead of making it as a monetary contribution, as they might have done had they stayed at home.
As I have said, the cost of living has gone up since those days. Men have become more and more dependent upon whatever allowance or pension they may receive from a pension scheme or by way of allowance.
Listening to the build-up given, and justly so, by the minister to the services rendered by these men, I could not help repeating the words of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) when he said that Bill No. 196 is most disappointing. It has certainly not gone as far as the veterans had hoped it would go, nowhere near as far. It is disappointing in many respects. And I think it is particularly disappointing after the encouraging statements made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in New York a week ago, as reported by the Canadian Press. After describing what a prosperous state Canada was in and how we were experiencing boom conditions, he went on to say that in a few weeks time he would be reporting to parliament in his budget speech, and that he would be able to declare a surplus which would bring a glow to the heart of any Canadian finance minister. I suggest that the puny increases authorized or suggested in this bill will not bring much of a glow to the hearts of those old soldiers who will receive only this pittance. There is no warmth in this bill to bring a glow, even to the tips of their fingers.
It seems to me that the principle upon which the framers of these amendments have worked is to give the smallest amount possible to the fewest number of men. The increases in the allowances are referred to as a supplementary allowance of $120 a year, or $10 a month, which may be allocated to a recipient at the discretion of the board. It is not automatic, but the board will decide whether that amount of $10 a month, or a lesser amount, is to be given to the veterans. The increase is not automatic; that has been declared by the minister in the house.
I suggest that, unlike the Pension Act where we were told that the cheques were ready for issue before Easter, there are no cheques ready for issue in connection with this measure. Those who will hope to get increases will have to have their cases reviewed by the board, and the decisions will be made no doubt in accordance with the regulations as hinted by the minister in his opening remarks. Certain regulations will be laid down for the guidance of the board; but a discretion will be left with

the board as to how much they will increase the allowance or allow by way of a supplementary allowance. I suggest that is all going to take time. These various cases will have to be reviewed. Time will be required and additional staff will be needed to look after all these cases.
Mention has been made of the permissible income. The impression was given, I thought, that there had been some increase in the permissible income. That is the amount of money that man may receive in addition to his allowance. The amount of money he may earn was classified under different headings, such as casual earnings for a single man of $125 a year, other income for a single man of $125 per annum and then unearned income of $25 per annum.	,
The former minister of veterans affairs informed me last year that the term "other income" was interpreted by the war veterans allowance board to mean income derived from any source; that is, investment, pension, superannuation, insurance payments, rentals, et cetera, or as a result of earnings as a gardener, plumber, carpenter or as any other type of artisan.	:
What has happened, and I think there is some reason to think there has been some improvement, is that casual earnings and other income have been amalgamated, making a permissible income other than allowance for a single man of $250 per annum. That is not a large amount to go out and earn. A man is hardly encouraged to go out and earn that extra amount. I would call your attention Mr. Speaker, to the fact that pensions are included in permissible income.
There has been an increase in pensions. A recipient of a war veterans allowance might have an 18 per cent disability pension. Under the old rates he would draw $11.25 a month in pension; his allowance, allowing for the [DOT] pension he was authorized to receive, would be $29.58 a month, making a total of $40.83 a month. Under the new rates of pension which are increased by 16 per cent, he would receive $13.05 a month, but his allowance would be reduced by virtue of the fact that the pension has gone up. My interpretation of the act is-I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong-that with the new pension rate the allowance would be only $27.78 a month, still making a total of $40.83 a month.
While there has been an increase in one case, there has been a decrease in the other. The war veterans allowance recipient has gained through the increase in his pension, but he has lost in connection with his allowance.

War Veterans Allowance Act
I think that ought to be corrected, because that is hardly what was expected by the veterans when they were hoping to get an increase in their allowances.
I have some other remarks to make in connection with the failure to extend the benefits of this act to other groups of veterans, but I am afraid I cannot get through in the two minutes still left before eleven o'clock, so that I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Pearkes the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Tomorrow we shall continue the debate on the second reading of this bill and, I hope, conclude it. Then there
will be the resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister to appoint a joint committee of both houses on human rights and fundamental freedoms. Then there will be second reading of the bill to amend the Dominion Elections Act, which I understand is to be referred to the special committee that was established this evening. Then second reading of Bill No. 47, to amend the War Service Grants Act, 1944, and the second reading of Bill No. 60, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act. If there is time we shall take up the resolution providing for the introduction of a bill to amend the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act which stands in the name of the Minister of Labour.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
2801
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 9, 1948