MOTION TO SIT WHILE HOUSE IS IN SESSION-QUESTION OF CONTENTIOUS DIVORCE BILL-MOTION WITHDRAWN

Mr. W. P. TELFORD (Grey North) moved:: That the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills be empowered to sit while the house is sitting.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: On this question of the committee on private bills sitting while the house is sitting, may I point out that the bill in question here is a very contentious one. It has just been contested in the other place and, so far as I am concerned, I must say that the sitting of this committee would be nothing more or less than a farce. I believe all members feel the same way. As I say, it has been a matter of contention in the committee in the other place, and in my opinion it is simply wasting our time to take it into consideration now, in the dying days of the session. I protest against the House of Commons having to take the responsibility of passing on the bill that will be before us if this motion is agreed to.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I wish to say a word in this connection as well. I had intended to speak at some length on this bill because I have studied it carefully. I agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Ross) that there has never been a bigger farce before the house. After a careful reading of the evidence I cannot find any proof brought forward to warrant our proceeding with the bill. The people who are applying for this petition have definitely failed to prove their case. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) some time ago brought forward a similar case. He spoke on it at considerable length, and pointed out that it was a shame to go through with it. I must join with the hon. member who has spoken in

Privilege-Mr. McLean (Simcoe)
protesting against proceeding with this bill. It would be doing a service not only to the country but to this lady and her daughter if we refused at this time to allow the matter to be pushed through. I know it is quite late in the session and that is one reason why I refrain from going into the argument in detail, but it would he simply outrageous to have the bill go through.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: There seems to be a very strong feeling that this bill should not be proceeded with at this time. I should think the motion might well be withdrawn, if that were the general desire. No doubt the house would give its consent to that course.


William Pattison Telford: I will ask that the motion be withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.



TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): I lay on the table the extradition treaty recently signed between His Majesty the King and the President of the United States. There will be no opportunity at this time to consider legislation which would be required to confirm the treaty, but I thought it might be advisable to have it on the table so that hon. members may have an opportunity to study its contents before parliament meets again.

[Stage Direction]
MOTION FOR INTERMISSION FROM ONE TO TWO o'clock P.M. THIS DAY
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: In order to help ensure
the long adjournment of the house to-day, and as early in the day as possible, might I suggest to hon. members that the luncheon recess be from one to two instead of from one to three. It will be remembered that after discussions have concluded in this house there still remains assent to bills in the other house. We might seek to arrange for the assent as early in the evening as possible.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It will require a motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move:
That the intermission this day be from one to two o'clock p.m., instead of from one to three o'clock p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to protest against the order of business to-day', and the manner in which labour affairs have been prevented from coming on the floor of this house. With no more important matter facing the people of Canada than labour relations, we find it the last item on the agenda to-day. I protest in the strongest possible terms.



PROCEDURE IN CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE OF COMMONS ESTIMATES

Mr. G. A. McLEAN (Simcoe East):: I
rise on a matter of privilege. I have before me the record in Hansard of the proceedings of the house yesterday. I claim that some of those proceedings constituted a gross breach of the rights and privileges of members of the House of Commons.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the debate on the budget I took occasion to refer to expenditures dealing particularly with one branch. It perhaps might have been more properly dealt with under the estimates. You, sir, I think were aware that it was my intention to speak on these estimates, because a few days ago the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario (Mr. Fraser), came to me and said yrou desired to know whether it was my intention to speak on those estimates. I informed him that it was.
1 wish to point out that this was the only branch the cost of which was dealt with while the debate on the budget was in progress. It is I believe customary-if I am wrong I will be corrected-for the estimates of the legist lation branch to be introduced by the Prime Minister. I think that has usually taken place.
We have been sitting in the house from eleven o'clock in the morning until twelve o'clock at night. I have sat in this house I think as faithfully' as any hon. member. Last night, between eleven and twelve o'clock, while the hon. Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) was leading the house, putting his estimates through, you, Mr. Speaker, were permitted to introduce the legislation estimates, sandwiched in between the estimates of two branches of the Department of Mines and Resources. It happened that for about fifteen or twenty minutes I was absent from the chamber, in the lobby. I do not claim that those who are in charge of the house should notice when I am present and when I am not, but I think you were aware that the one department which had

Privilege-Mr. McLean (Simcoe)
been discussed on the budget might be expected to be discussed on the estimates. You placed on Hansard, Mr. Speaker, without discussion, a long written statement purporting to deal with the point which I took up in the debate on the budget. The hon. minister who was in charge of the house, putting through his estimates, permitted you, in the course of two or three minutes, to sandwich in your estimates among the estimates of the Minister of Mines and Resources while I was absent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the rules of the house will not permit me to charge that you or your officials or anyone else had a deliberate plan of frustrating the private members of this house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Alexander McLean: I say the rules of the house will not permit me to do that. But, Mr. Speaker, if a deliberate plan had been made to do such a thing it could not have been executed in a better manner than was done. I want to tell you and I want to tell the minister who is in charge of the house that if anyone, any official, or any cabinet minister, thinks that any private member is going to be frustrated in the work which he thinks is his duty to the taxpayers of this country they are making a serious mistake in their judgment of the temper of members of this house.


Mr. POULIOT:: Is this a point of order or a question of privilege? I would have something to say if it is a point of order.


Georges Parent: It is a question of privilege.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: First may I say that I believe there are few, if any, hon. members of this house who are more faithful in their attendance than the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. McLean). I can assure him that as far as members on this side of the house, and indeed hon. members of the house generally, are concerned I do not think any of them would wish to be a party to any plan which would deprive him of any right to discuss at the right time whatever matter he may wish to discuss.
What the hon. member has said about the Prime Minister taking charge of estimates relating to the House of Commons is true to the extent that such a procedure is usually followed if the Prime Minister happens to be leading the house at the time. But it is not an invariable rule that the Prime Minister takes charge of the estimates relating to the
house. It is done by whoever is leading the house at the time. On occasions, His Honour the Speaker has himself explained the House of Commons estimates.
I am quite sure that my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), who was leading the house at the time, had no plan in his mind of usurping any hon. member's right to speak, and I am sure that His Honour the Speaker would be the last person who would be a party to such a plan or to countenance it; and as to there being agreement between the two for such a purpose, I cannot imagine it. However, may I say to my hon. friend that if he has a matter he wishes to discuss which relates to economy it might appropriately be discussed on the estimates of the Minister of Finance, whose estimates will be the first in order to-day.


George Alexander McLean: In answer to the Prime Minister I might say that my grievance is not so much that there are things I wanted to discuss that were not discussed. It was not my intention to discuss these matters at any length. My complaint is not that at all. My complaint is the manner in which this was carried out; and hon. members who are here and other private members who intended to speak on these things feel exactly as I do. It is all right for the Prime Minister to excuse those who were in charge last night, but we saw what happened; and I want to tell the Prime Minister that in spite of what is said by anybody, what was done was clear as day. And that sort of thing is not going to be put over on private members of this house if I can stop it.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Since I have been brought into the discussion by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) I might offer this word of explanation. I was not aware that the hon. member had any special interest in discussing Mr. Speaker's estimates, or any other estimates, any more than any other hon. member of the house. When the Minister of Finance completed his income tax bill last night there were several of my colleagues who wished to get into supply. The Minister of Labour had spoken to me, and the Secretary of State. But I had my own estimates partly completed and intended going ahead with them when the Minister of Finance had completed his income tax bill. It was suggested then that Mr. Speaker's estimates might be taken up at that time-


George Alexander McLean: Mr. Speaker's estimates might be taken up at what time?
5120	COMMONS
Supply-Mines-Soldier Settlement


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It was suggested to me when the Minister of Finance completed his income tax bill that Mr. Speaker would like to dispose of his estimates. I immediately gave way to Mr. Speaker as a courtesy to him. There was not a thought in my mind, it never entered my mind for a moment, that any injustice was being done to the hon. member for Simcoe East. It was simply to give Mr. Speaker the opportunity to put his estimates through. And when his estimates were through I went on with mine. I wish to say to my hon. friend that my estimates were not stopped in the middle last night to go on with Mr. Speaker's.


George Alexander McLean: I am very sorry to have to take issue with the minister. The record is on Hansard. He had just completed those of his estimates which had to do with Indian Affairs-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, no.


George Alexander McLean: We may as well have this straight. In Hansard for July 31, 1942, at the bottom of the left hand
column of page 5108, item 176, an item concerning national parks, amounting to $65,800, was discussed as follows:
Mr. MacNicol: Why is this vote not included in item 11,tt
Mr. Crerar:	They were special projects
originating under special votes of a few years ago. . . .


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Then comes:

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons.
116. General administration-estimates of the Clerk, $494,895.
Then follows a long statement which was placed on Hansard by Mr. Speaker without being read, ending on page 5112, near the *bottom of the second column. The next item is:

[Stage Direction]
S39. Administration of soldier settlement and British family settlement, $571,858.
I did not want to speak at length, but the fact remains that these estimates were sandwiched in between other estimates of the Minister of Mines and Resources, who was then leading the house.
Thomas Alexander Crerar: I was in error in the statement I made a moment ago, as to the precise time at which Mr. Speaker's estimates were introduced; but I wish to say to my hon. friend, and I ask him to accept my word, that there was no thought in my mind at all of sandwiching Mr. Speaker's estimates in between those of two branches of my own department. It never entered my mind at all that

the hon. member was particularly interested in those estimates. Since I was looking after the work of the house it would have been an easy matter for my hon. friend to suggest to me that he wanted to be present when Mr. Speaker's estimates were discussed, and if I had been so informed it could have been arranged. I extended to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) the courtesy of advising him last night when my estimates would come up again, because I knew he was particularly interested in one item to which he wished to speak. I do hope the hon. member for Simcoe East will take my word on that point. It was not in my mind at all that my hon. friend wished particularly to discuss Mr. Speaker's estimates; and those estimates were introduced at that time simply as a courtesy to Mr. Speaker, which I think everyone will agree was the proper thing to do when he desired to bring his estimates in.


George Alexander McLean: With the greatest of pleasure I accept the statement of the minister. I should have been very sorry indeed to think that any member of the cabinet would have been a party to anything like this. I am very glad that the minister is absolved from any blame.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker Lemieux used to present his own estimates.


Georges Parent: In view of the criticism that has been offered with regard to the administration of the House of Commons, I had prepared a statement which I wished to place on Hansard, in order that hon. members and the country as well might know just how the administration of this house is conducted. There was no arrangement made, so far as I knew, with regard to the introduction of the Speaker's estimates in the committee. I was anxious to have them put through, because there are very many other matters that have to be attended to after that is done. I sat in the house yesterday waiting for an opportunity for these estimates to be called. I did not consult with the Minister of Mines and Resources, who was leading the house, nor did I consult or discuss with anyone as to the time when these estimates should be brought in. I quite admit that I indicated my desire to have these estimates brought in, but the hon. member for Simcoe East was in the house all evening. It may have been that at the moment these estimates were called he was not present-


George Alexander McLean: Certainly that is a fact.


Georges Parent: The hon. member was not present; nevertheless the estimates were

Committee to Revise Rules
brought in at a time when, as I understand it, he was within the precincts of the house. There was no effort made to have these estimates brought before the committee because of the fact that the hon. gentleman was not present. I was prepared then, and would have welcomed the opportunity, to discuss the administration of the house, rather than to have the hon. gentleman suggest that I endeavoured in any way to avoid such discussion. As a matter of fact I welcomed the criticism of the hon. gentleman. I did believe that hon. members were not fully aware and should be informed as to the administration of the house, because of general ideas with regard to its administration and the staff. I was hoping for an opportunity to bring these matters before the committee.
I say now definitely that no understanding was reached with anyone, neither with the minister who was leading the house at the time nor with any other hon. member, that these estimates should be discussed in the absence of the hon. member for Simcoe East.



FURTHER SUPERVISION OF EXPENDITURES-SUGGESTED COMMITTEE TO REVISE RULES

Mr. R. W. GLADSTONE (Wellington South):: Arising out of the discussion on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean), I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and as a basis for my question I should like to interject two or three sentences.
During the time I have been in this house I have on two or three occasions advocated the adoption of business principles and practices in the administration of the affairs of the government. Once I proposed a minister of economy; again I advocated a change in the rules of the house, and at other times I have urged that greater consideration should be given the estimates having to do with the expenditure of money. I should like to ask the Prime Minister now if the government will give consideration to the question of providing a more businesslike method of dealing with the estimates; and also with regard to a recent press forecast of the creation of some department to supervise expenditures, if they will keep in mind the desirability of securing a very competent, experienced man to direct that work, preferably one who does not reside in Ottawa and has no connection with the set-up of the civil service organization here.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Wellington South has given a great deal of thought and attention to the question of
economy in connection with public business, and has offered many suggestions in that regard, including, some he has repeated this morning. I may say that time and again the government has given close thought and attention to the matters to which he has referred; but, as he will realize, some of them involve far-reaching considerations, so that it is not always easy to effect changes just at the time they may seem to be most necessary. However, I can assure my hon. friend that the matter will be further considered.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I was just going to add a word to what has been said about the business of the house, since this is the last opportunity I may have to do so. I wonder if during the recess the government would consider the advisability of setting up a committee to inquire into the procedure of the house itself. It strikes me that the time has arrived when some attention should be given to the rules of the house; I think that has been demonstrated very clearly during the present session. I would urge that some consideration be given to the setting up of a committee as soon as the house assembles in January, so that we may go into the whole matter of procedure and endeavour to modernize the rules and thus facilitate the public business of the country.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: In
connection with the same matter, I feel that if we set up such a committee to change the rules we should clarify those rales as they apply to standing committees of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
as hon. members will realize, at a time of war there are bound to be reasons why the procedure should not in all particulars be the same as in ordinary times. Without doubt the rules have had to be more or less altered. Amendments have had to be made to the rules, with the consent of the house, to enable lertain procedure to be adopted. I question, however, whether a time of war is the best time to attempt anything in the nature of a general revision of the rules. I do not think that procedure which would be suited to a time of war would be equally suited to times of peace. But I agree with hon. members that procedure is as important at one session as at another. Because of the exceptional nature of procedure in a time of war it might be advisable to review that aspect of the situation. I shall endeavour to see that consideration is given to that possibility between now and the reassembling of parliament.
Supply-Finance



The house in committee of supply, Mr. Vien in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
47. Departmental administration, $417,106.
Mr. McNEVIN:: Mr. Chairman, unless the minister wishes to make a statement, I have a few remarks I wish to make in support of some representations I made during the passage of the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture with respect to the whole milk situation in Canada. My remarks will bear more particularly on that area commonly referred to as the Toronto milk shed, and distribution within the city of Toronto.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY:: (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member spoke to me last night and said that he wished to discuss the fluid milk situation under this estimate. I took no exception to it at that time. However, on thinking it over I should like to have a ruling as to whether such a discussion is in order. If it is in order, all right; if it is not-[DOT]


Thomas Bruce McNevin: It will take just about
five minutes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, five minutes from the hon. member. Then the hon. member for Kamloops wishes to discuss beef-or at least did, the last time the matter was before the house. I took the position at that time that the discussion of the wartime prices and trade board was completed for the present session, so far as I could see. It may be that this matter may be discussed. But if so I am afraid the discussion on the wartime prices and trade board will be endless.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I will not bring that in. I have not touched upon the wartime prices and trade board.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What is it brought in under, then?


Thomas Bruce McNevin: It does not relate to that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the hon. member wishes to answer my point of order, and can point out any item under which he contends he should be permitted to make this statement, and if the chairman rules that that is permissible, well and good. But if so, we shall be going on indefinitely.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: Replying to the point of order, there is no question that the item for the general administration of the Department of Finance has to do with matters of this kind.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The wartime prices and trade board.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: It relates to very many other things, so far as that is concerned. This item has reference to the general conduct of the minister's department. That covers a great many things, and this subject, I consider, comes under general administration. It comes under the general work of the minister, among the many other things.
I have only a very brief table to place on record, and I suggest I am entitled to that privilege. When I review what took place here yesterday I think it would be unfair to prevent my proceeding. I could cite many things of a similar nature which happened yesterday, and which took a very great deal longer. In fact one hon. member spent forty minutes on a speech touching a subject matter he had discussed last June.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member to whom reference is now made obtained unanimous consent.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: Quite true.


Thomas Vien: I would ask the hon. member to state on what point he desires to speak, and then to discuss the point of order raised. In that way he may show the Chair how that discussion would come under item /{I.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: It is a matter which comes well within the purview of the general administration of the Department of Finance.


Thomas Vien: What is the subject matter the hon. member wishes to discuss?


Thomas Bruce McNevin: The subject is that of the whole milk producers of Canada. I am referring to whole milk production and consumption in Canada.


Thomas Vien: Surely that should come under the item referring to dairy products, discussed under the Department of Agriculture. I do not believe that the problems of whole milk dealers in Canada are a proper subject of discussion on this item.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I should like to add this in connection with the very same matter, that I discussed the butter situation on an item in the Department of Agriculture, and discussed it again when the Minister of Finance was before the house. I understood the minister had given me an undertaking yesterday that I would be permitted to make a short statement. If he wishes to withdraw that privilege I will accept his decision, but I do not think it will facilitate the passage of the estimates.


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
Thomas Bruce McNevin: The minister said "all right".


James Lorimer Ilsley: I may have said "all right," but I did not consider it an undertaking.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I took it as an undertaking.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think the hon.
member is prejudiced in the slightest degree. And let us be clear on the question with regard to butter. I had a $50,000,000 item under the war appropriation measure, when the operations of the wartime prices and trade board were discussed. There was a fairly lengthy discussion at that time. Later I took a point of order, when the hon. member for Kootenay East attempted to raise the question of beef prices, or something of the kind-I have forgotten what it was. The point of order was sustained, and at that time the hon. member asked when he could discuss the matter. I remember his saying that there is nothing improper or unjust about there being a termination at some stage in the session of the right to discuss certain subjects at any greater length. I thought that the time had gone by. There have been abundant and repeated opportunities for discussion. If the hon. member thinks I gave an undertaking, I am sorry.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: 1 do. It would not have taken five minutes to make my statement and it would then have been on Hansard. It is a most important matter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member was not
seeking an undertaking; he will understand that. He was asking when the estimates would be up and that is all.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I asked with the intention of seeking an opportunity to speak.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I suggest that the
manner of carrying out the business of this session has taken too much time, and a great deal of time has been wasted. In connection with estimates and finances generally, I suggest that next year the war appropriations be brought down in the same form as these estimates and taken in conjunction with the estimates. We could then consider them item by item and if the government desired some money in the meantime they could always get a portion of what was to be voted. By so doing we would have a far better chance of
discussing the items instead of having these money matters brought before us at the end of the session.


Thomas Vien: My difficulty as Chairman has been stated repeatedly to the committee. On three or four occasions I have pointed out that if any irregularity is allowed, it is likely to be followed by eight, ten or more irregularities. It would be quite easy for the committee to grant leave by unanimous consent to an hon. member to bring up a particular point, but then how could we prevent any other hon. member from discussing the same subject? A general debate is likely to ensue and it would become impossible for the Chairman to apply the rules impartially as it is his desire to do. There is only one way to mete out a fair treatment to every hon. member, and that is by adhering strictly to the rules. A certain elasticity is necessary when the occasion arises, but that must be by unanimous consent otherwise speeches in committee must be strictly relevant to the item under consideration.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I should like to have an opportunity to make a statement, and I shall not take more than five minutes. I think I am entitled to that. I hold in my hand a table-


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the hon. member is going to talk about the matter he referred to, I rise to a point of order. I do not like to be told that I gave an undertaking when there was only a casual meeting in the lobby. I shall have to be very careful about what I say to private members if such things are going to be construed into an undertaking to change the rules of the house.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I said that I took it as an undertaking; I do not know what the minister understood it to be.


Thomas Vien: The Chairman is bound by the rules, not by any undertaking. I must accept the statement made by the minister, and I think the hon. gentleman accepts it also, as given.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I have a table which shows the prices paid the producers of milk over a period of years.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: From 1913 to 1919 inclusive. This table also shows the prices paid by the consumers of milk in the city of Toronto during the period referred to.


Thomas Vien: Order, please. It is not permissible to speak on that subject under
Supply-Finance

item 47. If the hon. gentleman desires to file a tabulation, it must be by unanimous consent, otherwise he cannot discuss that subject at this time.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: If you will permit me to make a short statement I shall not take over a minute or two. Then I will file the tables and that will make my point clear.


Thomas Vien: Has the hon. gentleman unanimous consent to speak for two minutes on the subject?


Mr. MacNICOL:: Not to file a whole sheaf of tables.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: The explanation I want to make is this: from 1917 to 1942 a period of twenty-five years has elapsed. A comparison of prices as between the years 1917 and 1942 reveals that the producers of whole milk in the Toronto area are receiving 43 cents per hundred less than they received twenty-five years ago for the milk they ship, transportation paid, to Toronto, whereas the consumers are paying 30 cents per hundred more to-day than they paid twenty-five years ago. That is a dangerous trend. It is a situation that
warrants the most careful and searching consideration on the part of this house. Putting it into quarts, the producers of milk are receiving more than a cent a quart less than they received twenty-five years ago, whereas the consumers are paying three-quarters of a cent more than they paid twenty-five years ago. That is why I have persisted in seeking to place this matter before the committee. I now place these tables on the record.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to have my officials look at them.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: The figures were given to me by the economics branch of the Department of Agriculture.


Thomas Vien: By unanimous consent these tables will be placed on Hansard.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If they are found correct.


Thomas Vien: The department will consider them. May I assume that the hon. gentleman has unanimous consent?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: 
Mr. GILLIS:: Mr. Chairman-


Thomas Vien: I want it to be quite clear that I could not allow a general discussion on the subject.


Clarence Gillis: I have a few remarks to make about the treasury board. I should like to inquire from the minister if I should make them under this item, or wait until item 68 is before the committee. Item 68 seems to be specific.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would say, make them
now. I do not think item 68 is the one.


Thomas Vien: As I tried to explain yesterday, we must stick to the item under consideration. The details of item 47 are set out on page 77. We are in committee of supply, and the only question referred to us is the expediency of granting to his majesty certain sums of money under item 47, the details of which are given on page 77. If we depart from that rule we shall be completely at sea in determining what we should and what we should not do.


Clarence Gillis: The Minister of Finance is chairman of the treasury board. I corresponded with him in connection with the matter which I desire to bring to his attention. This has to do with the manner in which dependents' allowances are applied to the present armed forces. The case that I have in mind concerns a soldier who is at present serving in England-


Thomas Vien: Dependents' allowances cannot be brought up under item 47 by any stretch of the imagination.


Clarence Gillis: The dependents' allowance is merely part of the discussion. The matter finally went to the treasury board. As I say, I corresponded with the Minister of Finance about the matter. The treasury board has overruled the dependents' allowance board on this question of dependents' allowance. This particular soldier is serving in the old country. He had four of a family, the youngest child being tubercular. The oldest child has been acting as his housekeeper since 1931 and has maintained the home. For the past fifteen months this family has been eking out an existence without a dependents' allowance. After a correspondence lasting about a year the dependents' allowance board decided the case was legitimate. They made an award, but the treasury board disallowed it. The only income of this family at the present time is the assigned pay of the father. I received a letter from the minister setting out the position of the treasury board, and I wrote him again on July 2 but have not received an answer.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman was
going to take it up with the dependents' allowance board.


Clarence Gillis: I did, and I received no reply from the dependents' allowance board, which leads me to believe that the board are a little afraid of maintaining their former position in view of the attitude taken by the treasury board. The minister in his letter to me of July 29 sets out that the boy who was in hospital was receiving an award of $5 a month to provide comforts, and that his maintenance in hospital was taken care of because his father was a subscriber. But that is a charitable arrangement which the hospital authorities have made with respect to men who enlist in the armed services. There is no contribution from that family to the hospital now, but the hospital has extended ever since the outbreak of the war to those serving in the armed forces the same advantages as are given to men who are now subscribing. So that the boy was really being maintained in hospital mostly by the miners of that section, who to a large extent keep up that hospital. The boy is home at the present time, and he should be receiving the $12 a month allowance allocated by the dependents' allowance board.
The minister in his letter makes the further observation, with which I agree, that there were two other girls in the family, one eighteen and one nineteen. There was no application for allowance for the two older girls. One was employed as a domestic servant, receiving $3 a week, and the other as a domestic servant, receiving $2 a week. The minister makes the observation that they might be making some contribution, but in the light of what they were receiving that was impossible. One of these girls has since left domestic service to take employment in a munitions plant in Ontario, and the other is still eking out an existence on that wage.
What I tried to make clear in my letter to the minister was that the older daughter has been maintaining the home since 1931. The father is in England fighting for democracy. While he is fighting over there for democracy, the roof he left over his head to take care of his tubercular child and the older daughter is being taken from him. All that we expect, and all that that girl expects, and all that the soldier expects, is that the older daughter will receive the $35 a month allowance and some consideration with respect to the allowance of $12 a month for the tubercular boy, who is not in a position to take employment and will not be for a great many years. His case is probably hopeless. You can visualize the state of mind of that soldier in England, with his daughter writing to him

Supply-Finance

and telling him the facts. You can understand what that girl who is keeping up that home has been up against for the past fifteen months, eking out an existence on $20 a month and with the care of that tubercular boy on her hands. She has him home with her now.
The treasury board, I think, were very shortsighted in not giving this case the examination it merited. The dependents' allowance board have dealt with the case. They have the regulations as they pertain to allowances for dependents of members of the armed forces; they have their investigators in the field, and they had an investigation of the case made by the proper officials. After all that was done, they made an award. After all that was done by people who considered the case from all angles, the treasury board vetoed the decision of the dependents' allowance board. That is why I bring it again to the minister's attention, so that he may have the case reexamined, and if the treasury board should still be of the same opinion as when they gave their first decision, they certainly should change it, because it was a sad reflection on the people who made that decision.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I remember the case well.
There are two parts to it. One is the application for an allowance because of the tubercular brother of the oldest daughter who was in. charge of the household. As I understand it, the dependents' allowance board did not propose to make any allowance to her on account of the brother, because he was in hospital and his expenses were being provided for in another way. He was also receiving a small allowance, $5 I think, for comforts and so on. So that the dependents' allowance board, if I understood the case correctly, did not consider that the brother came into it at that time at all.
The whole question was whether the principle should be laid down that where there are three grown-up girls, twenty-four, twenty and eighteen respectively, living in a house together, the government should pay to the oldest girl to provide for the home an allowance not provided for fay the regulations except under the discretionary authority vested in the dependents' allowance board. So far as the evidence before the treasury board is concerned, there were three adult healthy young women to provide for that home, and the treasury board felt that unless there was some explanation for the necessity of making an allowance a precedent would be created which could not possibly be defended. The treasury board pointed that out; I pointed it out in my letter to the hon. gentleman, and asked him if there were any special circumstances which made it necessary
[Mr. Gillis.J
to establish a precedent of that kind. I also pointed out that if the brother came back to the home, the dependents' allowance board probably would make an allowance for looking after the brother, because that was a different thing; and if the brother did come back to the home [DOT] I suggested that the hon. gentleman go to the dependents' allowance board.
With regard to the treasury board and how it should act, there are sections which provide that allowances are awarded as of right to dependents of members of the forces. There is another discretionary section, 119, which provides that outside of that range altogether the dependents' allowance board may make special awards which will be subject to review by the treasury board.
Now the treasury board can do one or two things. The treasury board can become a mere rubber stamp, shut its eyes to anything and everything that the dependents' allowance board does, and abdicate its functions as a reviewing tribunal. That is what the hon. gentleman has suggested that it do. Or, on the other hand, the treasury board can discharge its functions and do its duty just as it tried to do in this case.


Clarence Gillis: I wrote to the minister on
July 2 and answered fully with respect to the additional information required, and I also wrote to the dependents' allowance board on July 2. I have not received an answer from either board, and that is what caused me to bring the matter before the committee to-day. I came to the conclusion, because I had not received a reply from either board, that the dependents' allowanace board were afraid to make another decision and that the treasury board was still waiting for the dependents' allowance board to do something. There are extenuating circumstances in this case which you will not run into every day. The oldest daughter has maintained the home since 1931. I think the minister will agree that the one adult daughter cannot keep up the home on $20, and as to the other two girls they left that district because there is no employment for girls in that area. Approximately five hundred girls have left that area in the last couple of months to work in Ontario. I know 156 girls from that very town who left there to work close to Oshawa. That is why these girls were not able to make a contribution to the upkeep of the home, the home which was maintained by the older girl for eleven years. She has now a tubercular brother on her hands, and her father is in England fighting for his country. What incentive is there for a man to enlist if when

Supply-Finance
he comes back home he finds that the roof over his head disappeared while he was fighting for democracy and our democratic institutions?


Mr. JACKMAN:: Mr. Chainnan, I wish
to bring up a matter on this item, but my remarks will apply to all departments. It is an item of $12,000, which includes $10,000 as the minister's salary and $2,000 as car allowance. I bring it up in connection with this department because the Minister of Finance is charged with keeping the expenses of the country down as much as possible. Certainly he is charged with that as much as any other minister of the crown and it is therefore his responsibility to some extent. I also bring it up because I have heard-I have no authority for this except common rumour-that the Minister of Finance may not accept the $2,000 for car allowance. Of that I do not know. It is common knowledge that there are many ministers of the crown who are making great sacrifices to serve the state. They do it at great financial loss to themselves in order to help in the war effort, and they make sacrifices in times of peace as well. Many private members of the house also make considerable sacrifices in serving their country as best they can. However, this $2,000 car allowance, if prorated on a mileage basis at cents a mile, which is the common commercial figure for automobile expenses, would represent a total of 26,660 miles. It cannot be said that ministers are to-day entitled to a chauffeur. Certainly the Prime Minister, even in these times, should have a chauffeur to facilitate his getting about, but with the shortage of man-power I do not believe there are other ministers of the crown, certainly not many, who are entitled to a chauffeur in these days, at the expense of the state. Against this 26,660 miles is the fact that we have now gasoline rationing and the ordinary person is not allowed to drive more than 4,000 or 5,000 miles. It is an utter impossibility for a minister to be attending to his duties in the house and in his department and use the money he gets on automobile travelling. Not only is this $2,000 given to ministers as car allowance, but it is tax free, and that means-


Thomas Vien: Order, please. I do
not believe it would be in order at this time to discuss an expense which is not before the committee to be voted. The item of $2,000 for each minister of the crown is a statutory allowance. It has been fixed by statute. If the hon. gentleman desires to discuss the propriety of the continuance of that item of expense he should introduce legislation or discuss it at the proper time-for instance, on 44561-323 J
a motion to go into supply, or otherwise. But this item which is the only thing referred to the committee of supply and which is under discussion does not permit of such a debate. With respect to the general principle which the hon. member has set out, namely, that on the departmental administration item now before us, hon. members may discuss any item of finance, that would be quite preposterous. Rule 58 (2) is clear. When we are in committee hon. members must adhere strictly to the item before the chair. H the principle urged by the hon. gentleman were to be allowed, it would then be permissible under this item, to discuss any question of subsidies on wheat or wheat acreage, or any other matter of that sort, which would mean reopening a debate already disposed of. T must rule that the hon. gentleman cannot discuss this point at the present juncture.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The salary of the Minister of Finance, and motor car allowance, are both set forth-


Thomas Vien: That is statutory.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I realize that "S" means statutory, but I find it difficult to have an opportunity to discuss the matter in the absence of any statute or resolution which would make discussion possible.


Thomas Vien: I could point out a
number of opportunities; I am not here to point out to hon. members such opportunities. I am here to expedite the proceedings of the house in an orderly manner. I could say, however, that such opportunity is available on the speech from the throne, on the budget debate, or on any motion for the house to go into; supply except on Thursdays and Fridays.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I must accept your
ruling.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
!,8. Bank inspection (Inspector General of Banks' office), $27,042.
Major James William Coldwell: I know that the matter of maintaining parity between Canadian and United States funds has .been discussed during the session and I do not propose to deal with it now. The policy has already been laid down, although I think that with the large imports into Canada some arrangement with the United States for parity between the two dollars would have been beneficial to the war. However, I have been asked a question which I cannot answer. When we sell United States funds we sell at a premium of 10 per cent if they are dollar bills, and, I believe, 7 per cent on silver. If we buy we pay 11 per cent in. each case. Who gets it?
Supply-Finance


James Lorimer Ilsley: The foreign exchange control board.


Major James William Coldwell: The popular opinion is that the banks get it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Less shipping charges on coinage. I may add that the foreign exchange control board has agents all over the country. Those agents are the chartered banks, and perhaps it would be misleading to say that the exchange control board gets one per cent. It does get it, but out of that it has to pay commission to its agents.


Major James William Coldwell: The amount paid would be less than the amount collected.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, yes.


Major James William Coldwell: That is the point.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, there is a profit on it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
51. Old age pensions, including pensions to the blind-administration, $41,320.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Has any table been prepared to show how much extra it would cost the country if the pensionable age were reduced from 70 to 65 and the allowance increased from S20 to $30?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not that information here, but it was given in a return moved for some time ago.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know it was, but I should like to see it on Hansard.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Some time ago the minister said that the question of increasing old age pensions was a provincial matter. Have any of the other provinces signified their willingness to increase their proportion so that the dominion might do likewise in order to give the pensioner a little more than he gets now?


James Lorimer Ilsley: British Columbia and Alberta are themselves supplementing old age pensions payable to pensioners in those provinces.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I understood the minister to say that the dominion government could not do anything about it, but that if the provinces raised their proportion the government would also raise its.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not correct.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In Ontario there is also medical attention.


Angus MacInnis: I do not believe there is another matter in regard to which I receive more letters and complaints than I do in connection with the treatment of old age

pensioners. During these war years we have not had the opportunity of discussing matters of this kind as in other years. It is, however, a matter of the most urgent importance. I notice that the statutory provision, that is the dominion's share of the payment of old age pensions, is down this year by some $572,000. No doubt that can be accounted for because of the greater employment available than before the war. But instead of the amount being less, if we are going to give any consideration at all to our old people, people who are now not able to look after themselves, the amount should be a great deal more.
May I bring to the attention of the committee the position in which the government and this parliament will find itself in the mind of the general public. Hundreds of thousands of the general public come in contact with these old age pensioners. In every community there are a number. Yesterday we provided a pension of $1,800 a year for the widow of a certain person. Thousands of widows in this country, mothers who have raised the sons who fought the last war, and some perhaps in this one; people who have given their lives to building up and making this country what it is, are expected to get along on the measly amount of $20 a month. In many cases it is less. I think the average last year was about $19, the amount that our dollar-a-year men require for one day's expehses. It is time that the government of this country made up its mind that something better than that is required. I could have brought a sheaf of letters here which would indicate the terrible circumstances of these people. In my own province, although the amount has been raised-


Thomas Vien: Order. I must draw
the attention of the hon. gentleman to the point I already mentioned a minute ago. The item of $31,372,500, which covers pensions, is statutory. The question of policy has been fixed by statute. The hon. gentleman is now discussing the adequacy of such pensions. That can be done only at an appropriate time during the session. We are now concerned only with the expense under item 51, which is for the administration of old age pensions. Details appear at page 79.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman-


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman-


Thomas Vien: Order.


Angus MacInnis: Well, I had the floor. If the hon. member for Comox-Alberni wishes to help out in this, as I believe he does, he will have an opportunity so far as I am concerned. I would draw the attention of the

Supply-Finance
chairman to the fact that there is no possible way in which we can discuss old age pensions except on this item. If the chairman would stop making speeches we would get along much faster.


Thomas Vien: It is not for my own humble person, but as long as I occupy the Chair I cannot allow an hon. member to tell the chairman to stop making speeches when he explains a ruling. I am now telling the hon. gentleman that the house has referred to the committee of supply certain expenditures to be incurred by the crown and to be voted by this committee. The statutory provisions of an act of parliament such as that dealing with old age pensions, the adequacy of such pensions, are not before the committee of supply.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I am going to appeal your ruling. I have a duty to perform to the old people of this country, and if I cannot discuss their needs here because of your ruling, then at the proper time I am going to appeal from your ruling. I am going to discuss this matter; I do not care if we stay here until next October.


Thomas Vien: The ruling is not
debatable, but-


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not want to say anything about your decision, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps by unanimous consent this could be discussed.


Thomas Vien: I have no objection. If the hon. gentleman has unanimous consent.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Just a minute, before that precedent is set. We are not asking for unanimous consent to do something that is within the right of a private member to do.


Thomas Vien: Well, then-


Major James William Coldwell: May I speak without interruption?


Thomas Vien: The hon. member may speak only to the point of order.


Major James William Coldwell: I am speaking to the point of order. The Chairman has disputed the right of an hon. member to discuss old age pensions on the item "old age pensions" in the estimates. The Chair says this should be done on the appropriate occasion. I point out that on February 16 the hon. member for Vancouver East filed with the Clerk of the House, and it so appears to-day in Routine Proceedings and Orders oj the Day, at page 10, a motion which reads thus:
Whereas it is becoming increasingly difficult for persons in the age group of 60 to 70 years
to hold employment, and next to impossible for such persons to regain employment once they have lost it;
And whereas the present amount of the old age pension is much below what is necessary for a decent standard of living;
And whereas the increase in the cost of living since the outbreak of war has further depressed the standard of living of old age pensioners,
Therefore be it resolved,-That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to the lowering of the present pensionable age and the increasing of the amount of pension.
So that the hon. gentleman tried to do the appropriate thing in connection with this matter. Since this is an estimate which deals with old age pensions, I contend that the hon. member has the right to discuss it under this item.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: The hon. member is entirely out of order in referring to an order on the order paper which has not been reached. But I think he is quite in order in his contention that the old age pensions administration can be discussed, not under the statutory vote, but under the vote for administration.


Major James William Coldwell: I was pointing out that the hon. member has taken every step possible to ensure discussion of this matter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As my colleague has pointed out, an item on the order paper cannot be discussed. But as the question seems to be whether other means may be taken or other steps adopted to bring the matter before the committee, and as other steps have been sought to be taken, I suggest that the hon. gentleman be permitted to discuss this matter under this item.


Thomas Vien: If the hon. gentleman has unanimous consent.
Some bon. MEMBERS: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I differentiate between the two items of the vote, the portion dealing with administration and the statutory portion. I agree that it is the statutory portion we are discussing, but under "administration" I maintain that anything in regard to old age pensions can be discussed in committee of the whole.


Alan Webster Neill: I hope the hon. member for Vancouver East does not get the unanimous consent of the committee, and I hope he has the courage to put it to a vote. This matter of the government getting out of its obligations and responsibilities, and depriving us of our rights by asking for unanimous consent, is played out. It is a device which has been resorted to time and again this session. We
Supply-Finance

are supposed to have certain rights, but I am beginning to wonder whether we have any remaining. The latest method of carrying on is for the chairman to say "You are out of order, but you may continue if you get unanimous consent," and then hon. members, for shame's sake, make it unanimous. But either we have rights or we have not. At one time we had the right to place resolutions on the order paper, but that right was taken away from us in order to expedite government business, or so we were told. Following that we were told that we could discuss these matters on the particular items of the estimates. A minister of the crown, I believe it was the Prime Minister himself, told us either this session or last session that there would be an opportunity to take up these matters under appropriate items of the estimates. Now we come to this item, which deals with the cost of administration. Ever since I have been in the house, and that is for twenty years, we have been allowed to discuss anything pertaining to a department under the item of "administration."


Thomas Vien: By consent.


Alan Webster Neill: No, without consent. This consent business is a new device that has been brought into operation only within the last year or two. We can easily get around this thing, if we are going to have chiselling and quibbling, by moving that the item be reduced by II. We could not move to have it increased, because that would be against the rules, but we could move to have it decreased and say we were doing so because we wanted to call attention to the need for a larger vote to take care of old age pensioners. I do hope the hon. member will put this to a vote, to ascertain the feeling of the committee. If these decisions are permitted to go unchallenged we might as well go home. Yesterday we had a decision that the word "inaccurate" was out of order. I think perhaps it would be better if we did go home, if we are to be simply puppets in this house, instead of representatives of the people.


Thomas Vien: I do not believe the hon. gentleman is correct with regard to the incident of yesterday. My recollection is that one hon. member said another had made a deliberate misrepresentation, and I ruled that the word "deliberate" was not in order. I still adhere to that ruling. I do not recall that any ruling was given on the word "inaccurate."


Alan Webster Neill: Oh, yes. It is in Hansard.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I raised the point of order, Mr. Chairman, and I maintain it. I think it is correct that while

the statutory portion of the vote is not debatable, the first item, dealing with "administration," opens the door to a complete discussion of old age pensions.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I agree with that.


Thomas Vien: The item of $31,372,500, which covers the pensions paid under the statute, is not before the committee to be voted. The item before the committee covers the expenses incurred by the department in administering the act. From time to time by agreement or unanimous consent hon. members have been permitted under the departmental administration item to discuss other matters pertaining to the department, but that is by unanimous consent.


Alan Webster Neill: No.


Major James William Coldwell: No; by right.


Thomas Vien: It is by tolerance of the committee, because there is only one rule applicable in the circumstances. That is standing order 58, which provides that we must adhere strictly to the item under discussion. There is nothing in item 51 which could enable hon. members to discuss the terms of a statute which provides for pensions. That statute determines the country's policy as to amounts to be paid. That has nothing to do with item 51. But I am in the hands of the committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The responsible minister has agreed to a complete discussion, and on behalf of the government I also agree to have the discussion proceed as suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Alan Webster Neill: By right.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. In my honest opinion, and in my judgment of the rules of the house, I think the discussion is a matter of right.


Thomas Vien: My ruling is not
debatable, but an appeal may be taken to the house. I cannot agree that under standing order 58, a general debate other than on the item before the committee can be permitted.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With great respect to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, my opinion is that under the item of "administration" the whole question of the administration of that department may properly be discussed, as a matter of right.


Angus MacInnis: I refuse to speak on sufferance in this committee, Mr. Chairman. Even if rule 58 was capable of the interpreta-

Supply-Finance
tion you have placed upon it, custom has made this a proper procedure, and I rest my case on that. If you do not wish to let me speak on that basis I appeal from your ruling.


Thomas Vien: Custom cannot overrule a formal standing order. I will simply allow the discussion, by unanimous consent.


Angus MacInnis: I am not speaking by unanimous consent. I appeal from your ruling.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All I am concerned with, Mr. Chairman, is letting these hon. gentlemen have their say and getting it over with, on any terms they like, because we are taking up quite a bit of time. But if they are going to stand on this point, I think with my colleague from Vancouver Centre that they have the right to discuss the matter here.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If necessary we can appeal from the ruling. I know the rules of the house fairly well, or I think I do, and I am convinced that under the item of "administration" you can discuss the whole department and everything pertaining to it, regardless of standing order 58 or any other rule.


Mr. STIRLING:: May I just observe that during the considerable number of years I have been in this house there have been many instances, perhaps every time the estimates have been under consideration, when the government of the day has consented to the giving of wide latitude in discussing matters, such as old age pensions in this case, on the item of "administration". For the purpose of getting on and having some progress made, and giving each hon. member who desires to do so an opportunity to make a statement on a matter about which he feels deeply, I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member proceed with his statement forthwith.


James Lorimer Ilsley: You may be right about this, Mr. Chairman; I do not know. The point has never been raised so sharply before. I did not take any exception to the discussion when it began; I expected it, but you may be right in saying that it has gone on by unanimous consent, year after year. In any event I am quite willing to have it go on under any terms, as long as it goes on.


Major James William Coldwell: May I suggest to the chairman and the minister that it has been the right of a private member at all times to inquire carefully into any expenditures made by his majesty. That is history, and I contend that the hon. member for Vancouver
East is exercising that right and is going to exercise it, or we will appeal from the ruling of the Chair.


Thomas Vien: I have brought the
attention of the committee to the rule of the house, standing order 58. I have also taken note of the practice that has developed in this house. I have stated to the committee my interpretation of the rule. Now I take it that the hon. gentleman has the unanimous consent of the committee to proceed, and, that being so, without reference to my ruling, but stating that I foresee, on account of that precedent, innumerable difficulties in future, I will allow the hon. member to proceed.


Major James William Coldwell: By right.


Angus MacInnis: I am proceeding by right.


Thomas Vien: I simply say that he is allowed to proceed.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Proceed by right, or some other way-but proceed.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Above all else, proceed.


Angus MacInnis: I shall try to expedite the business of the committee. This was the only opportunity I had of drawing this matter to the attention of the committee. I have no desire to hold up the business of the committee by making a lengthy statement. But every hon. member knows the need, and realizes that even at this time the government of Canada can do better than it is doing for our old people. We must realize that the meagre pension of $20 a month means much less now than it did before the war. Because of the increased cost of living the value of that pension is reduced by at least 15 per cent. Because there has been an even greater increase than that in the cost of foodstuffs, and because of the further fact that pension receipts are spent chiefly on foodstuffs, the reduction in value of the pension in providing subsistence is much greater than is indicated by the general percentage of increase in the cost of living.
I	have no doubt there are many hon. members who wish to add their word of approval to what has been said on this point. For that reason I will leave what I have said with the committee. I have high regard and respect for the Minister of Finance. He now knows the situation, and I suggest it is up to members of the committee to impress it still more firmly on the minds of members of the government so that something may be done.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I had intended asking
the minister a question on this item. I should
Supply-Finance

have liked to proceed myself, but I felt I would have been out of order under standing order 58 (2), as has been pointed out by the chairman. May I say a word for the chairman, too-and of course in saying this I am out of order. Our present chairman is good at expediting the business of the committee. He is good at adhering to the rules, and I like to see that. All of us should adhere to the rules.
I should have liked to speak at greater length on this subject of old age pensions; but I shall content myself by simply endorsing what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I, too, for a long time have been an advocate of reducing the old age pension age limit to sixty-five years. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that it should be increased to sixty-five years. I believe, further, that the pension should be not less than a dollar a day, or approximately $30 a month.
For the present I shall have to be content with this brief statement.


Mr. HATFIELD:: I should like to endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver East. The old age pensions received by the old -people to-day represent only a starvation existence. What is the reason for the difference in average payments? I notice that the pension paid in British Columbia is $19.13, in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick $14, and in Prince Edward Island $11.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think the limit in Prince
Edward Island is $15. Apparently Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are more strict. They make very careful inquiries into the circumstances of applicants, and if they have incomes, or possible sources of income, the proper allowance is made. I presume that that is done to a greater extent in those provinces than it is in British Columbia.


Major James William Coldwell: Just a little closer fisted.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I do not think that is
any reason at all. I do not believe the pensioners in Nova. Scotia and New Brunswick are getting their fair share. That is my my experience.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is within the administration of the provincial authorities.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: I have had a number of complaints from old age pensioners whose sons are in the armed forces. They complain that when a small dependent's allowance is made by reason of a son's service in the armed forces the old age pensioner's pension is reduced by an equal amount. That seems to me the last straw, for a govern-
ment that is attempting or professing to attempt to build a new social order while a war is on.
I have discussed' this matter with the department and have been informed that that is the regular procedure. When dependent's allowance is granted by reason of a son's service in the forces, that amount is deducted from the old age pensioner's pension in Ontario.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I protest against that, too.


Charles Edward Johnston: I wish to join with other hon. members who have protested against the amount of subsistence given to old people. It is generally conceded that the cost of living increase is now about 15 per cent. That fact alone should be sufficient to convince the government that this $20 a month should be increased. That fact has been recognized in other departments by making an allowance for increased cost of living. Surely when the government recognizes the principle, and when one government department every so often publishes an index to show the increased cost of living, it should be clear without argument that it should raise the amount of the old age pension. That principle has been established in Alberta. It has been clearly recognized there that under present conditions $20 a month is not sufficient for the old people to maintain a decent standard of living. With that in mind they have increased the amount, on their own account, to the extent of $5. They know that the $20, and even the present $25, is not sufficient.
When I was home I had the pleasure of addressing a large number of old age pensioners. I learned that before that time another member of parliament had addressed the same group. In effect that gentleman said these old people should be ashamed of themselves for even asking for an increased pension. Surely we should not attach the stigma of unpatriotism or charity to the old age pensioner, because in my opinion those people have every right to their pensions and not from the point of view of charity. At this time when the government is spending thousands of dollars in an endeavour to build up morale in commercial enterprises, it should be recognized that one of the best ways of doing that would be to treat our old people properly. I venture to say that a number of people in industry, and especially in the aircraft industry, may have elderly parents or grandparents who are receiving old age pension. One of the best ways of building up morale, not only in these industries but

Supply-Finance
in the country as a whole would be for the government to take action to see that these old age pensioners have at least a decent standard of living. After all, what are we fighting for, if it is not for the establishment of such a principle? We must convince our people that we are really sincere when we say that when the war is over they will have a decent place in which to live. Our country is at least worth ' fighting for. I want to join heartily in everything that has been said in this regard.


Alan Webster Neill: I wish briefly to endorse what has been said by the hon. members who have spoken in favour of increasing old age pensions. This illustrates the unfortunate political system under which we work. The British North America Act puts the responsibility for old age pensions solely on the provinces. In 1925 and 1926 we realized the impossibility of the provinces carrying a burden of this character, and we devised what we thought was a wise system, a sort of joint scheme under which the dominion contribute so much and the provinces the same. Unfortunately that involved an agreement with each province, and it also gave the opportunity to both the dominion and the provinces to shirk their share of the responsibility as time went on.
If the minister speaks he will probably say that the dominion government would not be justified in increasing these pensions because a few of the provinces are now paying less than the $20 allowed. If the pensions were increased it might mean that the dominion would be paying the full amount of the increase. That argument sounds plausible, but it is not so much so when it is considered that in some of the provinces the cost of living is lower, and also they take into consideration what assistance is given by relatives. A special committee dealt with this matter in 1925 and 1926. Witnesses were called and we asked them the same question-"When should old age pensions begin, and what should be the minimum?" We had a railway man as a witness on one occasion, and I think he put it very well when he said, "I hardly care to answer that question; it does not affect us because we have our own pension scheme; I say, get it started, no matter how low it is, because we know it will never get any less; the age limit will go down and) the amount will go up-popular sentiment will encourage it." Those of us who favoured the scheme consented to the limit being placed as low as it was because we believed that in time it would be increased. If there ever was a 44561-324
time when it should be increased it is now, when the cost of living has risen so considerably.
The dominion government under Mr. Bennett raised the proportion paid by the dominion from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. I hardly think he was justified in doing so; in my opinion that made the situation worse. If there is any increase the dominion government will have to pay 75 per cent of it, although that should not necessarily be so. This question was given careful consideration in British Columbia, and the province decided to apply to the dominion. The dominion replied that nothing could be done unless the unanimous consent of all the provinces was received. The province realized that that might be difficult to obtain. It was suggested that perhaps individual deals could be made, that British Columbia might be willing and Nova Scotia could be left out if they were not willing; but there was objection to that. Pressure was exerted upon the provincial government, and finally that government, in an effort to meet the increased cost of living which these older people have no possible hope of meeting, decided that pending legislation by the dominion-because the initiative must be taken by the dominion-they would give an additional $5 a month, ostensibly as a cosb-of-living bonus. That has been done, I do not know whether the same thing has been done in Alberta, but I think it has.
This $5 a month in British Columbia is paid on the express understanding that it is a temporary device to meet the situation. It was anticipated that the dominion might come forward with a different proposal and that each province would agree. I would not object if the dominion agreed to grant another $5 on condition that the provinces pay a larger share. I do not think it would hurt them to do that, because, after all, this matter comes under their jurisdiction. If the minister speaks I know he will use the argument: How can we compel Prince Edward Island to pay more than $20 a month when she is willing now to pay only something like $11? That is one of the obstacles we have under this system of two jurisdictions. We would have been much better off if the dominion government had assumed the whole responsibility. It would have saved trouble, and we would not have had the present dual organization and dual control. It increases the expense and does not increase the benefits.
This government should take the lead. Consideration should also be given to reducing the age limit. I am afraid I must put the responsibility upon the dominion government, because it is up to them to take

Supply-Finance

the lead. The provinces cannot force this upon the dominion, but if the dominion came forward and made a proposal as they did in 1925 and said: Here is what we are willing to do; if you take it, you will get so and so; if you do not take it, you will not. I am sure many provinces would accept the proposal for a larger pension.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I said a few words about this matter and then asked the minister whether the provinces had approached him. I intended to complete my remarks. The whole principle of old age pensions is wrong. It is merely charity. If a man is without means, he gets something; if he has means, he does not get anything. We have recognized the fact that unemployment insurance is necessary, and I think it is just as necessary to have a contributory system of old age pensions. Then it would not be a matter of charity. Funds could be built up to take care of it and there would be no drain upon the country. One objection I have to our present system is that these older people are investigated and investigated, and the amount of the pension is kept down as low as possible. The question whether the age should be sixty-five or seventy years is something that could be discussed, but the age limit should vary with the age of the individual. If a man is in good health at 65 years he may not need a pension.


Mr. McCANN:: Ontario has made a progressive step along the lines indicated by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). On May 1 or June 1 the Ontario government, on the advice of the Ontario medical association, appropriated $750,000 to be used to defray the cost of medical attention for people who come under the old age pension scheme and the mothers' allowance. I should like to know from the minister whether the dominion will bear 75 per cent of the expense in connection with old age pensioners. The matter of a contributory pension scheme has been brought up in this house on a number of occasions. It is something which should commend itself to all those who are interested in the social welfare of our people, particularly of our older people. A plan could be put into operation under which people would begin to pay early in life. When they reached the age of 60, 65 or 70 years, they would have returned to them their own money along with an equal contribution by the state. If they did not need assistance when they reached this age, their own money would be returned plus a small rate of interest. I feel sure that if the dominion would agree to contribute to any provincial scheme for
[Mr. Neill.)
the medical care of these people, similar to the one now in effect in Ontario, it would be acceptable to most of the provinces.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: When the minister replies would he outline what the constitutional position is as between the dominion and the provinces, and state just where the initiative lies in dealing with old age pensions? The feeling is held very generally throughout the country that the amount payable to aged persons who have no other income than the old age pension, or the maximum of $365 allowed to old age pensioners who have some private means of their own, are too little to get along with in these days, having regard to the increased cost of living.


Mr. QUELCH:: I want to add my voice in support of those who have spoken on behalf of the old age pensioners. We have heard a great deal from the government and the Prime Minister about the new social order that is to come after the war. The government is wise in emphasizing that, because from one end of Canada to the other there is fear on the part of the people as to what is going to happen after the war. The Prime Minister-has said that unless this new social order is well on its way before the end of the war we may look for it in vain. I do not think the government could find any better way of assuring the people that they are sincere in this matter than by increasing the amount of the old age pension. It might not be wise at this time to decrease the pensionable age but that should be done immediately after the war is over. The last time the Minister of Finance spoke on this subject in the house, I think it was last fall, he mentioned two alternatives, and to-day he referred to one of them. Can he say what the position is regarding the other alternative he laid down, that if' the provinces were to ask for an increase in the amount of old age pension the federal government would give the matter serious-consideration? How many provinces have asked the government to increase the amount of the old age pension?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I could not say at the moment how many have, but certainly it has not been general.


Major James William Coldwell: Is Saskatchewan one of them?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I could not say at the
moment.


Victor Quelch: Have any of the western, provinces asked for an increase?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know at the moment-

Supply-Finance


Mr. MAYBANK:: I have felt for a long time that the pension should be increased, particularly since we have adopted a cost-of living bonus since the war. If any persons at all are entitled to the cost-of-living bonus, surely those living on an old age pension should receive it. We accepted many years ago the responsibility for persons who are over seventy, and if we agree that the cost-of-living bonus should be paid in certain cases, I cannot see where there is any argument against it for the old age pensioners. The only point that could arise would be the constitutional difficulty. But that was overcome before, and if there is a will to do a thing you can generally overcome difficulties of that sort. It was overcome when the scheme was initiated. I do not wish to do any more at the moment than simply to support the general principle that there should be an improvement in the position of the old age pensioners. I should also like to express my approval of the remarks made by the hon. member for Renfrew South with reference to the federal government joining in the medical services scheme which has been instituted by Ontario. If a similar effort were made in this regard the rest of the provinces would probably come into such a scheme. Let me conclude by saying as emphatically as I can that the old age pensioners are receiving less than they should get in view of all the circumstances of life to-day.


Mrs. CASSELMAN:: I, too, feel that the amount the old age pensioners receive is not adequate to the need. I would join with other members in urging that consideration be given to increasing the amount of the pension, or at least to granting them the cost-of-living bonus.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: Can the minister give us the definite assurance before we pass this item that the officers of his department will give special consideration to this whole problem with a view to definite action being taken after this session?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The consideration of the matter is really not the responsibility of the officers of the department. It is a government responsibility, and I would not want to delegate it to anybody else. The responsibility for old age pensioners is a provincial responsibility. I am unable to see in what respect there is any difference between old age pensions and the mother's allowance in that respect, because the mother's allowance is assumed entirely by the province, and the province fixes the amount. The dominion has an agreement to contribute up to $15 a month to the old age pensions paid by the province. That is the constitutional position so far as
44561-324 i
this government is concerned. We did not think that in time of war we should adopt the cost-of-living bonus principle for old age pensioners. If we did that, it would mean that in a period such as 1932 and 1933 we would have to reduce the amount paid to the old age pensioners. The cost-of-living bonus policy is a wage policy, not a policy applicable to compassionate allowances or anything of the kind.
With regard to contributory pensions, I am of the opinion, and I think nearly everybody is, that that would require the addition of certain words to section 91 of the British North America Act. I think it would be a good idea if it were done, but whether we should start that in time of war I do not know. It would mean another deduction from payrolls, and deductions are getting numerous as it is. But eventually I think undoubtedly we shall have to have contributory pensions, and I should think it should be done by the dominion government after the necessary constitutional amendment is made. In the meantime these allowances, which are more or less compassionate allowances, we treat as the responsibility of the provinces, and we are contributing up to $15 a month to the provinces to enable them to discharge their responsibility. We are prepared to change the regulations for any province so that if the province wishes to give a cost-of-living bonus or anything else to supplement the pension it can do so without lessening the amount of our contribution. British Columbia and Alberta have done that already.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And Ontario has the medical services scheme.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, but that would be a provincial responsibility purely. We have no authority to share that, nor would we desire to share that, any more than we do the supplemental allowance paid by British Columbia and Alberta.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister has spoken of contributory pensions supplemental to the pensions now paid; that is, people who are going to contribute will still receive the old age pension. I suggest that some consideration be given, if we are to continue compulsory savings in our budget, to the advisability of earmarking a percentage of that money for contributory pensions.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at two o'clock.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Before we proceed with this item there is just one remark I should like
Supply-Finance

to make. The member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) tried to discuss the question of salary and motor ear allowance but was ruled out of order. No one else said anything on the subject, nor did I, but the hon. member made a personal reference to myself to the effect that he had heard that I, that is the Minister of Finance, do not accept the motor car allowance. I do not want any misunderstanding about that. I do not wish to have my silence taken as admitting that it is true. I accept the same monthly cheques that all my colleagues accept, which are made up on the basis of $2,000 a year.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: On the question of old age pensions, it is quite evident from what has been said that every member in this house will support any proper measure of reform. I do not think there is any single thing which does more to condemn an administration than the fact that it does not adequately take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. An increase in the pension is imperative, particularly where people in their old age cannot afford necessary medical treatment. The first charge on the wealth produced in any state ought to be to take care of those who are either too young and helpless or too old and helpless to take care of themselves. The old age pension scheme should be brought up to date. I support fully the plea of the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann; that something be done about it. The government have power under the order in council to take the necessary action, where medical attention is needed. The paltry sum of $20 or $25 may enable people in some areas to eke out an existence, but when people reach the age of 70 and find that they have to spend $10 or $12 or $15 on medical services, the outlook is hopeless.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In Ontario old age pensioners and those receiving mother's allowance are given medical attention.


George Hugh Castleden: That is excellent. Why should the practice not be uniform? I am not going to prolong the discussion, but I urge upon the minister that he try to persuade the cabinet to make the system uniform, so that those who are receiving the pension may get medical attention when they need it.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: The Old Age Pension Act, like a good many of our other concepts to-d'ay, was framed from the point of view of an age of scarcity. We have an age of scarcity complex. People have not come fully to realize the implications of the fact that since 1928 we have entered the period when the world can produce more than it can

consume. This country can produce more than it can consume. That being so, there is no conceivable excuse for allowing anyone in the country to suffer from lack of food, clothing, shelter, medical attention, amusement, culture or any of these things. We need to bring our old age pension scheme up to date from one end of the country to the other. Twenty dollars a month never was high enough. All one needs to do is to reflect on the position in which an elderly person is placed who has to maintain an independent establishment.
Last winter I had an experience which left on my mind an impression that will never be erased. In a certain city, which I will not name, there were a number of elderly men over sixty-five years of age. These poor old men had no relatives, they were not married, they had no family connections of any kind. There were six of them in a little shack. They had got together and agreed to contribute to pay the rent and buy the fuel, and in this way they were able to carry on. I wondered time and again after I saw them what would have been the position of any one of these luckless men if he had not been able to find1 the other five, if he had had to establish himself independently. All we need to do is to think how far $20 a month can go towards paying rent and buying food and clothing and providing medical attention, a little culture, and a little bit of amusement once in a while. Are our elderly people to be denied the privilege of going to an occasional picture show at a time of life when they need some comfort? We have only to name the various things which old people need to see how pathetic the meagreness of $20 a month is.
The age is altogether too high. To set the age limit at 70 is almost to render the pension inaccessible to the ordinary person whose span, according to the scriptures, is supposed to be three score years and ten. True, a great many people reach the age of 70, but a great many others do not, and to set the age at 70 is to deny a large number of people who have helped to build up the country the privilege of having a little comfort in return for their contribution to society. The age, I repeat, is too high.
Once more may I remind the committee that this is an age of abundance. That fact alone has changed the whole situation with respect to aged people. This is a young man's war. This is a young man's age. When a man reaches the age of fifty he. is under a serious handicap in an attempt to get work in any kind of activity. Employers want young men. They demand young men. Take agriculture as an example; fifty years

Supply-Finance
ago a man who could handle a team could do agricultural work. An older man could manage that. But to-day he would have to be able to handle a tractor and many other kinds of machinery. If he had not learned to handle these in his youth it would be beyond his capacity to do it at an advanced age. The ordinary farmer would not dare to trust the older man with those machines. Elderly people are simply not wanted in industry, which means that no matter how earnestly they try, they are unable to supplement their income. It practically means that people from sixty to seventy years of age are condemned to starvation unless some one gives them charity. It is a serious matter.
Another thing, sixty years ago the ordinary old person could have a cow or two and produce milk and butter and be sure of a market. To-day there is no certainty of a market. This makes it much more difficult for elderly people to carry on.
The pensionable age should be reduced at least to sixty-five and as soon as possible to sixty. The dominion government neglected to do what it should have done when it did not come to the assistance of Alberta and British Columbia in their efforts to increase the old age pension. What has actually occurred is that these two provinces have been obliged to resort to increased taxation on their people in order to raise money for the old age pension. And' this at a time when more than at any other time in the history of this country the dominion government has been obtruding into provincial taxation fields and rendering it more and more difficult for the provinces, except during war time, to raise enough revenue to carry on their ordinary affairs.
It has been said that this is a provincial matter. I challenge that statement. It is a dominion matter, whether the constitution says so or not. The minister does not need to be so nervous about infringing on provincial rights. He showed no nervousness when it came to taking away their money. He showed no nervousness when it came to managing the prices of the country and anything else that it suited his purpose to manage. He is not going to be endangering the British North America Act by offering money to the provinces with which to increase their allowance to elderly people. We have heard too much of this plausible, deceptive, specious talk about matters being provincial matters and therefore untouchable by the dominion.
One very important reason why the dominion should enter this field is that the provinces
differ widely in the matter of wealth. I believe Ontario is the richest province in the dominion; British Columbia comes next, and Alberta probably third. Some of the maritime provinces are not nearly so blessed with resources and means of raising money as other parts of the dominion. To expect a province like Prince Edward Island to pay out of its own revenues an old age pension as great as Ontario could pay is expecting something which is financially, and probably physically, absurd. The only way in which conditions can be equalized among the various provinces is through dominion government intervention, by grants which will enable the various provinces to pay the same rate. Surely a man who has fought life's battle up to the age of seventy in Prince Edward Island is entitled to as good an income as the man who has fought those battles in British Columbia. Why should he be deprived of equal advantage merely because he has done his work where the sun rises instead of where it sets?
I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but I do raise my voice in defence of a higher pension for old age. It should be $30 a month at least in these times; and the age at which the pension becomes payable should be lower-sixty-five at least, and as-soon as possible, sixty.
Mr. O'NEILL: I do not intend to delay the committee with any extended remarks,, but I concur in everything that has been said with respect to increasing the old age pension. It must be apparent to everyone, because the government's figures show it, that the cost of living has gone up 15 per cent. Definitely, then, the old people have been subjected to a reduction of 15 per cent in their pension. If anyone in this country should get the cost-of-living bonus it is the old people. The way we treat them is disgraceful for a country as wealthy as Canada. There is no justification for it. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver East upon the very able way in which he presented the case this morning for the old people.
The house is doing its utmost to finish its business by to-night. We have some $400,000,000 of estimates to deal with. No proper consideration can be given to them. It goes "Item so-and-so-carried". The item is not even read. It is apparent to everyone that what should be done is to have these estimates examined carefully by a committee. And another thing that developed here this morning is with respect to private members'
Supply-Finance

rights. If we have a right to speak we should be able to speak without getting the unanimous consent of the house or of the committee.


Thomas Vien: That matter has been settled. It is not debatable now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General.
68. To provide, subject to allocation by the treasury board, for annual salary increases in accordance with the terms of order in council P.C. 9/628 of January 26, 1942, $500,000.
George Hugh Castleden: I should like an explanation of this item from some member of the treasury board.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is for certain statutory increases. Normally statutory increases are given to permanent civil servants, but by this order in council they were discontinued in regard to those receiving salaries of more than
S3,000.	Those who receive salaries of less than $3,000 are to get their statutory increases as usual, and this is to provide the money for the increases.


George Hugh Castleden: I notice in almost all the departments a considerable item for the cost-of-living bonus. I thought that would take care of these cases.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, that is different.


Joseph William Noseworthy: What is the ceiling at which the government ceases to pay the cost-of-living bonus?


James Lorimer Ilsley: 

Item agreed to.
Office of the coal administrator.
Coal subsidies and subventions.
70. Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $4,500,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would crave the indulgence of the committee while I say a few words in reference to these subventions. This year I doubt whether half this amount will be required; and while I am quite in accord with having the money voted, I hope the portion which is not used will be put to one side for the purpose of which I am going to speak for l moment or two.
The question of subventions has been before this house for many years. I believe that in order to encourage the use of Nova Scotia coal in the two central provinces we have already spent something like $18,000,000. I have always been in accord with that policy; I believe Ontario and Quebec should buy all the coal possible from Nova Scotia and also from the western provinces. But this year, owing

to the fact that Nova Scotia cannot supply coal to either Quebec or Ontario in the amounts required, we will have to buy a great deal of our coal in the United States. The market for Canadian coal which has been built up here will be lost unless the money which is saved out of these subventions is placed to one side for use, when normal times return, in once more opening up the market in the two central provinces for coal from both east and west. I am told that while Nova Scotia supplied Quebec with 3,400,000 tons of coal last year, this year it will be able to supply Quebec with only 1,600,000 tons, and that while Ontario purchased 1,000,000 tons from Nova Scotia last year, this year it will not be able to get any. The same thing applies in western Canada. I have always been a strong advocate of Alberta coal. I use Alberta and Nova Scotia coal wherever they can be used in my own buildings. I firmly believe that the great province of Ontario should buy every possible dollar's worth of the natural products of the other provinces in order to create a better interprovincial feeling. Last year at Estevan in Saskatchewan probably a million tons of coal were produced, of which several hundred thousand tons were sent to Manitoba; I do not think any of it came to Ontario. There is no reason why some of that coal could not come to Ontario, maybe not as it comes from the mine but after it is briquetted. I hold in my hand a briquette made at Estevan. I have seen these briquettes burned. They give excellent satisfaction, and there is no reason why they cannot ibe transported to Ontario for use here. In a word, I hope some effort will be made by the government to see that the production of briquettes at Estevan, where now they are producing only 60,000 tons a year but where they could be producing half a million tons, is encouraged, and that some of these briquettes are brought to Ontario. Among the by-products of the briquetting are many valuable products required by Canada, such as coal tar, creosote, and so forth.
I want to take only another moment, for I should like to say a word about Alberta coal where they have perhaps some of the largest coal deposits in the world. I will speak of only one district there, because I have seen and used the coal; that is, the Drumheller coal. I have two samples of coal from Drumheller in my hand. They look the same; they look like hard coal, though they are not, and they bum like hard coal. I have used quite a number of tons of this coal; I believe one sample is from the Monarch mine and the other is from the Midland mine, though they look so much alike I could not tell them apart. Both, however, give excellent results.

Supply-Finance
After the war I believe a great effort should be made to use more Alberta coal in Ontario. We cannot get it now; I am told that every extra ton of coal being produced there is required in the west for use in the large military camps that have been established there, and that a good deal of it is being shipped to British Columbia and the other western provinces. I did manage to get quite a few tons this year, but I was told that it would be difficult if not impossible to get any more. In the past the dealers have had trouble with this type of coal owing to the fact that if it is laid out in piles exposed to the sun it will crack and disintegrate. After the war some consideration should be given to a government policy with respect to Alberta coal and the way it may be handled in Ontario. I do not see why the government itself could not, under its own programme, bring down half a million tons each year, instead of the 150,000 tons more or less that were brought to Ontario last year, and have it stored in proper buildings where the coal dealers could obtain it as required. The government might undertake the construction of the necessary sheds or buildings, either under a direct government programme or by government assistance, or whatever may be required to bring about the greater use of Alberta coal in Ontario. I believe that could be done if the local dealers could obtain that coal, not in a dusty, disintegrated condition, but in the good, hard condition of these pieces I have in my hand. When it is properly housed it will stand up as well as any other coal.
This is my last word, Mr. Chairman. I hope that whatever portion of these subventions is not required this year will be placed to one side, to be used after the war to encourage the use of Nova Scotia coal in Ontario, to the extent that it can be used, and the shipment of more coal from western Canada not only to Ontario but to Manitoba and other parts of western Canada.


Angus MacInnis: I have a question to ask the minister. If he has not the information he may send it to me later. How much has been spent in the last four or five years in subventions to coal companies operating in British Columbia?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will send the information to the hon. member.


Clarence Gillis: I am tempted to rise at this time because of the statement of the hon. member for Davenport. The appropriation this year for coal subventions is exactly what it was last year. His statement that Nova Scotia could not supply the market it had supplied in
previous years is not correct. Nova Scotia can supply the market. The difficulty with which they have been confronted in the past few months particularly has been one of shipping, occasioned by war conditions.
There is another aspect of the question that should be considered. If the supply up the St. Lawrence river could be maintained, when a sufficient number of ships are available to take up the river the coal that can be mined, it would be necessary to increase the subventions, because prior to the outbreak of war there was no subvention on coal west of Montreal. Since the outbreak of the war all coal shipped up the St. Lawrence has been subsidized to the extent of SI a ton. That is because of the increase in war risk insurance. Subventions are being paid on that basis on shipped coal, whereas in the past it was only on coal going by rail west of Montreal.
The hon. member's statement that Nova Scotia cannot supply the market is not correct. I am led to believe, after discussion with the fuel control board, that they are overcoming the shipping difficulty, and if the plans they have in mind materialize, the time is not far distant when the full amount of coal formerly marketed in the Quebec and Ontario markets may be moved up in that direction.
One could make a long speech on this coal problem, but I shall not do so at this time, because I believe we have succeeded in placing this fuel problem where it belongs. The hon. member for Davenport served on the rehabilitation committee. The method of handling the fuel problem, both east and west, must be completely reorganized. The subject was before that committee on two occasions when members of the fuel control board were present. Arrangements are made to continue those discussions if and when the house meets again, and I believe that eventually the solution of the problem in connection with the coal industry of Canada will come from that committee.
I have spoken merely to point out that the suggestion that subventions should be reduced because they may not be needed is not a proper one. When the shipping problem is overcome the amount of coal normally moved from Nova Scotia to central Canada will again be moved.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to say
one word; I cannot let that go.


Major James William Coldwell: Last year and the year before when this matter was discussed I urged that the country adopt a national coal policy. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has just emphasized the necessity for such a policy. I have been disturbed, however, at rumours
Supply-Finance

that in all probability western coal will not move far east of Winnipeg in the coming season. I do not know how much truth there is in the rumour, but I would point out that in the face of most adverse conditions the great prejudice against western coal, which speeches like that of the hon. member for Davenport can do much to dissipate, has been partly overcome in the past few years. If a policy is adopted during the coming season of stopping the movement of western coal east of Winnipeg, Fort William or Port Arthur in quantities which have been moving, surely it would practically mean disaster for the industry in the future.
I would point out to the hon. member for Davenport that western - mines could supply much more coal to the east if the miners were kept employed and some method of storing the coal were adopted so that mining could be undertaken throughout the year. I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but I should like to say that the coal mentioned by the hon. member for Davenport is not the best coal we mine in western Canada. It is a good domestic coal, but there are some very high grades of steam coal mined in the foothills of the Rocky mountains. One type of domestic coal which comies to my mind is Saunders Creek semi-hard coal, which has a British thermal unit rating of something over 12,000, as compared with 9,000 or
10,000	for the type mentioned by the hon. member.
So far as Saskatchewan coal is concerned, thirty years ago we did not believe we could utilize it at all. To-day in the local districts around the coal fields, particularly arouhd Regina and in southern Saskatchewan, we are using , that low-grade lignite very successfully through the installation of the right kind of burning equipment. So that I think we have every reason to hope that as the years go by we may promote the use of our domestic coal in Canada.
From another point of view nothing should be done to interfere with the development of our Canadian coal industry in this period of war. The more of our Nova Scotia coal we can use, the more of our Alberta coal we can use throughout this dominion, the less we must inrport from the United States. And at this time, when we are trying to conserve every United States dollar, the purchase of coal in the United States should be discouraged as much as possible. I would put in a plea for consideration of a national coal policy, and for the storage of coal, so that miners who at certain seasons of the year in the Alberta and maritime fields work only two

or three days a week, may spread their labour over the whole year. The building up of a supply and the keeping of the men employed should put the industry on its feet and encourage in every possible way the use of what is in fact a very good coal.
The hon. member for Davenport said that in western Canada we had one of the best supplies of coal in the world. I have seen various figures on the point, but the lowest one estimates that Alberta alone contains one-fourteenth of all the known coal in the world. I have seen the figure of one-eleventh, but I am taking the lower one. In my opinion therefore, a national coal policy for Canada is an imperative necessity.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Apparently the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) was under the impression that I had advocated a reduction of the vote. I did not do that. I intimated that the amount would not be required, and recommended that what was not used should be placed to one side for future use to increase the propaganda, or facilitate whatever steps may be taken, to restore to Nova Scotia and Alberta the markets of coal in Ontario and Quebec. One of the engineers from the coal administrator's office appeared before the committee on reconstruction, and he said:
We have not the coal to bring up (to Quebec), only to the extent of 1,600,000 tons, and we should like to bring up three million tons. The allocation in the Quebec market this year is 1,600,000 tons, and that is compared with the market of 1937 of 3,400,000 tons.
I hope the hon. member does not think that I advocated cutting the subvention, because I did not.


George Hugh Castleden: These subventions of $4,500,000 are rather large. I hope that some day we may achieve the same purpose by adopting modern engineering methods in our coal mines, possibly creating power and coke and by-products from the carbonization of coal underground. This may be a little advanced for the present time, but it may come. Could the minister give us particulars of some of the larger amounts, to what firms they have been paid, and so on?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is paid to the transportation agencies.


George Hugh Castleden: Could we have the names of the companies receiving anything over half a million?


Mr. SOPER:: I think I can answer the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) and also the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in connection with the

Supply-Transport
shipment of coal from Alberta to the east. I have a letter in my office now from one of the largest shippers out there asking where that rumour came from. Apparently they have heard nothing of it, and I do not think anybody else has. I do not know where the rumour started, because at the present time they are shipping Alberta coal to Ontario. In regard to the subventions, the hon. member will see that they are paid to the railways.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They may be paid through the instrumentality of the operators. I have not the names here, but it would be the names of those shipping coal into central Canada.


George Hugh Castleden: I understood the
Dominion Steel and Coal got a certain amount.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not the names of the recipients.


Major James William Coldwell: In reply to the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Soper) I may say that it was more than a rumour. That statement was made by the fuel controller to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy). I should not have used the word "rumour" in regard to the statement that the shipment of western coal in all probability would stop at Winnipeg beginning early in September.


Bert H. Soper: The large shipping companies out there know nothing about it. .


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
451. Royal Canadian mint, including the Dominion of Canada assay office-further amount required, $166,289.
James Lorimer Ilsley: In the near future a new form of 5-cent piece will be minted from a different metal, the object being to save nickel. The shape also will be different; instead of being circular it will be twelvesided. Perhaps it would have been preferable to effect this change by an amendment to the Currency Act, and if there had been time we probably would have done that. This is a change rendered necessary by the shortage of nickel. It will be carried out under the provisions of the War Measures Act.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Has the department considered whether this change in the Shape of the five-cent piece will interfere with the telephone pay stations?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That has been considered; they will not interfere with the operation of pay stations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Administration of the Transport Act.
SBZ. Board of transport commissioners for Canada-administration, maintenance and operation, $280,060.
["If my hon. friend will allow me to interrupt him for a moment, it has been suggested that the dinner recess be until seven o'clock instead of eight, and if the house is agreeable to that I will make the motion with the Speaker in the chair.\nItem stands.\nProgress reported."]
Bert H. Soper: It seems to me that this item should be paid by the railway companies and the steamship companies instead of by the people of Canada. The board of transport commissioners seem to work more for the railway and steamship companies than for the people. We have heard a lot about coal in the last few minutes. I shall just use that as an illustration. The rate on coal from Montreal to Smiths Palls is $1.90 per ton, but the railways will bring coal to Smiths Palls, put it on other trains and ship it through to Toronto for $1.50 per ton. This rate is charged because of the competition of the waterways. They will take coal to Smiths Falls, put it on a train the next morning, and haul it into Brockville for $1.30 per ton. I maintain that the rate that should apply is the rate at which the railways can afford to move the traffic, rather than a competitive rate. We cannot all live along the St. Lawrence ; some of us must live back in the country, and I do not see why we should be penalized. North Bay is practically the same distance from Montreal as Toronto, but the rate to North Bay is $2.60 per ton as against $1.50 per ton to Toronto. The hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) knows that the rate to his city is $2.60 per ton as compared with the rate of $1.50 per ton to the fine city of Toronto. I am using coal as an illustration, but the same variation applies all along the line.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals service.
375. Canals - Operation and maintenance, $2,399,081.
['It seems to me that this item should be paid by the railway companies and the steamship companies instead of by the people of Canada. The board of transport commissioners seem to work more for the railway and steamship companies than for the people. We have heard a lot about coal in the last few minutes. I shall just use that as an illustration. The rate on coal from Montreal to Smiths Palls is $1.90 per ton, but the railways will bring coal to Smiths Palls, put it on other trains and ship it through to Toronto for $1.50 per ton. This rate is charged because of the competition of the waterways. They will take coal to Smiths Falls, put it on a train the next morning, and haul it into Brockville for $1.30 per ton. I maintain that the rate that should apply is the rate at which the railways can afford to move the traffic, rather than a competitive rate. We cannot all live along the St. Lawrence ; some of us must live back in the country, and I do not see why we should be penalized. North Bay is practically the same distance from Montreal as Toronto, but the rate to North Bay is $2.60 per ton as against $1.50 per ton to Toronto. The hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) knows that the rate to his city is $2.60 per ton as compared with the rate of $1.50 per ton to the fine city of Toronto. I am using coal as an illustration, but the same variation applies all along the line.']
Mr. NIXON:: The Canadian ship canal at Sault Ste. Marie was not opened this year until eighteen days after the United States canal, and I understand that the delay caused a considerable hold-up in traffic. The first boat locked through on the American side on March 23, and the first boat entered the Canadian canal on April 9, eighteen days later. A reasonable estimate of the number of boats passing through the United States canal up to the time the Canadian canal opened on April 9 would be about six hundred. We all realize the necessity for utilizing all the shipping space that is available in these days, yet the days lost through the delay in opening the Canadian canal must represent a good many thousand tons of cargo. This condition existed not only this year but has obtained annually
Supply-Transport

for a good many years. While there is nothing we can do to regain the time that has been lost this year, I think the situation is one which should receive the close attention of the department so that plans may be laid to pre-yent a repetition of this situation next season.


Mr. HOWE:: There are four locks at Sault Ste. Marie, three on the United States side and one on the Canadian side. By arrangement between those operating the four canals, one canal is opened considerably earlier than the other three, the purpose being to allow time to repair the other three in the spring after the ice has softened up. It has always been the practice to open one canal some two weeks earlier than the other three canals.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals service.
318. To provide for the carrying out of flow measurements and other expenses connected with the department's supervision and control over the hydro-electric power development of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company, Limited, $3,000.
['There are four locks at Sault Ste. Marie, three on the United States side and one on the Canadian side. By arrangement between those operating the four canals, one canal is opened considerably earlier than the other three, the purpose being to allow time to repair the other three in the spring after the ice has softened up. It has always been the practice to open one canal some two weeks earlier than the other three canals.']
John Ritchie MacNicol: This $3,000 is to pay for making flow measurements in connection with the Beauharnois diversion. I should like to know why this government has to pay for making these measurements after we have given the Beauharnois company the right to take water out of the river for which they pay us nothing. I understand that they pay the Quebec government something, but nothing to us. This item includes $500 for temporary assistance-doing what? That is a small item, but it will serve as an example. Then there is SI,500 for travelling expenses. Surely anyone who is competent to read instruments could make these measurements without requiring $1,500 for travelling expenses. Then there is $500 for materials, supplies and equipment. What materials and equipment would be required beyond the equipment used annually? Anyone can measure water who knows anything about it at all. Then there is $500 for sundries. That is a small item but what is it for?


Clarence Decatur Howe: An agreement was made between the Beauharnois company and the federal government calling for a specified use of the water for operation, use of the control dam, and by treaty we must report to the United States how much water is diverted through the canal. The item for this purpose used to be $5,000 a year. One of our best engineers is detailed to do this work, and he makes a trip each month to examine the situation. The item has been cut down to $3,000. It is very necessary work. Perhaps it could be done more cheaply, but as the work is important we

felt that it should be done by a first-class engineer. Last year the actual expenditure on this item was less than $1,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This water is diverted wholly within Canadian territory. Why should we have to report to the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The lake from which the water is drawn is an international lake.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, the west end.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service.
390. To provide subsidies for wrecking plants -Quebec and British Columbia, $45,000.
['Yes, the west end.']
John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the government doing to improve navigation on the Mackenzie river from Great Slave lake to Aklavik-or does it do anything?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The work there is being
handled by the Department of Public Works. I happened to be acting minister there for a very short time-not long enough to know very much about it. Some deepening is going on near the head of navigation, just below the rail head. There were shallows-


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is on the Athabaska. I have reference to the Mackenzie from Great Slave lake north.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nothing is being done there
that I know of. I was thinking of the Athabaska.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know that we did
something on the Athabaska. We did not do anything on the Mackenzie?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service.
395. River St. Lawrence ship channel-contract dredging in the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour, including cost of administration-capital, $1,989,563.
['No.']
George Hugh Castleden: How much of that
work is done by the Montreal harbour commission and how much by the federal government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Of course the Montreal
harbour commission is the federal government. The work carried out by the commission is removing deposits of silt in slips and general maintenance of the harbour. The actual dredging and deepening of Montreal harbour is done under this vote by the federal government.


George Hugh Castleden: The deepening and
the dredging of the harbour is done by the federal government as a national service?

Su-p-ply-Transport


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: The care of merchant
seamen comes under another appropriation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We put through the ordinary vote here, and we have amplified it by war votes.


Major James William Coldwell: Has the minister the
total of the amounts voted for that purpose?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is a special vote in my department in regard1 to merchant seamen, for hospital and other care. That is looked after by Pensions and National Health.


Major James William Coldwell: Perhaps the minister
will say something about it when we reach his department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The amount is $712,000 all
told.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway service.
398. Hudson Bay railway-construction and improvements-capital, $11,000.
['The amount is $712,000 all\ntold.']
John Ritchie MacNicol: If the minister thinks
the question I am going to ask should not be answered I do not want an answer. I am informed that sidings are now being constructed on the Hudson Bay railway between the Pas and Wabowden. The Minister is no doubt very familiar with the works that are being constructed on the way to Churchill and at Churchill, for use, I believe, in connection with United States affairs. I do not want an answer if the question should not be answered, and if it should not have been asked I would like it expunged from the record. Is the dominion government paying for the laying of sidings in the yards of the Pas and elsewhere along the Hudson Bay railway, and if so, why?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is some little activity
on the Hudson Bay railway, as my hon. friend suggests, but I know of no extension of sidings except at Churchill itself. The Canadian government is not being put to any expense in that regard.
Railway service.
1,00. Maritime Freight Rates Act-To hereby authorize and provide for the payment from time to time during the fiscal year 1942-43 to the Canadian National Railway Company of the difference (estimated by the Canadian National Railway Company and certified by the auditors of the said company to the Minister of Transport as and when required by the said minister) occurring on account of the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls (upon the same basis as set out in section 9 of the said act with respect to companies therein referred to) on all traffic moved during the calendar year
1942 under the tariffs approved on the eastern lines (as referred to in section 2 of the said act) of the Canadian National Railways, $3,350,000.


George Hugh Castleden: Do not subventions
take care of any part of this?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the Maritime Freight
Rates Act, as a result of the Duncan commission, certain subventions were ordered amounting to 20 per cent of the freight rates in certain cases. This amount is statutory, in consequence of legislation based on the findings of that commission. The amount of $3,350,000 is the estimate to take care of payment to the Canadian National Railways for the next year. If the amount is actually greater, as it may be, the money must be paid in any event. This is really an estimate of what will be required.


George Hugh Castleden: It is not marked
statutory in the estimates. How much was spent last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The amount spent was $3,072,978.27.


Clarence Gillis: In order that railway companies operating in conjunction with coal companies may qualify under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, is it not a stipulation that they should maintain a first-class carrier service on the roads? They must provide passenger service in addition to transportation of coal and so on.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I regret I am not familiar
with the situation. I do not know whether that is so or not.


Clarence Gillis: I understood it was, and I
know it is not being done.
Item' agreed to.
GOVERNMENT OWNED ENTERPRISES Special-Deficits.
Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals.
ill. Amount required to provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1942-43 to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the National Company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made from time to time by the National Company, to the Minister of Finance and to be applied by the National Company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the National Company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1942, $400,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This has to do with transportation to and from Prince Edward Island. The loss of the steamer Charlottetown has caused a great deal of inconvenience to the island. The council of Charlottetown, the board of trade and the maritime board of
Supply-Secretary of State

trade have all passed resolutions requesting that something be done as speedily as possible to provide a better service to and from the island. In 1926 the Duncan report made reference to the railway docks in Prince Edward Island, particularly Charlottetown, and recommended that they be extended further into the water so that larger ships than those which can now enter might have access to the docks in that harbour. I understood, when I was there making a survey on the island, that after the report had been published orders were given for the acquisition of necessary material, and that material was accumulated, but later on the orders to project the railway dock at Charlottetown farther into the water were not carried out. I feel strongly about that beautiful little island, as I am sure other hon. members do. It came into confederation to round out the symmetry of the whole, and I often feel that it does not get a fair deal from the other provinces. If anything can be done to expedite the provision of better shipping to and from the island, either from Tormentine to Borden or from some point in Nova Scotia to Charlottetown, it should be done. I have received, as I am sure the minister has, copies from the boards of trade of resolutions asking for better transportation. They have now only a medium boat, the Prince Edward Island, which is unequal to the traffic. It is an old boat. If anything happened to it, what- then? The traffic to the island would be cut off. On behalf of the island, on behalf of the boards of trade who have communicated with me-I suppose because I have been there often-I beg the minister to do what he can to expedite improvement in transportation to and from the island so that the people can move more expeditiously and traffic may be speeded up, to and from the island.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OP THE SECRETARY OP STATE SSI. Bureau for Translations, $336,419.
['This has to do with transportation to and from Prince Edward Island. The loss of the steamer Charlottetown has caused a great deal of inconvenience to the island. The council of Charlottetown, the board of trade and the maritime board of\nSupply-Secretary of State', 'trade have all passed resolutions requesting that something be done as speedily as possible to provide a better service to and from the island. In 1926 the Duncan report made reference to the railway docks in Prince Edward Island, particularly Charlottetown, and recommended that they be extended further into the water so that larger ships than those which can now enter might have access to the docks in that harbour. I understood, when I was there making a survey on the island, that after the report had been published orders were given for the acquisition of necessary material, and that material was accumulated, but later on the orders to project the railway dock at Charlottetown farther into the water were not carried out. I feel strongly about that beautiful little island, as I am sure other hon. members do. It came into confederation to round out the symmetry of the whole, and I often feel that it does not get a fair deal from the other provinces. If anything can be done to expedite the provision of better shipping to and from the island, either from Tormentine to Borden or from some point in Nova Scotia to Charlottetown, it should be done. I have received, as I am sure the minister has, copies from the boards of trade of resolutions asking for better transportation. They have now only a medium boat, the Prince Edward Island, which is unequal to the traffic. It is an old boat. If anything happened to it, what- then? The traffic to the island would be cut off. On behalf of the island, on behalf of the boards of trade who have communicated with me-I suppose because I have been there often-I beg the minister to do what he can to expedite improvement in transportation to and from the island so that the people can move more expeditiously and traffic may be speeded up, to and from the island.']
John Ritchie MacNicol: Since Saturday last I have been endeavouring to get a copy of the French records of the senate debates of July 24, but so far I have not been able to get it. Since the senate records are so brief, and the senate sits so irregularly, there is no possible excuse for the translators not having their French translation ready iwithin a day or two. I have not yet received the French translation of debates of the 24th. May I ask when I shall get it?


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: I shall be glad to look into the matter and see that the French translation is transmitted (Mr. MacNiool.]
to the hon. member. I have no immediate acquaintance with the circumstances, and I do not know why he has not received it before now.


Angus MacInnis: May I ask a question as to the rights or privileges of members of parliament in having matter translated by the bureau. I do not know what rights members have, but on one or two occasions I have sent letters and other material to be translated and they were good enough to do this for me. But I do not want to do that sort of thing if that is not a privilege which is accorded to members of the house.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I would say that that is a privilege of members of the house. The bureau of translations is there to do just such things.


Angus MacInnis: I am; glad to hear that. The bureau was very courteous with me and did my translation very quickly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
332. Canada Temperance Act, $1,500.
['I am; glad to hear that. The bureau was very courteous with me and did my translation very quickly.']
Major James William Coldwell: We carry this small item every year. Just what does it mean? It does not enable the Secretary of State to cut down the consumption of intoxicating liquors?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No; but there are from time to time certain elections under the Canada Temperance Act. For instance, I think there was one in Beauce last year. This item does not allow the Secretary of State to cut down the use of intoxicating liquors, but it does allow him to pay the expenses of any election that may be demanded under the act.


George Hugh Castleden: What expenditure does this involve?


Norman Alexander McLarty: It varies from year to year. Speaking from recollection, I think last year on account of the election in Beauce it was about $1,400.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patents and Copyright office.
S3S. Patent division, $156,128.
['It varies from year to year. Speaking from recollection, I think last year on account of the election in Beauce it was about $1,400.']
John Ritchie MacNicol: What number of years does a patent live? I mean patents that are not used.


Norman Alexander McLarty: If patents are not used they are cancellable. A compulsory licence may be issued after three years. The life of a patent generally I understand depends upon the term of the application. Speaking from

Supply-External Affairs
recollection, I would say that seventeen years is the maximum. But if a patent is not exercised it can be cancellable at any time after three years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Office of the Chief Electoral Officer.
35. Salaries and expenses of office, $16,692.
['If patents are not used they are cancellable. A compulsory licence may be issued after three years. The life of a patent generally I understand depends upon the term of the application. Speaking from\n\nSupply-External Affairs\nrecollection, I would say that seventeen years is the maximum. But if a patent is not exercised it can be cancellable at any time after three years.']
George Hugh Castleden: If I might refer back to item 35, I understand that some provinces when holding provincial elections do not extend the right to vote to the men in military service. Is there any regulation whereby the provinces can or cannot decide that matter?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Not as far as the jurisdiction of the federal government extends. The matter of qualifications for voting in provincial elections is within the purview of the provinces alone.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
37. Departmental administration, $238,455.
Mr. COI.DWELL: Some little time ago the French consulates throughout Canada were closed. There has been considerable discussion both in the public press and among people interested in international affairs, because it is said that the consuls, some of whom were not particularly favoured by the government, are in Ottawa and are still active around the legation. Could the Prime Minister tell us something as to what has been done in this regard, and make some definite statement regarding the French legation in this country? Many people feel, as I do myself, particularly since Laval has taken over the premiership of France, that, while the Prime Minister has told us on several occasions that the legation represents the French people, nevertheless it is, I think, a generally accepted principle that a legation represents a country and that a country is represented by its government.. It seems very difficult indeed to divorce in the public mind the activities of Pierre Laval from those of the government of France and, therefore, from its representation in Canada.
I might tell the Prime Minister that I know there is considerable uneasiness in the country, although I believe the gentleman who heads the legation at the present time is highly regarded by most people who know him. Nevertheless he represents a government which at the best is unfriendly, and which at any time may be at war with us if certain eventualities occur. At least that is an opinion at which one would arrive after studying the situation at Alexandria and elsewhere.
Would the Prime Minister say something about this situation? I believe we should close the legation and send the representatives of Vichy back to France, particularly as I say because of the attitude of Laval who is now the chief minister in the French government.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will recall that a short time ago we had Mr. Dupuy who is our charge d'affaires to France, come back to Canada in order that the whole situation might be reviewed fully with him. I had Mr. Dupuy meet my colleagues, and also had present our minister to the United States. We went very fully into the advantages to Canada at this time of having a representative at Vichy who could keep us informed upon certain developments there. I also had Mr. Dupuy visit Washington while he was here, with a view to exchanging information with the Secretary of State of the United States, or the under secretary, and ascertaining the American views with respect not only to Canada's continued representation in France but also the continued representation of the United States in France.
Apart from that, I have myself had intimate conversations with both the Secretary of State of the United States and the under secretary on this very matter, and while I am not in a position to disclose the reasons- my hon. friend will not expect me to do that -I can say to him that both the United States government and our government are of the view that it would be a mistake to withdraw our charge d'affaires from France at the present time. I have also discussed this matter with Mr. Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain, and I can assure my hon. friend that if it were felt by any of these countries that a risk was being run in any way to the interests of any of the three, there would be no thought for a moment of maintaining our representation there. I think perhaps that side of the question has not been thought of sufficiently. Attention has been drawn to the fact that there is representation of Vichy in Canada; but the withdrawal of the French minister from Canada would mean the withdrawal of our charge d'affaires from France, and considering all aspects of the situation I believe our interests would be better served by preserving the present relations. There is also, of course, the broader aspect of the question, which is the desire on the part of all free peoples to encourage as much as possible the people of France, who at the moment are under the heel of the oppressor, and to give them no reason to believe that the nations which are still free
Supply-External Affairs

are not wholly sympathetic and anxious to do everything they can when the moment comes to relieve their position. While the severance of diplomatic relations might seem a small thing from one point of view, it would have very great significance, I believe, if the step were taken, particularly as between this country and France. There are embarrassments in the situation, but there are embarrassments in nearly every situation these days. I believe the good outweighs the possibilities of danger. As far as the minister at Ottawa is concerned, I am glad to hear my hon. friend refer to him as he does, because I can assure the hon. gentleman that not only has the minister been extremely conscientious, as far as I have been able to see, but I can say that in some difficult situations he has been very helpful.
As to the consuls, two of them are awaiting means of transportation to return to France. There are two former consuls who at the moment are at the legation, but they are taking charge only of some of the consular duties that still remain, though all the consulates have been closed; matters relating to the payment of pensions, dealing with estates, and so on. I do not think their presence here is an embarrassment to anyone.


Major James William Coldwell: What recognition is given in Canada to the representatives of General de Gaulle? We have the legation representing Vichy. What recognition is given General de Gaulle and the free French, who are fighting with us?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will recall that recently it was decided that additional recognition should be accorded the fighting French. Moreover, the fighting French are not technically a government at the present time. In the matter of any cooperation that may be effected between ourselves and any of the forces that are fighting the enemy, we are doing everything possible. There is, however, a difference in status at the present time between the fighting French and the countries grouped under the head of the United Nations. As I have said, the question of diplomatic recognition does not arise because the fighting French are not organized as a government. '


Major James William Coldwell: The thing that puzzles a great many people in Canada is this, that the French government at Vichy is obviously hostile to our cause; that is, if we listen to Pierre Laval. On the other hand, the free French, quite apart from personalities, are fighting by our side. In Canada we have the representative of the hostile government-I am putting it the way the public view it-and

apparently we give no recognition to the friendly forces who are fighting with us. It seems rather an anomalous position.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would not say we give no recognition to them. We cooperate with them wherever it is possible. Certainly as far as the French government of Pierre Laval is concerned, we have no regard whatever for him. We look upon Pierre Laval as a mouthpiece of Germany, not of the French people, and that is taken into consideration notwithstanding the relations we are maintaining.


Major James William Coldwell: Yet the representative of that government-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister is really the representative of the French people.


Major James William Coldwell: But the minister here must act upon instructions received from the government headed by Pierre Laval.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Undoubtedly he does, but I question very much whether he receives any instructions which would cause him to create any embarrassment for us.


Angus MacInnis: I understand there is to be a meeting shortly in. Washington of the panAmerican economic conference. I wonder if the government of Canada has taken any further steps to become associated with the pan-American union. Both from the economic and from the political point of view I think connections and associations with the south American states, as well as with the United States, will become of increasing importance to Canada. I see no reason why, when peace is restored, trade between Canada and the countries of south America might not become of very great importance; and from the political point of view I think our association in a pan-American union is of definite importance. Has the government given any further consideration to membership in that union?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me that the first consideration is to be invited to take part, and we have not been invited upon all occasions. In fact, there have been times quite recently when we might have expected invitations but were given reasons why it would not be advisable to have an invitation extended. That position still exists to a certain extent, for reasons which I cannot explain publicly, but of which I shall be glad to tell my hon. friend in private on another occasion. During this period of war there are special reasons why the south American republics and the United States might wish to discuss certain economic and other problems without having representation present from any member of

Supply-External Affairs
the British commonwealth of nations. That is an aspect of the situation which I mention simply in order that my hon. friend may see that it is not simply a matter of relations between Canada and other countries on this continent.
Mr. MaeINNIS: If I may ask one other question, has the representative from Canada to the Soviet Union been appointed as yet, or is the Prime Minister in a position to make any statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A day or two ago I mentioned to the leader of the opposition that as soon as parliament adjourned I hoped to have an opportunity of continuing some conversations I have had already with different persons concerning Canada's representation in the Soviet Union. I am hoping that I may be able to make an announcement very shortly; and that applies to our representation in China as well.


George Hugh Castleden: Is the representative of the Soviet Union in this country at the present time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand he is expecting to be here shortly. The soviet minister designate to Ottawa is Mr. Fyodor Gusev. Mr. Gusev is at present head of the second European department of the commissariat for foreign affairs, which deals with Russian relations with the British Commonwealth. It is stated that he is to arrive in Canada towards the end of September, but we have no direct advice on the point.


Major James William Coldwell: I notice that the other day the Hon. Walter Nash, at Washington, had proposed that the united nations set up what he called a world war council, and with it a council for world reconstruction. Is that Mr. Nash's proposal, made by himself, or is it being considered by the governments associating in the present war? If so, what is the attitude of the Canadian government to such proposal?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe it was in London that the statement was made, was it not?


Major James William Coldwell: Probably.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say whether Mr. Nash is speaking for himself or for someone else. However, I should be inclined to think he was speaking entirely for himself.


Major James William Coldwell: The Prime Minister
knows nothing about it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Ralph Maybank: I should like to speak upon something which is really only a detail in connection with the operations of the department. It is not the type of matter which has been before the committee up to this time. I believe the Prime Minister has a memorandum respecting this matter. I refer to the case of a young woman who worked for the department, in Canada House, for about ten years. She returned to Canada from the old country, and found herself unable to go back to the old country again. Her return was prevented either because of our own or British regulations. Being unable to return, she was forced to take temporary work, first in one department in Canada and then in another. Her second temporary position was in the same Department of External Affairs.
After eight or nine months had expired she married, expecting that she would receive around S500 or $600 in superannuation moneys. However, she did not and apparently cannot receive those moneys. Before the Prime Minister replies I should like to go a step further into the facts as I have them. This young woman, as I say, worked for nearly ten years and returned to Canada. Canada would not let her return to her position in the old country, for reasons not in any way connected either with her or her services. Then, finding herself in a position where she had to work at something, she sought the advice of the civil service commission, and was advised by them that if she did take temporary work she would not lose her superannuation money.
Thereupon she took temporary work, but found, after quitting that work, that she had lost her superannuation money. The temporary position vras taken on the distinct understanding that those moneys would not be lost to her, but when she got married they were lost. This matter has been before the treasury board, and for once I am bound to say, that, according to my information, the treasury board acted more or less humanely. I understand their attitude .was that the moneys should be paid. I am at a loss to-understand how the treasury board could hold such a belief, and the money remain unpaid, because I have always understood that the treasury board is all powerful. Certainly in a negative sense it is always all-powerful, and inasmuch as its operations are nearly always negative one is surprised to find a case where it has not the power. In this instance, however, it would appear that the treasury board was favourable to the payment of the money, but some difficulties developed in respect of the legal aspects of the case.
Supply-External Affairs

The whole thing seems to be thoroughly unjust. The woman applied to the place where she ought to have been able to get information with respect to the civil service of this country. She was assured that she could take temporary employment, upon such and such an understanding. That was not carried out. In my submission an injustice has been done, and even though the Department of External Affairs deals with many matters of vaster importance, this is a detail in which justice is involved, and one which should not be overlooked.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As the hon.
member has said, I am-or at least I was- familiar with this case. I had it before me, and I have also the. memorandum to which the hon. member has referred. This was a case in which the treasury board did grant a certain right or request. Then, as I recall the circumstances, a point was raised by the auditor general, and an opinion was asked from the Department of Justice as to whether the treasury board had power to do what it had done. I gather the opinion was unfavourable.
I feel like the hon. member does, that this is a matter of justice to an individual. I am glad he has raised it, because it will give me an opportunity to ask for a further review of the matter, in the light of what the hon. member has said. There must be some regulation with which I am not familiar which has come to the fore-as often happens when departments are reviewing these matters. I am sure there is nothing intentional on the part of any department to deprive anyone of what would appear to be a right. I should hope that another review of the case may serve to remedy any injustice.


Ralph Maybank: One word further. As
a rule, the reason why things which ought to be done are not done is that tnere has not been a sufficiently strong will to do it. That is the reason for the thousands of injustices in the civil service to-day. It is that there is not a will sufficiently strong to accomplish it.
A short time ago the Prime Minister introduced a bill to take care of a situation which had developed in the civil service with respect to certain people leaving the service and entering consular posts of one sort or another. It was desired that they should not lose the money they had .paid into the superannuation fund. A way was found to take care of that difficulty. As I saw it, that was a doing of justice; it was the right thing to do. I remember the hon. member for Temiscouata
(Mr. Maybank.]
rising in his place and asking: Is this retroactive? Evidently he was thinking of someone else who was not in the picture. The Prime Minister responded, yes, it is retroactive respecting So-and-so, and So-and-so. While he was not questioned, I have no doubt that, had he been questioned, the answer would have been: It is the right and just thing to do, and whether it is retroactive or not it is going to be done. That certainly was the way it struck me at the time.
What I wish to say is that in my opinion if there is a strong enough will to do a thing, it will fee done. That is what I would like to see in this house and on the treasury benches-a strong enough will to do what is right.
May I point this out, with regard to the case in hand, that it was finally decided that the woman was not a permanent civil servant, and that was why the money was not paid.
A marriage allowance is given to a woman civil servant when she marries, provided she is a permanent civil servant. If she has ten years of service or whatever length her service may be, if she is a permanent civil servant she gets this allowance. In this case they said, "you are a permanent civil servant; therefore you get your marriage allowance". But in regard to the superannuation money they said, "you are not a permanent civil servant; you cannot have it". It is utterly nonsensical that two such answers should be given. In one case, "you are; therefore you receive the smaller sum of money". In the other case, "you are not; therefore you do not get back the money you have paid into the fund". That is a situation which can be cleared up; it is a wrong that can be righted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not want to appear to differ from my hon. friend because we are both interested in seeing that justice is done in this matter. He says there is not a strong enough will, but I would say that if will enters into it at all, there are probably too many strong wills which are at variance with each other over this matter. I think the case is one which falls within the category of equity rather than law. The officers in the government service have their specific duties to perform. Those of the officers of the Department of Justice are to interpret the law as it is, and those of the officers of the auditor general's department also are specific. They are each doing their respective duties as they see them, regardless of consequences. The consequences in this case would seem to indicate that there is a need somewhere for some revision. What my hon. friend said about the bill brought in the other day only bears out what I have

Supply-External Affairs
said. In that case a certain course was remedied by legislation, and it may be necessary to amend some existing statute to have justice done here.


Ralph Maybank: That is just the point. If injustice is being done in a small case, then correct it by legislation if necessary. Let us be sure that equity will be achieved. If the will is strong enough, it can be done even if it must be done by legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
89. To provide for hospitality in connection with visitors from abroad, $5,000.
Major James William Coldwell: We have a large
number of visitors from abroad. Probably the Prime Minister is aware of the fact that recently the Canadian branch of the parliamentary association expressed the hope that it might be possible some time soon to have a group of British members of parliament, representative of the parties in the British house, visit this country to see what is being done with regard to Canada's part in the war. Is there any other vote under which money for that kind of thing could be provided? I was one of the fortunate group which was invited to go to Great Britain in the autumn of last year. I know a similar group coming to Canada might be able to take back with them a different view of Canada, as perhaps we brought back a different view of Great Britain. In my humble opinion, apart altogether from old ties, we do need to cement the understanding, not only between the people of the British isles and ourselves, but between the people of the United States and ourselves. I should like to see members of representative bodies in the United States come to this country also.


Mr. MARTIN:: Are there not groups coming from Australia and New Zealand?


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to see
cemented during the war the present understanding between English-speaking peoples and other peoples, in the hope that when the war is ended we may work together for something in the nature of world understanding and world association of peoples. I wonder if this item, which is quite small, could be supplemented by some other appropriation in the estimates which I have not been able to find.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This item is
certainly not intended to meet the purpose to which my hon. friend has referred. As he says, it is small and, I believe is, not adequate for the purposes for which it is intended. With regard to a parliamentary party coming from Great Britain, the government would welcome most warmly any representative delegation from the United Kingdom to our country at this, time. It would be all to the good to have members of the different parties in the United Kingdom visit and go through our country and see as much as they possibly can of our war effort. Should such a party come to this country, undoubtedly the government would assist in defraying the cost of the necessary hospitality.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada's contributions to maintenance of external organizations.
44. The expenses of the League of Nations for 1942, including secretariat, international labour organization and permanent court of international justice, $97,500.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Could the Prime Minister give the committee some indication of the purposes for which this item of $97,500 is intended?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon.
friend knows, the League of Nations continues to function only in connection with certain of its aspects; there are some valuable services which the league has rendered in the past and which it is continuing at the present time. These include matters that have to do with social and humanitarian activities. The league is continuing, on as large a scale as the war has permitted, its customary work on international health problems, refugees, and control of the drug traffic. The branch of the permanent central opium board opened at Washington has done important and increasing work. The legal and administrative work includes registration and publication of treaties, communication of ratifications and concessions, international legal studies, mandates and slavery.
The economic, financial and transit departments under Mr. Loveday are working at Princeton university. It has continued the publication of "The World Economic Survey," "The Statistical Year Book," and "The Monthly Bulletin of Statistics." It has carried on other work connected with current economic events and tendencies. It has devoted extensive study to post-war problems, particularly those related to commercial policy, raw materials, relief and reconstruction, agriculture, and social security. It has also studied international tax problems, transit problems related to post-war relief and reconstruction, and the future possibilities of international organization. The league publications are not being distributed at the present time as they were formerly, but it has been thought advisable to continue this important work.
Supply-External Affairs


Major James William Coldwell: I think I can make the same comment about this vote that I made about the last one. It is pitifully small. The amount spent in advancing world peace throughout the years has been out of all proportion to what this war is costing us at the present time. If we had only spent a tiny fraction of the money we are spending in the prosecution of this war-I do not mean Canada alone, but all the nations-in the education of the peoples for peace and in preventing the League of Nations becoming, as it did at one time, an instrument of the great powers, in helping people to have a better understanding of what the League of Nations really meant, I believe and I always have believed that this war could have been prevented. It seems to me that we should continue to keep security through a world organization. I do not know whether the League of Nations will be revived after the war, but, reverting again to our visit to Great Britain, I asked many prominent personages there what they thought about the future of the world and of [DOT]collective security. There was unanimity everywhere in the belief that we must have a world organization for the administration of world justice and the enforcement of world law and order, and that meant collective security. It seems to me that for a nation the size of Canada there is no security unless there be collective security; for obviously we cannot defend ourselves except in association with others. While the vote is there and there is no opportunity of increasing it, nevertheless I believe a word should be said by those of us who are interested in the promotion of world peace when this great disaster is over for the keeping open of every avenue that will link the nations together so that our children and our children's children at least may escape this dread periodic recurrence of devastating and bloody war. I therefore support even this small vote.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
understand from the official report of the British parliamentary debates, that the following countries paid their contributions in full last year: The United Kingdom, India, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. What portion is Canada paying this .year, and are the other nations paying their proportionate contributions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are trying to meet our obligations. I do not know that I can tell my hon. friend just where we stand in relation to others; I can only say where we ourselves stand. We are meeting [DOT]our obligations in full.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I see that the United Kingdom paid, in gold francs, 1,558,257.86, and Canada 504,990.98, in gold francs. Argentina made a voluntary payment, and Egypt, France, Iraq and Eire paid certain sums in respect of arrears. Norway and Poland made token payments; they were not called upon to contribute in 1941.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Switzerland and Sweden, I understand, are paying in full.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Netherlands also paid part of its contribution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In explaining this item, the Prime Minister sought to justify it by indicating the work of the league. Quite unintentionally, I am sure, he left out the work of the international labour office, which is now carried on at McGill university. Is the item of 897,500 intended to embrace the court of international justice? I was of the impression that that had been disbanded.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am informed that there are some continuing pension charges with respect to the international court of justice which have to be met out of this vote. With regard to the international labour office, it certainly was not absent from my mind, because I was about to mention that Canada had shown her particular interest in the work of that organization and had in fact extended an invitation to the international labour office to make its headquarters at Montreal, and its headquarters have been there since the war commenced.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits-Annuity to the Hon. Philippe Roy, $5,000.
Major James William Coldwell: Is this a new annuity for the Hon. Philippe Roy?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, that is voted by statute. The Hon. Philippe Roy was appointed to Paris years ago. At the time he gave up his office he was seventy years of age, and a pension was provided for him by this house for the remainder of his life. The amount was fixed on account of the many years of service that Mr. Roy had rendered as the first representative of Canada in the position of our commissioner in France, and later on as minister.


Major James William Coldwell: Is there no provision under the Civil Service Superannuation Act for offices of this description?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.

Supply-Pensions and National Health


Major James William Coldwell: It seems to me that some provision should be made for superannuation for those who serve this country in such capacities. Persons in this position abroad have a small enough allowance upon which to carry out the duties of their office, and often they have to deplete their own private resources in connection with such duties. It is all wrong that only rich men should be able to accept offices of this kind. We should see to it that the expenses of the office are properly covered-and properly audited, may I say-and after that we should make such provison for the incumbents as we [DOT]do for civil servants. No barrier should be allowed to interfere with the appointment of able men or able women to offices of this kind, regardless of the position and place they [DOT]occupy in their own community. We have had enough of the old school tie type of diplomacy. We have had enough of diplomacy by well-to-do aristocrats.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We have had too much of that.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, we have had too much of it. In a young country like Canada the diplomatic service should be open to all able young men and women entering the employ of the Department of External Affairs and rising by sheer merit, not by influence, to the higher positions in that department and to the representation of Canada in other countries. We should provide them with proper salaries and reasonable expenses and treat them as we do the civil service, so that they may enjoy the benefits of superannuation when their career as diplomats is ended.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
251. General administration, $62,875.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: As the Prime Minister was not in the house when criticism was being made of the conduct of the business of the house I should like to tell him that those of us who sit in the opposition do not feel at all satisfied with the way departmental estimates are brought before the committee of supply at the very last moment. We would ask him to consider us and those we represent and have the estimates brought down earlier so that we may give them the careful consideration that they require.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall endeavour to see that that request is met next year.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I supplement what the hon. member for Rosedale has said, in which I heartily concur, by suggesting that the committees of the house be set up next
session within a reasonable time after the house convenes? It is very difficult for committees sitting late in the session to do a good job.


Major James William Coldwell: We support the statements which have just been made. We feel that this manner of passing estimates is a reflection on the house itself. Much of the work that we have been doing here in the last few days in considering various estimates should be done, if possible, in committees of the house. There is an important committee of this house which has not sat this year, the public accounts committee. I think we should have committees looking into the estimates more closely. As the Prime Minister knows, I was on a committee which investigated certain expenditures in a certain organization not unconnected with the government of Canada, and we were literally appalled at the careless manner in which the accounts were handled and at the expenses which were charged up to the organization. They were a reflection upon the organization and upon the administration generally. Certainly we do not want that' to occur in connection with our own department, the House of Commons.


Mr. HAZEN:: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that at the next session we set up a committee to review matters of immigration and naturalization? Last year the defence of Canada committee had power to review those two subjects 'but had not the time to get down to them. This year the order of reference to that committee, quite properly, did not include those two subjects. I would suggest that the matter be given consideration and a committee be set up for that purpose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be glad to review carefully all the remarks that have been made. I would remind hon. members that we devoted an exceptionally long period this year to the debate on the address and the discussion that followed with regard to the plebiscite. I hope that next year we shall not be having to consider any further plebiscites. If that is the case we shall doubtless get along earlier with the establishment of committees.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Direct payments to veterans and dependents.
206. European war pensions, $38,000,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: It has always passed
my comprehension why the widows of soldiers drawing less than 50 per cent have not been able to receive pensions after the decease of their husbands. Soldiers' widows associations throughout Canada have been most active. I
5152	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
have received a hundred letters from ten to fifteen non-pensioned widows associations. I received one a few days ago from the minister's own city, Vancouver, from the Canadian Combat Veterans' association, enclosing a clipping from the July 7 edition of the Vancouver Sun. This item is very short and it is well worth reading:
At a recent meeting of the Veterans Dependents League a resolution to wire Ottawa for immediate assistance was unanimously passed, and the following telegram was sent on Monday to Prime Minister W. L. Mackenzie King:
"Veterans Dependents League, Vancouver, Mrs. E. A. Darville, president, strongly urges immediate action regarding desperate condition of non-pensioned widows of veterans of last war, most beyond age of employment, and not eligible for old-age pension. For full exposition of facts see booklet, 'A National Disgrace', by Walter H. Kircbner, M.C., D.C.M."
May I compliment the minister on his action last year in sending this matter to the pensions committee, and thank him for his kindness in arranging for me to speak before the committee on behalf of non-pensioned widows. I will not take the time to repeat what I said on that occasion, but I might refer to a small fraction of it. The facts that stand out as warranting consideration by the minister of the non-pensioned widows' case are these. In the first place, in Australia if a soldier dies his widow continues to receive the pension he received during his lifetime.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Her portion of the joint pension.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Her portion of the joint pension which her husband received during his lifetime. The United States government is now giving a pension of $30 a month to the widows of all soldiers whose husbands were drawing a small pension or were not drawing pensions at all. I believe the departmental officials last year stated before the committee that there were 6,000 great war soldiers deceased who in their lifetime drew less than 50 per cent pension but were drawing some pension at the time of death. I believe figures were submitted to show that approximately 25 per cent of the widows had either remarried or had died, thus reducing the possible pensionable number to 4,500. I remember that further figures were submitted showing that if a means test were used to determine whether non-pensioned widows should receive pension it would be found that approximately another 25 per cent were well enough off, either through the receipt of money from their husbands' estates, or through funds derived from their own possessions, to enable tMr, MacNicol.]
them to exist comfortably. That would further reduce the number to 3,375 who would be actually in want of a pension. If we followed the plan adopted in the United States and granted $30 a month to non-pensioned widows entitled to pensions under these circumstances, that would mean only $1,215,000 a year. Perhaps I should let the matter rest there. The first widows to be taken care of are those of deceased soldiers, at least to the extent that I have mentioned. I appeal to the minister to try during the recess to figure out some way whereby that small number of non-pensioned widows actually- in want can be taken care of at the rate of $30 a month, because anything less than that would not be fair to the soldier's widow. The old age pensioner gets $20 a month, and the soldier's widow, considering the sacrifice her husband made, is perhaps worthy of a little more consideration.


Gordon Graydon: I support the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) in his very excellent appeal on behalf of a body of our citizens who I think should receive the minister's attention. I add my word of approval to what the hon. member has said, and I do so. necessarily quite briefly in the closing hours of the session.


Clarence Gillis: I do not think there is any necessity for any member of the house to elaborate on the justice of the widows' cause, on whose behalf these hon. members have spoken. The last parliamentary committee that examined into the question of pensions generally recommended that this particular group of widows be brought under the War Veterans' Allowance Act, and suggested that some relief might be afforded in that direction. Nothing has so far been done with regard to that recommendation. Where does that matter stand now?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: May I add my word of support to what has been said? We must, remember that all these women are getting older and there is far more necessity now to make provision for them than there was before. Something should be done.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) is quite correct. Last year this question was very carefully considered by the parliamentary committee on pensions and an able plea was made by, among others, the hon. member for Davenport, on behalf of these non-pensioned widows. The recommendation of last year was that the govern-

Supply-Pensions and National Health
ment would consider during the recess the advisability or possibility of giving relief under one or two headings: (1) the widows of those in receipt of war verterans' allowance; (2) to the widows of those pensioned. The widow of a pensioner with 50 per cent disability may receive a pension when he dies, but the committee felt, on the recommendation of the Canadian legion, that that should be reduced. Probably hon. members are aware that the Canadian legion at the last convention altered the whole basis of their recommendation in this matter and have asked the government to consider it on the basis of compassionate pension. The legion's suggestion is something analogous to the scheme which we passed last year in the parliamentary committee on pensions, for those who were not qualified for pension ordinarily in this war. I have asked the chairman of the Canadian pension commission to make a careful survey of the conditions. I can tell the hon. member that the matter has been carefully investigated.


Gordon Graydon: How many pensions have been granted to veterans of this present war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The total to March 31, 1942, was 2,130, of which 1,283 were disability.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Do	I understand
that the widows of soldiers in this war are
ow receiving pensions under the clause to which the minister referred?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Have any widows of veterans of the first war received pensions under that same clause?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, it does not apply to them. That is the point I made a few minutes ago. It was the recommendation of the Canadian legion at the recent convention, that the same principle of compassionate pension applicable to those who would not ordinarily qualify in this war be applied to non-pensioned widows of the last war.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Services to veterans and dependents.
210. Care of patients, $3,475,397.
Mr. ESLING:: Conditions for treatment are reasonably generous,, but in many instances geographic conditions discriminate very markedly against certain ex-service men. Recent amendments provided that where under certain conditions a man made his way to Shaughnessy hospital in British Columbia,
or to any military hospital, he was given treatment and the government paid his way home. He had to make his way there at his own expense. The unfortunate thing is that men living at a distance from a hospital are often unable to bear the expense of travel and have to forgo this treatment, whereas men living in Vancouver or at the coast have merely to pay a street car fare. Of course the treatment is accorded also at any hospital where the government has a salaried physician, but there are salaried physicians only in Vancouver, Kamloops and at one other point.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Prince Rupert.


William Kemble Esling: Will the minister consider
having a salaried physician in the interior of British Columbia? It takes as long to get to Kamloops from East Kootenay or the Kootenay lake district as to get to Vancouver. It is certainly a hardship and a discrimination against ex-service men living in the interior.
Let me cite one instance. A discharged soldier was ill at his home. He had to be taken by ambulance to the nearest hospital. There he incurred expense in excess of $400. He applied for reimbursement and was simply told he should have gone to the military hospital in Vancouver. A man who has to be taken by ambulance to a hospital twenty-five miles away could' hardly be expected to travel five hundred miles to Vancouver for treatment. His condition did not permit it. One would think that the payment of a departmental physician in the interior would not cost much more than the return expense of travel for soldiers who finally reach the coast from the interior.
I would also ask the minister's sympathetic consideration of a suggestion that after the war a convalescent hospital be built in the interior. There could be no more beautiful place than the Kootenay lake district. Following the last war we had a hospital there. One of the largest of the Canadian Pacific summer hotels was used as a convalescent hospital and it did excellent service, taking care of a great many men. Certainly the need of such a hospital will be in evidence toward the end of the war, and I would ask the minister to give thought to that matter at an early date.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I appreciate very much the suggestions made by my hon. friend. As to the first point, the compassionate treatment of class 2 pensioners, that is not for their pensionable disability, I think he has made a very good case for further
5154	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
accommodation. In British Columbia there are only two hospitals outside of Vancouver, that is, at Prince Rupert and Kamloops.
In regard to the second matter, the department of course has been considering that. At the present time our accommodation fortunately is more than ample for all requirements. But I shall be glad to keep the representations of my hon. friend carefully in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health branch.
219. Proprietary or patent medicines, $16,250.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: The radio committee were told that the question of advertising of proprietary and patent medicines was one for the Department of Pensions and National Health. Many of these patent medicines are advertised over the radio until people get sick of hearing of them. I think the department ought to do something about it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is quite correct; we do a certain amount of supervision and suppression in connection with these radio advertisements. Sometimes we get complaints in both directions, that we go too far and that we do not go far enough. We have suppressed certain radio addresses; we have been praised for doing so, and we have had the opposite side as well. I must say, speaking personally, that even to-day I hear certain broadcasts on the radio in regard to health which are entirely obnoxious, to my mind, to say the least.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have received a good many complaints in this connection. I am glad the minister feels this way about it, and I hope more will be done to eliminate this annoyance.


Major James William Coldwell: Has the minister given any consideration to some of the obviously false representations made in the advertising of the soap companies, advertising health soaps over the air? Does the minister's department ever look into those matters, to see how well founded the claims may be?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am afraid that is a matter which does not come under the Food and Drugs Act, but it is, I believe, something very well worth looking into.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one would want to eat any soap.


Major James William Coldwell: No, and neither do they want to live with it all the time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It does not come under my department, but 1

shall be glad to follow it up, because I agree with the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health branch.
222.	Immigration medical inspection, $81,495.
John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask why this is not under the immigration branch?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For years we have carried on the work of medical examination for the immigration branch.
Mr. GRiAYDON: But why would the amount be the same as last year? There cannot be very many people coming in now who require to be examined?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, but as a matter of fact I believe the work has increased, though there are fewer immigrants coming in. The shipping traffic is so much heavier that the work really has increased as compared with a year ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health branch.
223.	Child and maternal hygiene, $48,225.
Joseph William Noseworthy: The details of this
item are given at page 160 of the estimates, and I notice an increase of $25,000 in the amount devoted to publicity and advertising. What is proposed to be done in that connection?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The $25,000 is entirely for the book "The Canadian Mother and Child" in English and French. As a matter of fact, we have found that the requests for the publications already available are more than the department can supply. At the present time there are several requests to have the number greatly increased, and I think that will be done in the very near future.


Major James William Coldwell: I believe the pamphlet published by the department with regard to mother and child was received throughout the dominion with a good deal of appreciation. It was a splendid work. I sent out a number of these pamphlets, particularly to young people, some of whom I had taught and who had young children, and I received a number of letters thanking me, saying how much they appreciated the pamphlets and how useful they found them. In my opinion this is an appropriation which ought to be largely expanded. The maternal death rate, as well as the death rate among children, is far too high in certain parts of this country; and while in some places the incidence of death

Supply-Pensions and National Health
among mothers and children has been reduced considerably, still we have a long way to go in some parts of the country to reach even a respectable level. I should like to see the grant very greatly increased; indeed I look forward to the day when maternal and child welfare will be one of the principal cares of this dominion. Naturally in war time we appreciate more the value of healthy human beings; and when we think that some 44 per cent of our young men were turned down for medical reasons when they volunteered for service in the armed forces, we realize that there must be something wrong with the nutrition and care of our children. I do not want to say very much about that matter this afternoon, but I think I have said enough to indicate that as far as this group are concerned we would be pleased to support the minister and the government in enlarging the field of endeavour in this regard, and would support almost any appropriation the government might set aside for this very important work of maternal and child hygiene.


Gordon Graydon: If I may say just a word on that point, the group represented by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is not alone in its desire to see this part of our national life well looked after. I should like to add a word in support of what he has said, and I would ask the minister if he could give the committee any information on how our infant mortality now stands as compared with the figures for the years that have gone before.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I certainly appreciate the support I have received in regard to this question. As a matter of fact, I tried to have this vote increased more than a year ago, but this year I was successful in getting an increase. The figures are as follows. According to the report of the British ministry of health for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1940, maternal and child death rates for that year in Great Britain were at the rate of 2-61 per thousand total live births. The infant mortality rate in 1940 was 56 per thousand live births. In the city of Ottawa maternal mortality for 1941 was at the rate of 1-71 for residents and 2-91 including non-residents hospitalized in the city. Infant mortality for residents was at the rate of 47-6, as compared with 45-2 in 1940. There was a slight increase there. In the United States the infant mortality for 1940 was 3-5 per thousand live births, or three-fifths of the 1936 rate, and the same figure applied in Canada in 1941. In other words, in 1941 we were at their level for 1940, though I have not the figures for the United States for 1941. The infant mortality rate
in the United States in 1940 was 47 per-thousand live births, which was a slight, increase over the previous year, while 1941 shows a continuing trend upward. The general mortality from all causes was 10-5, which was slightly lower than in 1939. In Canada the infant mortality rate in 1940 was 56 per-thousand live births, while the maternal: mortality rate for the same year was 3-9 per thousand live births. Therefore the situation is definitely improving in Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister gave the figures for Ottawa. Has he the figures for Halifax or Montreal?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have not those figures here. I think Ottawa has the best record, as far as I can remember.


Major James William Coldwell: And in the other two. cities-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The rate would be much higher.


Major James William Coldwell: Has the minister the. figures for New Zealand?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I gave them last year, but I am afraid they were then two years old. I have some figures
here which may be interesting to the committee:
Maternal mortality in Canada and certain other countries
(Rate per 1,000 live births)
Country	1938	1939New Zealand 	... 4-1	3-6Norway 	.... 3-0(2)	Netherlands 	
2-6 (2)	Australia 	... 4-7	4-1Switzerland 	... 4-2	3-5Sweden	.... 3-1(3)	Iceland 	
. (4)	(4)
England and Wales		... 3-1	
United States 		... 4-4	4-0
South Africa (white)		... 3-7	
British Isles			.... 3-5(2)	
Irish Free State		... 3-6	2-7
Denmark		... 3-1	
Germany 		.... 4-8(3)	
France		.... 2-1 (3)	
Northern Ireland		... 5-3	3-8
Scotland 		... 4-9	
Canada (1) 		... 4-2	4-2
(1)	Exclusive of Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
(2)	1937 rate.
(3)	1936 rate.
(4)	Not available.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health branch.
225. Treatment of sick mariners, $338,380.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the minister give us a description of the work carried on under this item? On page 160 I notice that provision is made for the salary oi one hospital guard.
5156	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
Does the department maintain a hospital? If so, to whom is the $300,000 paid for professional and special services?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are six special officers stationed at a certain Canadian eastern port to look after the special traffic occasioned by war conditions.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the department maintain a hospital?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is the anchorage traffic, going out to ships with men, and bringing men from ships. It is very necessary.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have no doubt it is very necessary, but I notice provision is made for one hospital guard, and I wondered if the department maintained a hospital.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A very small one in a certain small seaport in Nova Scotia.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This $300,000 is paid to professional doctors.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And services connected therewith.


John Ritchie MacNicol: For necessary medical services.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health branch.
220. Industrial hygiene, $7,870.
Clarence Gillis: I am disappointed to find that this appropriation is reduced by some $3,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I inform my hon. friend that it has been more than doubled. I think it is about two and a half times what it was, but the amount is in the war appropriation measure, and not in the ordinary estimates.


Clarence Gillis: The point I have in mind might more properly ,be handled by the Department of Pensions and National Health, in view of the fact that it is the function of that department to carry on investigations with respect to industrial diseases, and the causes and cures thereof. With the extension of industry in Canada there is a great need for this work. I emphasized on two occasions the desirability and necessity of expanding this work with respect to the mining industry, and particularly with regard to silicosis. I am glad to hear that this work is going forward.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We get the appropriation from two different sources, one from the ordinary estimates and

the other from the war appropriation moneys. The direction and supervision are under the Department of Pensions and National Health.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do the provinces not maintain similar divisions in their departments of health?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Just Ontario and Quebec.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am in favour of this vote, and I am gLad to see the federal government taking a hand in industrial hygiene. Along with the hon. member for Cape Breton South I have long had the same idea in mind, namely that the mines and general working conditions of miners should be thoroughly inspected from the point of view of industrial hygiene. If there is one class that deserves this service more than another, it is the man underground. I notice in the vote that there is nothing for the chief of division. What is the reason for that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is on active service. That is why there is nothing marked opposite his name in the
estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health branch.
227.	Medical investigations, $25,481.
James Joseph McCann: What is the work of the department under this vote? Is it for research?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is the examination of personnel of the civil service with regard to fitness and as regards making calculations as to the incidence of certain diseases. I believe excellent work has been carried out in that regard. The examinations conducted with reference to the civil service have been well worth the effort.


George Hugh Castleden: Would it not be well to increase rather than to decrease this estimate?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish we could.


George Hugh Castleden: I imagine the minister would have something to say about it.


Clarence Gillis: Not much.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Again in this instance we have twice the amount we had last year. We get it from another source, namely the war appropriation measure. That is the difficulty in connection with assessing the contributions made to these various operations. If we look at the details in the items in the ordinary estimates, we find an indication of what is being done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Pensions and National Health
Health branch.
228.	Nutrition service, $27,507.
Major James William Coldwell: I notice at page 162 of the estimates that the principal amount is $12,960 for temporary assistance. I believe this is a new field of health work which has to be expanded. We know perfectly well, and I know from my former professional work, that it is not always the children coming from the depressed homes who were most badly nourished. Education is required in connection with the use of food. I would presume, of course, that a great deal of work has been done along these lines. As a matter of fact I have seen pamphlets from the department. I believe we can build up the health of our people very considerably if we undertake to do a real job in this connection. Then there is the desirability of using certain foods having a highly nutritive value which we produce in large quantities in Canada, instead of using more of the imported foods used by even the wealthy people. Sometimes those foods are not nutritive to the same degree.
I notice that this is a comparatively small item, and also a new one. I was wondering if the observation of the minister to the effect that the war appropriation measure carries further provisions could be applied to this item as well.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My recollection is that there is proposed an additional $5,000. There was $10,000 last year, and there is $27,000 this year, because the service in the department has been entirely remodelled since we met last year. We are receiving the most marvellous cooperation throughout the dominion. In my own judgment the vote is not even a fifth of what it should be, because not only in Canada but also in the United States as a result of what President Roosevelt has done, and because of what has been done in England, tremendous strides are being made in respect of nutritive service.
I had an opportunity last summer of speaking to an outstanding authority on the subject, Sir John Boyd Orr. I heard him say that we are farther ahead in respect of certain aspects of nutrition than was any other country in the world to-day. I was pleased to hear that, because sometimes we are prone to decry our own actions in Canada. In the presence of my deputy minister, Sir John Boyd Orr told me that we were ahead of the whole world in respect of certain aspects, such as the new loaf which has been developed in Canada from the new flour. He told me
that we are ahead of England and the United States by virtue of the fact that we have used the natural quality of our own Canadian wheat, whereas they are depending upon synthetic products. That is something of which we as Canadians may be proud. As a result of the service carried out by Doctor Pett and Miss Harlow, we really have done a splendid piece of work. It is gratifying to hear such a statement made about our system.


John Horne Blackmore: Did Sir John Boyd Orr specify particularly in what matters we were ahead?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mostly in respect of those two. Until some years ago we were very far behind. Of course what was said was not a compliment to me, or anything of that kind. The fact is that I am not at all satisfied, but we are going forward and we will go forward even farther yet.


John Horne Blackmore: The particular aspect in respect of which we are distinctly behind is that of getting the nutritive food into the hands of those who need it. With us it is a matter of distribution. Visiting Great Britain last autumn we had a fine opportunity to see what could be done in the city of Stoke-on-Trent. We were shown through fine community kitchens, and explanations were given as to how they were feeding the children and the people generally. I believe that at a very early date, if not immediately, Canada should take steps to see to it that the children receive milk and the other foods they need. We have altogether too much poverty in tills country, even in war time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health branch.
229.	Venereal diseases, $50,000.
George Hugh Castleden: Is it considered that
no increase is required in respect of this item?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With regard1 to the situation generally throughout Canada I can say that there has not been any change since I presented the estimates a year ago. We are naturally confronted with certain difficulties caused by war conditions, as my hon. friend will understand, and about which I shall not particularize now. I can assure my hon. friend that the department is most vigilant in connection with cooperation with the provincial authorities. The provincial governments have been doing excellent work in this connection. As a matter of fact, for two years in succession the United States congress has asked pur provincial officer in

5158	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
British Columbia, Doctor Williams, to go to Washington to give them special lectures on the work being done in the province in connection with this particular problem. In Quebec there has been a marked revival of interest in this problem and they are taking active steps in this direction. I can safely say that at the moment the problem is not worse than it was a year ago.


Thomas Miller Bell: A large number of young men and women are being examined for the armed forces. Could the minister give us any idea as to the extent of this problem as divulged by examinations of this type? Is it bad in Canada? I am not asking for details.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are not definitely associated with the problem as it affects the armed forces; our acquaintance is only in connection with the cases discharged. My information is that the problem is much improved and that they are taking new steps in the armed forces with regard to certain tests taken on enlistment.


Thomas Miller Bell: Has the minister any comparison of the situation now with what it was during a comparable period of the great war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that it is definitely better. There have been developed in recent years new cures which effect cures in remarkably short periods of time. This treatment was not available in the great war.


James Joseph McCann: This is perhaps a question which one is reluctant to discuss at length in public; yet it is of grave importance. Following the experience of the last war, we must realize that if precautions are not taken we may have a recurrence of what happened then. This appropriation of $50,000 is to cover the whole of Canada. I suggest to the minister that he seriously consider the reestablishment of a branch within the department to deal with venereal diseases. No matter what is the opinion of the ordinary person with respect to this particular matter, it is the consensus of opinion of the medical profession of Canada that this disease is upon the increase. This is to be expected in war time.
While this matter is a particular problem of the medical services of the Department of National Defence, because of the great number of men and women who are being thrown together in war and industrial employment it becomes a definite civil problem. During the last war we had to spend as much as $200,000 a year on this work. There should be a campaign of education, a campaign of enlightenment, a campaign to further the cooperation between the dominion department 
of health and the departments of health of the different provinces. Such a campaign would save the country a considerable amount of money in the long run. There are certain precautions which could well be taken and to which I understand serious consideration is being given by the Department of National Defence. I refer particularly to the blood tests which are given all who enter the armed services.
The person who contracts a venereal disease is a potential inmate of one of our mental institutions in the next ten or twenty years. I am sorry to say that in Canada we have
50,000	people in mental institutions, and of this number 15,000 or 16,000 are in Ontario. It is not fair to say that all these people are in these institutions because of some specific type of infection of this kind, but a great number are there for that reason. While such people will not become the immediate care of the federal government, they will become the care of the provincial governments in the years to come.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did I understand the hon. member to say that of the 50,000, only 15,000 were in Ontario?


James Joseph McCann: Fifteen or sixteen thousand. I am not going to elaborate on this particular problem; I just wanted to bring it to the attention of the minister. I know it has been brought to his attention and I know he is doing something about it. But I want the Canadian people to know that this problem, about which many of them are much disturbed, is receiving the attention of the department of health.
May I revert to the appropriation which was under discussion just a minute ago, the one having to do with nutrition. I want to commend the minister for the action he and his department have taken in that regard. The officer in charge of this work, Doctor Pett, has done splendid pioneering work. This is an important subject at any time, but it is particularly important in war time. I know of no greater saboteurs of our war effort than fatigue and malnutrition. A recent survey made in a large industrial establishment showed that only 11 per cent of the lunches brought by the industrial workers met their nutritional needs. Education and propaganda along these lines will do much to further our war effort. We must meet every enemy that we have with every sinew that is at our hand. If we can maintain the nutritional requirements of the people engaged in war industry, we shall be contributing a great deal to their efficiency. While it may not be the particular duty of the Department of Pensions and National Health to follow along this line, it is

Supply-Pensions and National Health
within their province to bring the matter to the attention of our industrial workers and the Department of National Defence and to offer all the assistance and cooperation they can give.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous grants.
2SS. Health league of Canada, $5,000.
George Hugh Castleden: This league has been doing some very good work in the educational field. It is largely dependent upon the grants made by provinces and other charitable institutions. Its work is treated as being something in the nature of charity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is there not a campaign on now in a number of cities to obtain money?


George Hugh Castleden: That is just opened. This work is far too important to have to depend upon grants from the government, from different cities and from individuals. I understand that this league has been doing a great deal of social service work in connection with conditions around military camps and industrial centres. Every dollar we spend to-day by way of prevention is worth a hundred dollars three years hence. I submit that in recognition of what this health league of Canada is doing, the grant should be restored to what it was a few years ago. Five thousand dollars is altogether too small an amount to cover the important work being done.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The health league of Canada have been instrumental in initiating work in connection with maternal hygiene, nutritional service and venereal disease. They have done very good work as I know. They are being helped out by the provinces to a certain extent. I notice that the province of Quebec has just given them a grant. One feature which I should point out is that by reason of the increased taxes imposed by the budget it is going to be very much more difficult for private individuals to contribute large amounts, and it would be a great pity if this organization were compelled to stop their work for lack of funds.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I agree with what my hon. friend says with regard to the value of the work carried on by the health league. The situation in regard to grants is as follows: In 1919-20 we granted
85,000,	then 810,000 for the next two years,
815,000	in 1922-23 and 1923-24, 812,500 in 1924-25; then 820,000 in 1928-29, 1929-30 and 1930-31. In 1931-32 up to 1934-35 there were no grants, and in 1935-36 the grant was 86,000,
at which it remained until 1938-39. Then in 1939-40 it went up to 810,000. Some of that was I believe, by way of a supplementary grant of $5,000. Then for the last two years it has been $5,000. I have not been successful in obtaining any more, but I do appreciate the excellent work this organization is doing.


John Horne Blackmore: How much did the: minister ask for this year?
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) r I am afraid that would be giving away a cabinet secret, but I can tell my hon. friend that the receipt of the organization last year amounted altogether to $53,471.23, of which' they expended 845,536.44. They have carried' on an excellent campaign throughout Canada' especially with regard to the pasteurization: of milk, and this year they will carry on ai campaign with regard to venereal disease.


John Horne Blackmore: We are safe in assuming that the minister received far less than he sought?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think that is true of any minister of the. crown.


John Horne Blackmore: I wish to register a-protest against the restriction that is placed on the amount of money granted to these services. We are following a penny-wise and pound-foolish policy in Canada, and very serious are going to be the results we reap from that policy.


George Hugh Castleden: Our grants per capita are only twenty per cent of the grants to similar services in the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. MaeNICOL: Before you call the next item, Mr. Chairman, at this stage last year I asked the minister if he intended to restore the vote that had appeared in previous years for the Canadian Dental association, and L suggested to him at that time that he at least might consider its restoration. May I ask what he has decided in the matter?
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can assure my hon. friend that I was a very persistent but unsuccessful applicant on behalf of the vote he mentions.
Mr. MaeNICOL: Better luck next year.
Pensions and other benefits.
2-12. Pensions payable to men on active service, Northwest rebellion, 1885, and general pensions, $18,000.


George Hugh Castleden: How much of this grant was used last year?
5160	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Last year, $17,593.34.


George Hugh Castleden: How many pensioners does that cover?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It covers thirty-one disability, and six dependent, a total of thirty-seven.


George Hugh Castleden: Is any similar pension being paid to veterans of the Boer war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Their pensions, I am informed, are paid by the British Ministry of Pensions and not by the Canadian Ministry of Pensions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions branch.
1,7 G. Pensions branch administration-further amount required, $123,371.
Clarence Gillis: I was looking for an item covering A.R.P. work.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was covered by the war appropriation measure which we discussed before the Easter recess. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) had asked me if I would make a statement with regard to it, and on that occasion I made a lengthy statement, and we discussed the matter for half a day before the Easter recess. There is no money here for A.R.P. That is purely war expenditure.


Clarence Gillis: I should like one point clarified. I understand that there are legal entanglements tying up the question of whose is the responsibility for air raid precautions work. The minister will remember that I have corresponded with him on the question of the camouflage of a tank at New Waterford. After going to the department of pensions I was referred to the provincial government, and the provincial government said that they had no authority to take action in the matter, and that I should see National Defence. National Defence in that area made a pronouncement upon it, but the fact is that those who have made a decision in the matter do not know [DOT]exactly what it is all about. I have received a long joint resolution from those in charge of A.R.P. work. There is a large water tank at New Waterford, and it stands 600 feet high. It is only 300 yards from the Atlantic ocean, and being painted with aluminum paint it can be seen 100 miles out at sea when all that section is blacked' out. The attitude taken by those who say, "we cannot do anything about it", is that this is simply a matter of a water tank; but the real danger is that this tank, shining with aluminum paint and being visible 100 miles out to sea, would

be a pilot-light to the enemy which might result in the destruction of the entire town. It is such a small matter to repaint the tank, and if it is not done the whole island of Cape Breton is in jeopardy. As it is, the tank stands out as a good aiming post.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I may be permitted, the question of camouflage is definitely not within the purview of the minister responsible for A.R.P., but I can assure the hon. member that this matter has been very carefully discussed by the war committee in the last few weeks, and certain steps have been taken which I do not feel at liberty to discuss in the house. The jurisdiction is divided between the Department of Munitions and Supply, with reference to certain plants, and the Department of National Defence, with reference to certain areas. I shall be veiy glad to inform my hon. friend privately as to what has been done and what is being done.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you.


Angus MacInnis: I think most members of parliament have received numerous letters from organizations representing widows of veterans of the last war. I have had at least twenty-five or thirty letters during the session. I would ask the minister if it is likely that consideration will be given to giving a pension to these women.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I answered that earlier this afternoon, but I will repeat briefly what I said. Last year the pensions committee of this house made two alternative recommendations. The first was to grant pensions to widows of those pensioned in the great war regardless of the amount of their disability-the widows of pensioners of 50 per cent disability are automatically pensioned subject to certain conditions. The other alternative was to continue pensions to the widows of recipients of war veterans' allowance. Upon consideration we felt that it would be injurious to the essential principle of both acts to effect any redress in the direction indicated at that time. If my hon. friend will look at the resolution passed by the Canadian legion in Winnipeg about three weeks ago he will find that they have suggested an alternative remedy which is to apply to the non-pensioned widows the principle of compassionate pensions, as the committee proposed last year as applied to those not otherwise eligible in the present war. That matter is being considered. What the decision will be, I am not in a position to state at the present moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Pensions and National Health
Pensions branch.
1,77. Canadian pension commission-administration expenses-further amount required, $36,444.
Clarence Gillis: With regard to the laying
down of regulations respecting soldiers in this war, where does the responsibility rest-with the Department of Finance, or with the department of pensions? I have had some correspondence with those operating charitable homes across the country who try to find homes for unfortunate children, by way of adoption. Under the present regulations a child adopted by a man now serving in the forces is not eligible for dependent's allowance if the adoption was after enlistment. I have discussed the matter with the department of pensions on previous occasions; I have gone to the Department of National Defence and they have set out a long list of requirements which indicate that the matter would have to go to the privy council. The woman would have to prove that she was incapable of bearing children, and so on. I have one specific case in mind; I will send the letter to the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have no jurisdiction in that case.


Clarence Gillis: I think the minister's department should. Children will be important to Canada in future years. These homes that are run on a charitable basis have been able to find places for children, but owing to this particular regulation their work is practically stopped. I have been trying to get it started again, but I have had very little success. National Defence has complete jurisdiction in the matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As regards the two points raised by the hon. member, I have not the slightest jurisdiction. Our functions begin the moment after the man is discharged. The sole and undisturbed jurisdiction rests with the Canadian pension commission and every case -on discharge by reason of medical unfitness is automatically referred to the commission. The Canadian pension commission decides whether they are eligible or not.


George Hugh Castleden: I know of one man
who was injured at Petawawa camp anid later discharged, and there is no record in his medical history' that his disability was. directly the result of the night operations in which lie was engaged at the time. I have found it difficult to understand how, by reference to the medical records that are kept, the pension commission can possibly decide whether or not a man's disability was attributable to service. In this case there is evidence
that the man, who belonged to the anti-tank battalion, was out on night manoeuvres and that he jumped out of a truck in the dark: and suffered a hernia and an injured back. It was recommended that he be given a truss,, but he could1 not get it for six months. He was discharged in March, 1942, but the injury took place in July, 1941. The report from the pension commission states that the man's injury was not attributable directly or indirectly to service. Has anything been done by the department of pensions, in conjunction with .the Department of National Defence, to see that- proper records are1 kept with regard to injuries?
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) r The matter of records -is of course one for the service in which the man is engaged. In this case, or in any other like it, evep. if there is no written record or evidence, if he can Pbtain the evidence of those who were serving with him, his comrades, or other observers of the accident, it would go very far towards establishing his case. If the hon. member will refer the matter to me I will see that it is investigated. He does not necessarily have to have a written record or written evidence. He can produce his comrades who saw him slip and get injured.


George Hugh Castleden: What opportunity has he of offering such evidence?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: At the second hearing.


George Hugh Castleden: He was discharged from the army, his allowance -was cut off, and he is unable to support himself. What seemed to me to be wrong was that such a thing could occur. There should be a closer check on these injuries.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have no jurisdiction in that regard, but he could get the evidence of some of his comrades or other eye witnesses and it might assist him.


George Hugh Castleden: Will he have an opportunity of bringing these people here?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly, or he can obtain written certificates or any evidence he can get. There is a very humanitarian spirit at work in every possible case, and where we can help we will.


George Hugh Castleden: I appreciate that attitude, but what would happen if this man were overseas?
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre); He would have to get affidavits or statutory declarations.
5162	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have in mind a similar case. I suggest that this situation be corrected at once. Suppose the man's friends disappeared; later on he would find it difficult to establish his case.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health branch.
i80. Health branch administration-further amount required, $12,398.
John Ritchie MacNicol: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think there is under federal jurisdiction, but perhaps there is some form of assistance under the provincial authorities. As regards returned soldiers, we are responsible.


John Ritchie MacNicol: These are civilians. I would appeal to the minister to consider this matter seriously between now and next session. I wish he would give some thought to the problem of cripples and deformed and incapacitated men and women.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR 100. Departmental administration, $166,231.
Clarence Gillis: In view of the fact that the house is about to adjourn and it may be five or six months before we meet again, I believe that someone should say something about a department of government that I *consider the most important department, in view of our war situation. I think the Minister of Labour has graver responsibilities than any other minister, and perhaps has one of the most difficult jobs. He is largely responsible for the organization and administration not only of the national selective service machinery, but to a large extent the

price control regulations, the freezing of wages, by virtue of his chairmanship of the national labour board.
As a worker I consider that there are many things being done now with respect to labour that are creating much grief for those responsible for the administration of that department. The minister is probably doing the best he can with the machinery at his disposal. I know through contact with the officers and through correspondence that his men are very capable and hard working. The few remarks I am about to make are not for the purpose of condemning or seeking to find fault, but to express my opinion as to necessary changes in the machinery in order to give those charged with administration a better opportunity to do the job they are trying to do.
First I wish to call the minister's attention to the new order in council P.C. 5963, passed on July 14, which replaces order in council P.C. 8253, which replaced order in council P.C. 7440. It keeps you guessing to know where you are, these things are changed so often. We are in a mess of paper up to our knees, no one having much understanding of what is necessary to keep in touch with the regulations.
, What is causing most of the trouble is the policy of freezing wages. In the first place it is not necessary. Secondly, I do not think it can be done successfully and at the same time maintain maximum production. This order in council usurps practically every power that the legitimate trade unions of the country should have. It is lengthy; it definitely fixes the cost-of-living bonus. As I said a few nights ago, a large percentage of the workers of Canada, particularly those engaged in non-essential industries, have suffered a reduction in the standard of living to the extent of 15-2 per cent over and above what any other classification of workers in Canada has suffered. This order in council in its general terms solidifies that condition. Under this order I do not think it is possible for those who did not come under the original arrangement of October 1941 to have any adjustment of that grievance. Moreover, under this order in council, if any infraction is committed by employer or employee, the initiation of action rests with the aggrieved person. If this order in council is to be operative the government should accept the responsibility of prosecuting and imposing the penalties prescribed upon those committing infractions. This provision on page 9, clause 3 of the section on offences and penalties, definitely sets out that in the case

Supply-Labour
of violation on the part of the employer, either the union-and there are far too few of them in the country-or the individual himself, would have to take the initiative in prosecuting the employer if he was the offending party. It abrogates any trade union agreement that may be in operation. Further than that, it definitely goes into the provinces where certain arrangements or certain basic laws are laid down with respect to rates. In the last clause, No. 64, it is stated:
This order shall supersede any inconsistent provisions of any dominion or provincial law, order or regulation, but nothing in this order shall deny to employees cost-of-living bonuses or other 'benefits to which they were entitled on November 15, 1941.
National defence contracts, for example, contain a provision that the wages applicable in the different sections of the province shall be based on prevailing rates paid in the province. You will find in one section, where there is a strongly organized union, carpenters, for example, paid ninty cents an hour on national defence contracts, while in another section a hundred miles away, where there is no established union, rates as low as fifty-two cents are paid.
As I see this order in council it can mean that the only arrangement recognized is the cost-of-living bonus as set out in it. I have not had time to read it completely, but I have picked the clauses that are objectionable to me as a trade union member who always had the right to bargain with the employer on the basis of the employee's ability to earn.
Before there can be maximum production in Canada, before there can be full cooperation of the workers of this country, you will have to recognize that you must make obligatory on the employers of this country the recognition of trade unions. Thousands of men in industry, hundreds of men in the unions, are tied up and not doing the job they should be doing because they are wholly occupied 365 days a year in trying to brush away or break through the maze of red tape. They are quarrelling with governments and government regulations. Whereas if you had a legitimate trade union movement across this country, affiliated with the national organizations having offices in Ottawa, it would make for efficient action. It would further national leadership from coast to coast. It would eliminate the necessity of workers coming from Vancouver and western Canada in delegations away from their regular employment for the purpose of holding conferences with the national war labour board. In the final analysis the war labour board is not in a
position to legislate for the industries across the country because it is not in contact with them. The majority of the workers across the country are not organized. Plant councils are being set up, but the men have no proper arrangements for collective bargaining; they are not able to make presentation of their case. Seventy-five per cent of the trouble is due to confusion, lack of leadership and trying to cut the red tape that now exists in the matter of wages.
The arguments that I have heard advanced in the house against increased wages, so far as I have been able to follow them-I make no pretence of being a financial expert or understanding the mysteries of high finance-are to the effect that increased wages mean inflation. I do not think increased wages mean any such thing. Anyone who uses that argument practically admits an inability to control prices, because there is no relation between an increase in the purchasing power of the people and prices getting away from you. If you can control prices you can control them regardless of the amount of money in circulation.
I am very critical of the government's policy with respect to the formation of legitimate trade unions. I am not blaming the minister for this; I know he is a member of the legitimate movement and has been for some years. But I think at times he must find himself in a very unhappy position in having to administer a policy under which the government themselves, in their own established industries, are not giving a lead to the other employers. In Research Enterprises, for example, the right of collective bargaining is denied. This is a government owned and controlled organization. I have here a decision rendered on December 13 last, to this effect:
As the company is a wholly owned and operated government undertaking, I am of the opinion that your minister would not have authority, under the said orders in council, to direct an industrial disputes inquiry commission to deal with the complaint outlined in your letter.
That is a decision rendered by the Department of Justice to the Department of Labour, though not since the appointment of the present Minister of Justice. If that is the attitude taken by the government, the minister must find himself in a very unhappy position, with the government of the country operating an industry and refusing the employees of that industry the very thing the government have advocated in order in council 2685, in which they laid down the principle of collective bargaining. I do not understand how that can be done.
Supply-Labour

I should like to refer to a specific case, based on a letter I received from a man who was employed in a plant in Edmonton, where they endeavoured to form a production committee. I am not going to read the letter, which is quite long, but the man who was most active and cooperative in the formation of that committee found himself out on the street a month or two later, all because he had endeavoured to carry out the instructions of the government, as laid down by order in council, in regard to the cooperation of management and employee. This employer definitely was opposed to any kind of cooperation, and that was the reward this man received for a great deal of work for the good of the country. To-day he is on the street. It is a very good illustration of the attitude taken by the employers in regard to any efforts to coordinate work in the plants. I do not think that can be done by plant councils or production committees. In my opinion the answer is the legitimate labour movement, responsible leadership, uniformity of wage rates across the country in the emergency we are facing-


Mr. MITCHELL:: Was this man discharged for union activity?


Clarence Gillis: No, there is no organization in the plant. He was working in connection with a plant committee on production.


Humphrey Mitchell: He was not a trade
unionist?


Clarence Gillis: No. As I was saying, the
answer to the problem is in the recognition of the legitimate labour movement.
A few moments ago I said I did not think the freezing of wages was an answer to our problem. To-day right across the country you find a wave of absenteeism. According to several press dispatches I have recently seen, there is a serious shortage of coal in the west because of absenteeism in the mining industry of Alberta. I think that situation prevails in every other industry right across the country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What do you mean by
"absenteeism"?


Clarence Gillis: Men absent from work, not working as steadily as they should. We must face facts, whether we like them or not, and I believe this situation exists largely because of the fact that the incentive to work has been taken away. I think we must recognize that. Taxation is high and wage rates have been frozen at a level which was never adequate to maintain a decent standard of living. All the workers hear is "more production", with very little in it for them, and 
they are only human. If this freezing of wages were eliminated it would be a good thing, if you had a trade union movement functioning across the country, doing business with the employers on the basis of collective bargaining, with greater production in industry and larger earnings to labour. Then there would be a greater incentive to work, and the unions could bargain with the employers for a share in the profits of that increased production. Certainly labour is not getting it to-day; there is complete frustration in many sections I have visited. The working man is working much harder, but he is much worse off than he was before the outbreak of war. He does not understand the world problem as well as it is understood by many hon. members here, who have the benefit of listening day by day to men who really have a grasp of the situation. The working men only understand that they have no economic security. They have a job to-day; they may not have it to-morrow. If after working in industry for fifteen or twenty years a man is laid off, there is no pension for him; there is no security, and for that reason there is unrest. There is the same wage rate day after day, during this whole process of fighting the war, and there is no encouragement. There is a lack of morale there, which should be built up.
A short time ago I said that I was not a monetary and financial expert, but I have done some reading on this matter of freezing wages, and I do not believe that step is necessary in order to avoid inflation. I should like to leave a few thoughts with the minister. They are not my own; they are notes taken from the writings of various people, but I should like to place on record what I consider to be the problem and the solution in regard to the freezing of wages and its relation to inflation in connection with our present war economy. This has been written by very eminent labour people in Britain, over a period of time. The probleip the minister must face in connection with the matter of freezing wages is that war-time economy demands the curtailment of the production of desirable consumer goods to a bare maximum. We all realize that, and understand its necessity. The general increase in nominal income creates more bidders for the diminished quantity of goods, tends to raise prices and increase living cost. That is true. The vicious spiral of inflation sets in, with wages always lagging. That is also true. The popular way of dealing with this situation is to freeze wages and attempt to peg prices. Though wages may be frozen, nowhere in the world has it been possible satisfactorily to peg prices. "Good

Supply-Labour
reasons" have always appeared for the raising of commodity prices, while collective bargaining is being destroyed by frozen wage levels, and real wages keep falling.
That is the problem, and I think that is a statement of fact so far as Canada is concerned. No one can tell me that prices have been successfully pegged in Canada. Officially there has been an increase of approximately 16 per cent since the outbreak of war; that is on the basis of a superficial examination of prices across Canada, taken in certain cities, and striking an average. It is not a true picture. I am safe in saying that many hon. members of this house could go back to the towns in which they live and find that since the outbreak of war prices have risen by 30 per cent; and in many towns and cities you will find a dozen different prices for the same article. So I say that prices have not been successfully pegged, nor do I think it possible to do so. When questioned some time ago, before the adoption of the price freezing regulations, the Minister of Finance stated that it would require a policeman in every store in order to make the thing work successfully.
Now I come to the solution, which is not my solution but that of people who have studied the problem. Reduce the spendable incomes so that their total is equal to the total value of goods available for consumption at current prices; spendable income to be controlled by spending money coupons issued according to need and not according to total income of the individual. That is rationing. If commodities are scarce, all should share and share alike in the sacrifice involved in doing without that which is not available. If goods of which there are shortages are rationed, coupons are issued regardless of whether one is a millionaire or an ordinary wage earner, on a proper rationing basis. Under that system one is entitled only to his share. He cannot have any more; therefore he cannot spend any more. There would have to be some price control in connection with it, no doubt. But in my opinion rationing is the only way in which inflation could ,be avoided. There would be no incentive for anyone to spend more than he is allowed, if the government decreed that he is allowed only a certain amount. The freezing of wages does not enter into the picture, nor does the amount of money available to spend, if you cannot spend it. It does not enter into the picture of inflation, either.
The results of rationing would be these:
1.	Spending money coupons adjusted to the available supply of goods would automatically stabilize .prices, with some price control.
2.	All workers are immediately put on equal terms with higher income sections of community with respect to purchase of necessities.
3.	No need for wages stabilization, since wage increases would not increase spending power and could not, therefore, have inflationary effect.
The important consequence of this would be visible at once. Trade unions would still be free to pursue the normal methods of collective bargaining in order to obtain adjustments in the relative income of workers compared with owners and managers, and also in the relative incomes of different groups of workers. Since the increases would automatically go into savings, except in so far as a portion might be spent on recreation, the trade unionist would be bargaining for an increased share of the national debt, or, to put it another way, an increased share in post-war consumption. In this way, two of the main problems facing trade unionists to-day would be partly solved. They would be able to find a way of increasing the working class share in the national income, and of continuing the historical process of working-class advance even in war time, without in any way hampering the war effort by diverting labour and materials away from war production to current consumption. And they would also be buiLding up some measure of security against the danger of a repetition of the decline in working-class standards which followed the last war.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the hon. member quoting from?


Clarence Gillis: Labour discussion notes as put out by the British Labour party. Of course this is my own material, taken from notes I have accumulated over a period of time. I have made my own analysis, and have reached my own conclusions.
I believe the statement with respect to the freezing of wages is clear, plain and simple. The main trouble with us to-day in discussing any problem is that we are too academic. We kid ourselves into the belief that there is a lot of mystery in it when in fact there is no such thing. The whole matter is set out here very clearly, and the solution could not be made clearer. The only thing that stops us from putting these measures into operation is that while we may preach democracy, we deny it to the very people who need it most. Eighty-five per cent of the workers in industry to-day are doing a job, while someone waves a flag in their faces to remind them of the war; and at the same time they are denied the very right to have their day in court with their employer. We may

Supply-Labour

have democracy in the courts of our country. You have your day in court, but we deny those who work and who produce for us the right to have their day in court, to sit around the table and to discuss differences in wages, and all matters pertaining to their future and their industry. Just so long as we do that we are going to have the reaction we have seen from those employed in industry. Most of the trouble and unrest, as I said a moment ago, arises from misunderstanding. Until the government is prepared to call in the union leaders from all across this country, sit in with them and give to the workers of this country the democracy we have talked about so much, just so long shall we have a continuation of that misunderstanding.
There are thousands and thousands of capable men and hundreds of capable union organizers who have the problem at their finger tips. There are the two national set-ups in Canada, namely, the congress of labour and the trades union congress, of which Mr. Tom Moore is the head. They would give leadership; they would be prepared to coordinate the work and take all the mystery out of the regulations. They would iron out the problems with the national war labour board. Instead of having workers running in from one end of the country to the other in an endeavour to have the national war labour board understand their problems, it could be worked out in the manner I have suggested.
I see a lot of grief ahead if the order in council put into operation is administered literally, as I read' and understand it. I think the arrangement the Department of Labour has with the building industry is the set-up which should be applied to national conditions. In that instance they have regularly recognized representatives of the building industry in a legitimate organization, and they sit in with the minister and other representatives of the government to decide on certain regulations with respect to working conditions and wages for the duration of the war. This is a proper procedure, and exactly what should be done in every section of Canada where the workers are organized. Where they are not organized the government should endeavour to implement the principle set out under order in council P.C. 2685.
I have no desire to continue the discussion at greater length. I wished to make these observations for the benefit of the Minister of Labour. We in this group are prepared to cooperate with him in any way in which we can be helpful. We shall be leaving Ottawa shortly, and it is not likely that we shall be back for some time. I am going back to a section of the country where there is a solidly

organized movement. I am going back to people who are badly frustrated, but people who are prepared to do everything they can in the winning of the war. They have demonstrated that. They resent the fact that for thirty years they sat around conference tables with their employers; they have signed agreements and arbitrated their difficulties, but they find themselves to-day in a position where their union has been rendered impotent. They no longer have the right to bargain collectively with their employers. They must come to Ottawa and deal with the national war labour board. The national war labour board is hinged round with red tape and regulations, and is not in a position to make an analysis of the problems confronting the people in that end of the country. They see the democracy they have been working for for years taken away from them. These organizations were set up to give power to those people to voice their needs, their hopes and aspirations. I should hope the minister would accept the few remarks I have made as sincerely as I have made them. My suggestion is the answer to many of the problems with which the minister is faced. I know he wishes to do something about it, but I also know he is tied by regulations and by a machine, and that he must find it very hard to work.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) I have no desire to delay the work of the committee and the adjournment of the house. As I have said already this morning, I must protest against the short time given to the committee to discuss the welfare of at least 3,500,000 people who are concerned with production in this country. It is not going to be helpful, when we go back to our homes and are asked why we did not take up this or why we did not take up that, to say that we had not an opportunity to do so. There are a number of things that I wish to say, but I shall be as brief as I can. In my opinion it is not so much what is done by the labour department as the way in which it is done.
What has been wrong with government-labour-industrial relations in Canada since the war began is that labour has not been taken into the confidence of the government and has not been made a partner in the war effort with the employers and with the government. In June, 1940, the government passed order in council, P.C. 2685, in which they approved the principle of collective bargaining. I want bo tell the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) that no employer of labour in Canada has dishonoured that order in council more effectively and more deliberately than the

Supply-Labour
government itself. They have taken advantage of labour's lack of understanding of the constitution and laws of this country. When they approach the Department of Munitions and Supply that department says that they have a ruling from the Department of Justice that they could not enter into an agreement with the unions. I am not learned in the law, but I am satisfied there is no law which prevents the Department of Munitions and Supply from entering into agreements with trade unions, and I doubt very much if the Department of Justice ever gave any such ruling. If the Department of Justice did so, it was doing something which it knew was wrong.
About this time last year, shortly after the house adjourned I received a letter from the head of an important trade union. He stated that his union had received bargaining rights in the industry in which they were concerned through an election in the plant held under Department of Labour auspices. After a conciliation board had made an award they were told by the Minister of Labour that the controller in that industry could not enter into an agreement with the union.


Mr. HOMUTH:: What date was that?


Angus MacInnis: July, 1941. I have not the letter before me, but I placed part of it on the record last year. Here is what the Minister of Labour said:
I believe that you will understand that Mr. Brunning, as controller, could not negotiate with the union as a union, or sign an agreement with a union, but the regulations which are agreed upon between all parties should form fair and reasonable conditions under which the work of the plant should be carried on.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: By whom was that
signed?


Angus MacInnis: That was signed by the former minister of labour, the present Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty): I drew that to the attention of the former minister of labour, I think it was last November. I quoted the section in order in council P.C. 2685 and I then asked the minister how his reply could be harmonized with the principle laid down in that order in council. This is his reply:
My hon. friend, however, bringB up a question which has given me a considerable measure of worry, and one that I intend to ask the national war labour board to consider at the earliest possible moment when it starts its activities. I think my hon. friend and the committee know pretty well the situation in Great Britain; no union in government departments is recognized that is in affiliation with any outside union. In the United States the situation is a little different. They do recognize in some instances, and some only, unions that are affiliated with outside unions.
44561-326J
I do not know where the former Minister-of Labour got his information in regard' to* the situation in Great Britain, but I know that he was incorrectly informed. I wrote to the general secretary of the trades union congress, Sir Walter Citrine, quoting the statement of the former Minister of Labour. I had a reply from Sir Walter Citrine under date of April 24, 1942. Just a few days ago the Minister of Labour was asked how many government controlled industries in Canada had agreements with organized labour, and he gave his answer in one word, "None." I quote from Sir Walter Citrine's letter as follows:
Thank you for your letter of the 19th of March, which I received yesterday, in which, you raise questions as to the extent of recognition afforded the British trade unions by the-government and government-controlled industries. In the first instance I would like to clear up the point which was made by your Minister of Labour to the effect that "the situation in Great Britain is that no union in government departments is recognized that is in affiliation with any outside union". This statement apparently refers to the operation of the 1927 trade union and trade disputes act which prohibits established civil servants from belonging to any trade union except those which confine their membership to persons employed permanently in an established capacity by or under the crown; and also prohibits such civil service trade unions from affiliating to organizations which include non-civil servants. That act, however, does not prohibit employees of either government factories or government-controlled establishments, i.e., royal ordnance factories, etc., from becoming members of their appropriate trade union, and these employees are, in fact, enrolled in such unions as the amalgamated engineering union, the transport and general -workers' union, the national union of general and municipal workers, and a score or so of others, all of whom are affiliated to the trades union congress.
It is perfectly true that we do not enter into trade union agreements concerning wages and conditions direct with the minister of labour as that ministry holds no responsibility for government factories. But trade unions do conduct negotiations with the ministry of supply, and the admiralty, for example, who are themselves employers of labour responsible for the management of factories, dockyards, and workshops. Most industries here it will be appreciated are privately owned, and wages negotiations are primarily a matter for regulation between the employers and the trade unions concerned.
The right of the trades union congress and its affiliated unions to represent the viewpoint of the workers on all matters affecting their conditions was established with the government in the early days of the war, when the then Prime Minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, instructed his departmental officers to consult the trades union congress and its affiliated organizations on all matters affecting their interests. That policy was reaffirmed by Mr. Winston Churchill and has been constantly adhered to, and has been reflected in the many consultative committees which have been sets
Supply-Labour

up by the government on which are representatives of the employers and the trade unions, the nomination of such representatives being the sole purview of the organizations concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend will allow me to interrupt him for a moment, it has been suggested that the dinner recess be until seven o'clock instead of eight, and if the house is agreeable to that I will make the motion with the Speaker in the chair.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the intermission at six o'clock this day continue until seven o'clock instead of eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. McCann in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at seven o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
100. Departmental administration, 8166,231.
Angus MacInnis: When the committee rose at six o'clock I had been reading from a letter addressed to me by the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress of Great Britain which showed quite clearly that in the United Kingdom there is no question about government-controlled industries and government industries recognizing the trades unions and having agreements with them. I said that in my opinion certain labour organizations were hoodwinked by supposed decisions made by the Department of Justice on labour matters. I have here copies of two letters, one from R. H. Neilson, secretary of the national war labour board addressed to T. F. Stevenson, business secretary of the Canadian electrical trades union, and another signed by F. P. Varcoe, deputy minister of justice. I will read these two letters to sustain the point I am making. In his letter dated April 22, 1942, Mr. Neilson says:
Last December when we wrote you in response to your inquiry of the 12th of that month, it was the belief that semi-independent [Mr. Maclnnis.l
agencies of municipalities would be outside the scope of P.C. 8253 under clause 12 (1) (ii), and your understanding on this point is in accordance with the information which you were given at that time. Subsequently, however, the Department of Justice ruled that the word "agency" applied only to agencies of provincial governments, and this decision threw certain municipal bodies under the jurisdiction of the order.
Interpretative rule No. 1 of bulletin No. 2 was written then in conformity with this new interpretation of the legal branch of the government.
Mr. Stevenson then wrote to the Minister of Justice, and his letter was replied to by the deputy minister of justice. This is what the deputy minister said:
Your letter of April 27 to the Minister of Justice has been handed to me. The function of this department is confined to advising the government in matters of law and it is not my duty nor would it be proper for me to advise a private individual on such matters. I regret, therefore, that I cannot advise you upon the matter which you have referred to the Minister of Justice.
The letter was as to whether employees and workers in industries or utilities owned by municipalities and provinces came under the provisions of P.C. 8253. The deputy minister of justice continues:
I may say, however, that while some discussions have taken place between the members of the national war labour board and members of this department, no opinions have been given by this department on the matters mentioned in your letter.


Humphrey Mitchell: What is the date of that letter?	.


Angus MacInnis: The date of the first letter is April 22, 1942-Mr. Neilson's letter to Mr. Stevenson-and the date of Mr. Varcoe's letter is May 7, 1942. I submit that the function of the Department of Labour is not to try to hoodwink organized labour but to try to help organized labour so that it may 'be in a position to help the government and the country. I have said as much privately to some of the people who have to do with the administration of labour. Not only are trade unions recognized in government-controlled and government-owned industries in Great Britain, but they insist through their boards of arbitration and conciliation and review boards or courts, or whatever they are called, that the traditional and customary relations between workers in trade unions, and the employers, shall be carried out.
I hold in my hand the decision of a court- not a court of law, but a court set up under the labour lawrs in the United Kingdom-in a case where there was a stoppage of work because

Supply-Labour
a member of the staff had been dismissed. It shows the difference between the attitude in Great Britain and that in Canada.
According to the court's findings, the cause of the woman worker's dismissal was her union activity. Although the other women refused to return to their jobs without their dismissed companion, if some promise of inquiry or negotiations had been made they would have returned immediately. Without union recognition it "is difficult to see how the girls could show their sympathy with the dismissed girl without some form of demonstration". The fundamental cause of the dispute was held to be the stubborn refusal of the management to deal with the union. The court regretted this and stated it was bound to lead to a dispute-
That is, the management's conduct was bound to lead to a dispute.
-which might end in a work stoppage ... as had in fact occurred. Therefore the almost uniform practice and well-tried method of recognizing and negotiating with the union was recommended for this company. Without collective bargaining other troubles would no doubt arise.
If we met our problems in that way we would have far less difficulty than we have had up to now, although I am amazed at how little difficulty we have had.
Let me say again that what I am concerned with is not so much the regulations made but the attitude of the department, the attitude of the government, to organized labour. After all, certain things are necessary; we cannot carry on to-day as we would in peace time; the issues at stake are too vital and labour is too greatly concerned in those issues. One of the difficulties in dealing with organized labour here, as far as there are difficulties, is that dealing with labour organizations has not become a tradition here as it has in the old land. Consequently the employer is inexperienced in dealing with labour and labour is inexperienced in dealing with the employer. The only way in which that can be remedied is, not by refusing to recognize labour organizations, but by recognizing them.
I have before me the text of an address made by the deputy minister of labour to the convention of the Canadian Manufacturers' association last year and published in the Labour Gazette of July, 1941. I should like to read two short paragraphs from it. The deputy minister said he had not had time to prepare this address; nevertheless I think the address is a very fine one, although there are a few thoughts in it to which I take strong exception. He has put the case of labour fairly and shows, if labour is impatient, the cause of its impatience. He stated the matter most clearly, and if his hearers would keep in mind
what he said we should get over mudh of our difficulties and have much better labour relations. He said:
All I am pleading for is this, that on the management side of business there should be a sense of the labour problem, and that one executive should be assigned the duty of labour management, with a programme to be worked out. That is all very well, you may say to me, but it depends on the finances of the business. That is true. The prosperity of our whole' economy depends on our resources. But the history of democracy is one long record of concession after concession. The freedoms that we talk about are those that the few had and have given up by one process or another, sometimes through strife and sometimes through evolution, to become the freedoms of the mass. Whatever democracy may hold for labour in the future, I hope to see it come by the process of evolution and not through class struggle and strife. The fulfilment of that hope, it seems: to me, requires conscious planning and the-assignment by business of the job of labour management to competent people.
I agree wholeheartedly with every word of that. It is exceedingly well said. I doubt, however, if it had much effect on those to whom he was speaking. Then a little further on, under the subheading "The New Labour Movement", he continued:
Now the dam has burst, and much that should have been done in the twenties and the early thirties has been concentrated in the late thirties. So we have had social security legislation, and a resurging new labour movement, a class movement . . . that is youthful and inexperienced, that knows nothing about the last war and what inflation means, that is making all sorts of mistakes, because it has had no connection with the old labour movement, in which it could have learned many valuable lessons.
The people who constitute this new labour group are largely those who came out of school during the depression and had great difficulty in finding jobs.
I aslc hon. members to note that.
First of all, we have to understand their motives and background.
That we have failed to do.
They have a feeling that is, if anything, anti-social. Many of them have the belief that they have been denied their proper place, and now they are out to take it. We can be forceful with trade unions, and there is many a time, I can assure you, ivhen I feel that, certain subversive elements should be whipped with scorpions.
That is what I object j;o, because it indicates a lack of understanding of what he said before. The reason why there is trouble in the labour movement, the reason why these people act as if in a hurry, is that they have been whipped with scorpions for ten long years. The remedy is not to continue that whipping. The oure lies, as the cure for all these things lies, in patience, kindness, toleration and understanding.
Supply-Labour

As a last word I wish to tell the Minister of Labour that in my opinion he has the greatest opportunity that any Minister of Labour in Canada ever had, if he will only grasp that opportunity with courage and firmness he has an opportunity to do something in Canada that possibly could never have been done before, but can be done now.
He has the background of the labour movement; he knows the labour movement of the old country as he knows the labour movement of this country and I should like to see him go forward. I can assure him of this, :if he does not already know it, that in anything he does to improve the relationship between workers and employers, I will assist him in every way possible. I will do everything that is within my power, and I will refuse to do anything for political or any other purposes, to impede him in any way. Two years ago a man prominent in the trade union movement told me that he had been asked to accept the position of Minister of Labour. He said, "I could not take that position, because what was expected of me I could not do; that was, that I should be the *apologist for the government labour policies to the organized labour movement." I suggest to the Minister of Labour that he do not -undertake that job. If he does the opposite; if he comes out boldly and squarely for progressive labour industrial relations, he will have the labour movement of this country with him to the last man.


Humphrey Mitchell: There are one or two points I think I should answer though I want it understood that I am not going to be controversial. The hon. member for Vancouver East just made a reference to my assuming the position of Minister of Labour.
I	want to be perfectly frank and honest with him in saying that since this war broke out, anything I have been asked to * do that I thought was in the national interest,
II	have done; and I think he will agree that .at times I have accepted some pretty tough .assignments. I trust I may make that contribution which the hon. member says he hopes I will make. I do not expect to satisfy everybody. My good friend Ernie Bevin in England has not satisfied everybody. He has had some very harsh things said about him by quite prominent members of the British House of Commons, across the floor of that chamber. The same things have been said about the Minister of Labour in New Zealand; the same things are said about Madam Perkins to the south of us. This is one of those very difficult portfolios, where very few lasting reputations are earned, despite the
.sincerity of the individual. But when this
IMr. Maclnnis.]
war is over I hope it may be said that at least I made some contribution to the state, and in some degree helped to defeat the man over there in Berlin whom we want to defeat. That is the only ambition I have at the moment.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South spoke of the freezing of wages. I say to him frankly that the order was never intended to be a wage-freezing order. It is a wage-stabilizing order. In taking that action I think we are in good company. Recently the President of the United States announced that possibly a similar policy would be brought into operation in that country; and also quite recently the labour Prime Minister of Australia put into force a somewhat similar policy. This tremendous undertaking had for its purpose the protection of the living standards of the people of this country, but there are bound to be mistakes in working out such a vast policy. The record shows, however, that compared with the same period during the last war the purchasing power of our dollar is 18 per cent greater than it was at that time. While my hon. friend was speaking I thought of the old age pensioners whom we were discussing this afternoon. I thought of those people with fixed incomes: soldiers, sailors, persons receiving workmen's compensation, those on mothers' allowances, and the protection they will receive if we can maintain the price stabilization policy that we have set in motion. That is all I am going to say about this point.
I was interested in the letter read by the hon. member for Vancouver East from my very good friend of many years standing, Sir Walter Citrine, general secretary of the British trade union congress, with respect to employees in government institutions. I am frank to admit that there is an anomaly there, as far as the dominion is concerned, and it is a matter which I intend to discuss with the Department of Justice after looking at the correspondence which was read this afternoon by my hon. friend.
Then the hon. member for Cape Breton South spoke about absenteeism and as he was speaking I had before me some figures which would indicate that absenteeism has been reduced tremendously in the last few months. The time lost per thousand workers in 1940 was 85 days; for the same period in 1941 it was 56 days, and it was also 56 days in 1942.


Clarence Gillis: Has there not been a tremendous increase right across the country during the last month?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not going to enter into a controversy.

Supply-Labour


Clarence Gillis: That is according to the newspapers.


Humphrey Mitchell: Another matter which I think should be cleared up is the statement that the application of the wage control policy has put a damper on organized labour. Both my hon. friends know as well as I do that in some respects wages are the least important feature of an agreement, once you get those wages stabilized. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver East will agree that seniority is far more important even than wages in the minds of many trade unionists, because it is a measure of job security. In that regard some of these agreements have dozens of clauses written into them. This policy is administered jointly by the dominant labour organizations and the dominant manufacturers' organizations, through the national and regional war labour boards, and there has been a great impetus to the growth of the trade union movement in this country. That is clearly indicated in the applications for boards of conciliation. I think that is so for the reason that now there is a central authority to which application may be made to adjust wages in conformity with government policy. That is all I intend to say on this point.
I hope I have answered the principal questions asked by my hon. friends. I should like to point out also that the government is increasingly relying upon the advice of labour and industry in the administration of the war policy, through the consultative committee which I recently set up along the lines of the consultative committee set up by Mr. Bevin in England, in the administration of the national and regional war labour boards, in the courts of referees dealing with unemployment insurance and also the advisory committees which will play an important part in the application of national selective service when that is launched. Therefore I can say that I look forward to an increase in the tempo of the cooperation between the government, the employers and the employees in those policies which, from my point of view at least, most directly affect them in the conduct of the war. I think that is about all I have to say, and I hope I have touched upon most of the points raised.


Gordon Graydon: I am prompted to say a word in connection with the matter of labour, because it is a subject in which I have had a very keen interest for a good many years. I should like especially to suggest to the minister that if labour is to have its proper place in the great national partnership which will bring us to a victorious conclusion of this war and usher us into a worth-while
peace, we must infuse into the government the principles of the labour movement as a whole. It seems to me we are not doing much in parliament, nor is the government doing much, to bring into government boards the two great classes in the community. I make no apology for calling agriculture and labour the two great classes. I believe I represent about an equal number of both, and I am convinced that we must bring them to a greater extent into the actual government of our land. We have witnessed the setting up by the government of board after board, and for some reason it has become almost a religion with certain people that on those boards we must have only men high up in business circles. We must get over that kind of thing, and bring into our government boards representatives from the classes I have mentioned. These boards are discharging functions in many instances equal to those discharged by the government itself. The House of Commons has to a certain degree abdicated its functions of legislation in favour of many boards which are given legislative powers. Those powers of course are subject to revision and confirmation by the House of Commons. Because of this change, this metamorphosis in our legislative system, we should have greater representation of labour on the boards being set up in Canada. If I recall aright the Minister of Labour stated, when introducing the bill to provide unemployment insurance, that some four million people would be affected by that bill. I realize of course that he did not mean that those four million would all draw unemployment insurance. That is a tremendous section of our population, and because the number is so great those people must hold a very important position in our whole national structure. Those of us who through the years have lived close to the working man know something about his loyalty to his country, his associates, and his friends. In times like these we feel impelled to add our voices in his behalf.
I was glad to note the position taken by hon. members who took part in the discussion this afternoon and this evening, and to hear them put forward what they felt was the best foot of labour. As a nation we cannot expect to have real prosperity, nor can we expect to merit a complete victory in the war and in the peace, unless we are prepared to give a reasonable position and make a proper place for those two great sections of our population which work so hard, day in and day out, toiling for the national welfare.
Supply-Labour

I have risen simply to add to what has been stated so eloquently by my friends to the left. I wish also to compliment the minister upon his observations in favour of labour. In my opinion too much cannot be said in praise of that great section of our population, one which is so worthy of everything we can do for it, and which, with agriculture, forms an important part of our national community. They must have our very best consideration and attention.
When the minister comes before the house again I would urge that he bring in his estimates, his labour policy and plans early in the session, because it seems to me that we will deal with nothing in the next session, despite what anyone may say, which is more a part and parcel of our war effort than the welfare of the labouring class. We should have an opportunity to discuss and to deliberate upon all details connected with labour problems.
I have a further suggestion which I shall not develop at length, because of the brief time at my disposal. I should like to see the minister have a little more influence in the cabinet. He may be new, but as he grows and develops in stature in his department he will grow and develop in stature in the deliberations of the cabinet. I would ask him in season and out of season to pull hard, to see to it that no quasi-legislative body is formed without proper representation from those two great classes in our community, agriculture and labour. I believe some steps have been taken in that regard in connection with agriculture, but the Minister of {Labour must see to it in cabinet council that when these boards are set up that great labouring section of our population, which means so much to us and which is contributing so much, should have its legitimate and proper place, and that it has the representation to which it is so justly entitled.


John Horne Blackmore: It has long been my feeling and belief that labour, wisely led, is going to be one of the chief determining factors in the life of this nation in days to come. The minister is placed in a position of responsibility, where it will be his privilege to help labour to be wisely led. I assure him that in all his good endeavours with respect to the improvement of labour conditions he will have the complete and whole-hearted support of the body of people I represent in parliament.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I came to the house elected and largely supported by the labouring community. Since sitting in the house I have had numerous occasions to consult with the

Minister of Labour respecting labour problems which have been called to my attention by the organized workers. May I say that at no time have I had any difficulty in approaching: him. On each occasion I have found him ready to listen sympathetically to the grievances I have placed before him.
I do not approve of many of the government's labour policies. In the past few days we have heard much about the incentive we must give the man whose capital is invested in industry. To-day we have been reminded of the four million workers in Canada. When it comes to a question of production it must be remembered that we can replace the owners of capital much more easily and readily than we can replace the four million workers upon whom in the last analysis production must depend. I sincerely hope the Minister of Labour will be able to take advantage of the opportunity to which the hon. member for Vancouver East has referred, and build up in this country under his good policies a great labour movement.


Major James William Coldwell: Since the Minister of
Labour has stated that Mr. Bevin is an old friend of his and since he is going to give consideration to Sir Walter Citrine's letter,, may I recount an incident which occurred in the presence of the six members of parliament who visited Great Britain last autumn? We were having a brief conference with Mr. Bevin, and I asked if there had been any serious labour disputes since he had been Minister of Labour. He said there had been none, not only for the time he had been Minister of Labour but since the war began. I asked him how he accounted for that. He said, "In large measure I attribute it to the fact that our working force is thoroughly unionized. If anything occurs that is unfortunate and likely to lead to trouble, the two groups, the managers and employers"-he said they had had more difficulty in organizing them than they had with the workers-"and the workers can get together and the difficulties are ironed out." He said they had had some trouble, but it was of minor importance. I said that at the moment in Canada this government took the view that in government owned or controlled) industries or in the departments of the government there should be no labour organizations. I asked him what they did in Great Britain, and I think I can give Mr. Bevin's reply verbatim, because it struck me so forcibly. He said, "I will answer it in this way:	I suppose our largest number
of government employees in the labour field will be found in our great dockyards. They are all organized in their own national union, and I am the national secretary of that union." I

Supply-Labour
wanted to recount thait incident to drive home the points made by the hon. member for Vancouver Bast (Mr. Maclnnis).


Paul Joseph James Martin: The tribute paid by the
hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) characterizes the discussion which has taken place with regard to the whole problem of labour and management. Other hon. members have given an indication of a similar spirit, of trying to understand this problem in a cooperative way rather than in a spirit of endless controversy. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) has urged the Minister of Labour to exert and assert his point of view in the executive council. I do>
not know that there is anything wrong with that suggestion, but surely there is an obligation upon members of parliament generally to give some support to the Minister of Labour, whoever he happens to be. As long as I have been in this house this discussion has always been confined to a few members. This is one of the most important problems facing us to-day or that will face us in the future, and we have approached it all along in the spirit of one group pitted against another instead of treating it as something that should be shared by all alike.
The minister has stated, and I give him credit for his courage in doing so, that he regards the decision of the Department of Justice in respect to the organization of labour in government-owned industries as being anomalous. Most certainly it is. This government and every government since the treaty of peace have recognized the right of collective bargaining, and have urged it as a proper means of settling disputes between management and labour. Other countries have practised this technique for such a long time that it is treated as a joke when anyone suggests that a man should be marked; as progressive because he advocates collective bargaining. This institution has come to stay; it is very necessary. If it should be applied to industry generally, most certainly it should be extended to those industries that are controlled or operated or owned by the government itself.
I have examined this decision of the Department of Justice, and it strikes me that the suggestion behind it is somewhat along the lines of the theory which is still observed that the crown is not to be sued because the king can do no wrong and individuals working for the state therefore should not be allowed to place themselves in a position where they can openly defy the state. That theoretical position must be abandoned. I am glad the
minister is going to try to rectify that situation. He will find precedents, not only in the United States in a partial way, not only in the United Kingdom and Sweden, but more particularly in Switzerland, where for eighty years the right of labour in a state or canton-owned institution has always been recognized.
I have just one more word to say about this problem of labour and management. Some months ago I rose in my place and supported the contention that if we were to make labour feel that it was a partner in this particular assignment of war, we should see to it that it was given adequate representation, along with agriculture and so on, on the important boards that were being set up. There has been some improvement in that regard, and I suppose the Minister of Labour deserves special commendation for that. However, there is still room for improvement. I do not believe we have gone as far as we should. In the larger communities the minister is setting up advisory boards in connection with the proposed modified rystem of selective service. I understand that the men appointed to these boards in the local communities will represent employee and employer groups. The only suggestion I have to make is that this representation should be extended to include agriculture. I do not know what the practice is in most communities, but in the one I have in mind at the moment agriculture is not represented.
I understand that these boards are to be merely advisory in character. If they are to sit only once a month or so we are going to run into many of the difficulties which arose in connection with the operation of the mobilization act. In that case one encountered considerable difficulty in going from one community to another, perhaps a hundred miles away, to address himself on a specific problem to some central agency. I suggest that these boards should be more than advisory, they should have some executive function so that it will not be necessary, in respect to moving a man from one plant to another or determining whether he should be moved from the plant into the army, to write to Ottawa or, as is the case in my district, to London, a smaller industrial area than the city of Windsor. I trust the minister will appreciate the importance of this problem.
I agree with the concluding remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). We should not seek to place ourselves in a bargaining position and try to hold down one group. We should courageously indicate the manner in which that group can improve its position. Having done that, having shown that we are sincere, we should urge upon that group that they recognize the fact
Supply-Labour

that it also has responsibilities. In that way we will be able to deal with this particularly troublesome problem, and make our task much easier during the war and more pleasant in the days to come.


Mr. LITTLE:: I will undertake not to hold up the house for longer than a few minutes but I have a few words to say to the Minister of Labour with regard to holidays with pay for men who work underground. Before the strike in Kirkland Lake one of our mines was giving holidays with pay. The mine operators had a scheme worked out before the strike for all of them to give holidays with pay for the men in that district, but the strike put an end to that for the time being. Since the strike, the mine operators have decided to give holidays with pay, but the labour board have decided against it. I think, Mr. Chairman, that all industries should give holidays with pay, and there is no class of men who need holidays with pay as much as the men who work steadily in the mines year in and year out, especially those who work underground. I think I can speak with a little experience, having lived in that mining area for forty years-not all the time in Kirkland Lake, but about thirty-one years in that district. I know how these men work, and I feel that the board should reconsider their decision and allow these men to have holidays with pay.


Humphrey Mitchell: The decision of the board was merely an interim decision until a study could be made of the whole question by the national war labour board.


Mr. McNIVEN:: I think the tribute that has been paid to the Minister of Labour by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) is endorsed generally by the members of the house. That tribute might well have been extended to the staff of the Department of Labour; for, along with the minister, his staff is building into that department something of the vision which the Prime Minister had for the department when it was created back in the year 1908. I believe the minister has in his department to-day one of the greatest agencies for successful war enterprise.
I am going to remind him again of a statement that he made shortly after coming into office, when he accepted the principle that it was better to move industry to labour than to move labour to industry. I would remind him in that connection that Saskatchewan has in the last three and a half years lost 42,000 of its population, excluding the natural increase.
I would remind him that his own department has advertised for labour in our country weeklies and in our city dailies, and has permitted great industrial enterprises so to advertise,

with the result that our province has been largely stripped of its skilled labour and of much of many other classes of labour. Only recently an agency was in Saskatchewan seeking to recruit some 700 girls for industry. What I have in mind is that the west has been discriminated against in the establishment of war industries, and we have a right to and can confidently look to the Minister of Labour and his department for some assistance in directing war industry to the prairies and in particular to Saskatchewan, for the labour it requires.
As an illustration, the Polymer corporation recently established its plant at Sarnia, Ontario. Its raw material is oil and alcohol, but it overlooked the fact that the only supply of petroleum oil in the British empire is in western Canada, in the Turner valley, and that wheat, the raw material for alcohol, is grown in superabundance on the praries. Yet the plant of the Polymer corporation was established at Sarnia, thereby making it dependent upon outside sources of supply for its raw materials, and it has to pay the freight on the grain coming from western Canada to eastern distilleries to be manufactured into alcohol. All the western members will agree that that is not right, and that it must be changed if there is to be anything like a balanced economy in western Canada.
In western Canada we have a great pool of seasonal employment. These seasonal employees could be made available for war industry-all the artisan class, the grain farmer, and a great many others who are engaged in non-essential industries.
What we in the west are afraid of is that you are going to move that entire population down here to Ontario and Quebec and thus denude western Canada, and Saskatchewan in particular. We desire to register the most emphatic protest against the continuance of that policy, and we look to the Minister of Labour for assistance. We ask that he bring to the attention of his colleagues from day to day and from hour to hour the fact that war industries should be established in western Canada. Both the minister and Mr. Elliott M. Little have approved such a proposal. We think that Mr. Little is doing an excellent job, and that he could and would and will improve his opportunities by insisting upon a better deal for western Canada labour by the establishment of war industries there.


Mr. BENCE:: I subscribe most emphatically to the plea which has just been made by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven). Members from Saskatchewan and the plains have time and again risen in this house and pointed out the great mistake which was being

Supply-Labour
made in continuing the policy of economic sectionalism that has grown up in this country. As the hon. member for Regina City has pointed out, Saskatchewan is being denuded of its labour. That labour is coming to eastern Canada and causing congestion down here; it is creating confusion, creating new problems with which this government must deal. When the war is over there will be a large number of people in eastern Canada whom eastern Canada will not be able to take care of, and I suggest that the problem arising in that connection will be more serious than most of us realize. If the administration would consider the question of increasing the little bit of work that is given to Saskatchewan-and the work is practically infinitesimal, being confined in a large degree to the bits-and-pieces programme-we would avoid a great deal of trouble after the war and obtain a far greater maximum war effort and greater efficiency in that effort. Under the provisions of the labour regulations as they stand now, in connection with the granting of contracts to a corporation or company which leases out the work or puts it out on the basis of the bits-and-pieces programme, does the Department of Labour have control over the rate of wages paid in the plants that do the bits-and-pieces work? If not, why not?


Humphrey Mitchell: Not unless it comes
within the fair wages policy of the government. That applies to building contractors.


Alfred Henry Bence: That policy is applicable to a main contract, I understand.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am speaking of building contracts.


Alfred Henry Bence: With respect to a contract that is let for the manufacture of gun carriages or something like that, is there any control by the department over the rates of wages paid?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know whether it is in Regina or Saskatoon, but wherever it is, the regional war labour board will make the adjustment. That is where the adjustment would be dealt with.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: What the hon. member has said about Saskatchewan applies with equal force to Alberta. We have a number of natural resources that could be used in creating new industries, and to bring the industry to the province would be better in my opinion than bringing labour to industries here, especially in view of the fact that there are so few industries now in Alberta. If possible, I would urge that.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I support
enthusiastically what has been said by the members who have spoken. I am not sure that the minister's department ought to accept responsibility; perhaps it should be the Department of Munitions and Supply. However, in view of the fact that the Minister of Labour will be faced with a problem in connection with the labour supply, and seeing also that there are in many of the smaller towns on the prairies a great many machine tools that are not being used-I saw last February a list of 277 that were not being used at all in war work-I think the government ought to be having some long-term plan not only with a view to maximum production during what may be a long war, but with a view to the period of reestablishment which will come afterwards. If the minister wants to avoid facing the problem of a tremendous number of unemployed and the consequent dislocation after the war, it is wise now to be laying some plans on the prairies to build up industries that will use up the labour that is there instead of moving that labour to eastern Canada. Although the responsibility may not be in the labour department, I hope the minister will use his influence in the cabinet to see that the claims of the prairies are kept in mind when the government is encouraging the development of war industries.


George Hugh Castleden: I might mention a new departure with regard to the Department of Labour. I refer to the matter of labour shortage in the agricultural industry which faces the western plains at this time. I understand that the registration of people comes under the Department of Labour, and that department should have a fairly good picture of what there is in the way of skilled and unskilled labour. The department should know where seasonal labour can be obtained for the problem facing western agriculture. There will be a heavy crop in the west this year. With large numbers of available labour in that area having moved east to war industry or having gone into the army, there is a problem of such magnitude that the people to-day are alarmed. If the anticipated crop in the west materializes, there will be a terriffic waste unless labour can be sent there for a few weeks this fall. Has the minister any plans or suggestions to offer in order to solve that problem, which does face those people to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
102. Combines Investigation Act, $46,475.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Inasmuch as this item is pertinent to the Combines Investigation Act I have a question to ask the minister. The
Supply-Labour

incident I am going to bring to his attention appears to me, if all the facts are as given to me one of the worst cases of boycotting honest labour which I have come across in all my experience. I will call the gentleman concerned "R.S." The report he gave me is this. I have known him for a long time. I have known him as an expert electrical engineer and salesman of electrical equipment. I had a long experience myself as head) of one of the largest sales staffs in the country, and in my judgment this gentleman has all the characteristics of a natural born salesman. He was most successful in selling electrical equipment, so much so that one company after another sought his services. In due course, according to the information given me, these various companies got together and agreed among themselves that if and when contracts were called for this or that the contract would go to this or that company and the other companies would lay off. This gentleman I have in mind was so highly respected and well-known by the purchasers, particularly the purchasers of large quantities of electrical equipment, that he invariably got orders anyway with the result that, I am told, these various manufacturers agreed among themselves that he should not be employed. I have no reason to doubt this. This man is an honest workman, and he would not have any reason to say anything that was not absolutely honest. That is a case of boycotting, because it prevents a decent, honourable, honest, worthy, intelligent workman from getting a position. He has not been able to obtain work for some time. May I ask the minister this question? If "R.S." sends him the full particulars, substantiated by affidavits, and the facts are as indicated, will he instruct the officials in the investigational branch to inquire into the same and, if they are found as stated, to take the necessary action?


Humphrey Mitchell: If the facts are as stated by my hon. friend and they are submitted to me, it does seem that what he has said would justify at least a preliminary investigation, and I shall be glad to take the matter into consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
105. Laliour Gazette and other publications authorized by Labour Department Act, $58,296.
George Hugh Castleden: A paper comes to my box occasionally which is very cleverly written and very laudatory of the government, but so reactionary that I have tried to find out who are the sponsors. Has the department anything to do with that publication? It is called the Labour Review.
(Mr. MacNiool.]


Humphrey Mitchell: No. I will tell my hon. friend afterwards who publishes it. The hon. member for Vancouver East could tell him.


Major James William Coldwell: It is anything but labour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
103. Fair wages and conciliation, $123,441.
Clarence Gillis: Is there a fair wage officer in Nova Scotia?


Humphrey Mitchell: We have a very able conciliation officer at Fredericton, Mr. Petti-grove. He is there because it is the most strategic position between the two provinces. We have under consideration placing another man in that field.


Clarence Gillis: For years Nova Scotia was the only province that did not have a fair wage-officer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
106. Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940 - administration, $5,000,000.
Angus MacInnis: It has been drawn to my attention that insurance officers are disallowing claims for reasons that are not authorized under the act. The conditions under which insurance officers can disallow claims are restricted. They can disallow claims because contributions have not been paid in respect to the applicant; because the applicant's claim is not made in the prescribed manner, or on proof that he was unemployed on each day on which he claims to have been unemployed. There is one other condition-that he has not attended a training school. But it has been brought to my attention that these insurance officers disallow claims for reasons which are specifically excluded, that is, that the third statutory condition is not fulfilled, the condition that he is capable of work but unable to obtain suitable employment. This being new legislation I suggest that it is necessary that it should be so operated as to command the -confidence of -workers everywhere. If -we start out in this wrong way we are going to create antagonism to the act which will cause difficulties later on.


Humphrey Mitchell: While these insurance officers have not the power to disallow a claim, what they do is to say to the claimant that they do not think he is entitled to benefit.. But do not forget that the man always has the right to resort to the referees. They go a step further; they even say: This is the way you should argue your case when you go before the referee. That is my understanding.
I discussed it quite recently with my officials..

Supply-Labour


Angus MacInnis: They should refer the claim to the court of referees if it does not come under the conditions for which the officer can disallow.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is the way it is done. I shall ,be glad to write my hon. friend and tell him the facts.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I also have been told that workers are advised by these insurance officers that there would be no point in referring the matter to the referee, that if the case came before the referee it would be disallowed.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will write the hon. member the same letter.


Clarence Gillis: There is a general and well-founded complaint on that matter, that local officers are usurping the board's authority. Referee boards are set up to avoid discrimination, but the tendency seems to be in the direction of their elimination. That is a general complaint in eastern Canada.
Another matter I wish to bring up is in regard to unemployment insurance deduction made at the source from men who are paid on a daily or weekly basis. There is a complaint, from certain sections of the miners' organizations at least, that they pay unemployment insurance weekly through the whole year; then at the end of the year, when their total earnings are computed, it is found that they have received $2,000, so that they do not come under the act. But they cannot get any refund of the contributions they made over the entire fifty-two weeks. If they are transferred to another industry they have not a card, regardless of the fact that they have paid unemployment insurance for the whole year. I have written the minister on this, and his answer was that they had had the benefit of the insurance for a year; that had they been unemployed during the year they would come under the act. But the point they make is that at the end of the year if they transfer to another industry they are not in the insurable group.
Another protest I get pretty regularly is that the total load of building up the unemployment insurance fund and maintaining it falls on the back of those in the lower income groups, those earning under $2,000 a year. They are bearing the burden-of course the government contributes-of building up the fund to take care of unemployment after the war. They contend that that burden should not be placed on that income group alone. They feel that regardless of how high the salary goes, all should be compelled to make their contribution, and if unemployed later
should benefit under the act. Railway workers particularly have another complaint, that in their classification they will never benefit. It may be a selfish point of view; nevertheless it is a complaint from that group. They say that they are continuously employed; they have their superannuation schemes, and there is no. question of unemployment in that industry. When they are through working they receive their pension for which they have contributed. They are contributing to the pool without any expectation of ever getting any benefit from it. They suggest that in order that there may be some incentive for railway workers to contribute, a health insurance scheme might be injected into the unemployment insurance plan in order to give them some benefit for the contributions they make.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not agree
with the principle of exempting certain industries from contribution to unemployment insurance. Every worker in the country should contribute. You never know who is going to be unemployed; the richest man in the world may be unemployed some day. Take certain industries where there is a very low labour turn-over. The one. I have in mind, with which I am connected, is the insurance business. Our labour turn-over is practically nil; yet our employees have to contribute to the unemployment insurance . scheme. On the other hand, you find thatrin such institutions as hospitals, where the turnover is no greater than ours, the employees do not have to contribute. The principle of the whole thing is an insurance principle, just as I said this afternoon in connection with old age pensions, when I suggested that we should have a contributory old age pension system. We should also have some sort of health insurance for the people of this country. If we do that, we are working on sound principles, but in this case we are excluding some employees and including others, perhaps in industries where the labour turn-over is very small. Yet those employees have to contribute for the benefit of employees in industries where the labour turn-over is high. I think that is right, but everyone in the country should contribute to unemployment insurance, I do not care who he is. I think that is the right principle.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
108. Advances to workers, $50,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: A few days ago I had
a letter from a young woman in northern Ontario, who stated that she had! been offered a position in the Bata shoe factory at Frank-
Supply Bill

ford, Ontario. In her letter she said1 that she had no money with which to fit herself out, or to pay her railway fare. Will the minister say whether under this vote funds would be advanced in a case like this and, if so, to whom this young woman should apply?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think if she applied
to the employment office, arrangements would be made to provide transportation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The office in Toronto or North Bay?


Humphrey Mitchell: Where does she reside?


John Ritchie MacNicol: In northern Ontario.


Humphrey Mitchell: There would be an
office not far away.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special.
Youth training programme.
109. To provide for undischarged commitments under agreements with the provinces, $47,985.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: I should like to
pay a tribute to Mr. Thompson for the work he has done in connection with youth training in this country. Then I should like to remind the minister that for years the members from Toronto have been trying to get a little money from the government of Canada for our technical school, in the work it is doing there. The former Minister of Labour promised us that we would get some money for equipment. The city of Toronto has been paying the cost of all this work, and they have done a wonderful job. I should like to pay tribute also to the trades and labour congress of the city of Toronto for all they have done in trying to get this money from the government. They certainly 'have recognized the fact that a boy should have a trade of some kind. As I say, we were promised this money to help to defray the cost, but we never received it; the government said they could not establish a precedent by putting up a building for us. That is all very well, but in view of the work that has been done in Toronto in our vocational and technical schools, I think we should be given some help. What we have done has been copied all over this country in trying to provide opportunities for boys to learn trades. I think the government should see if they cannot raise a little money for us next year, as they are doing for the universities to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.

James Lorimer Ilsley: That the resolutions reported from committee of supply on June 9, July 24, 25, 29, 30 and 31, less amounts voted in interim supply, be now received, read a second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. McCann in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to his majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the year ending March 31, 1943, the sums of $153,861,377.80 and $28,159,700 respectively be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 126, for granting to his majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1943.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. McCann in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Supplementary estimates, $28,159,700 granted for 1942-43.
Grote Stirling: May I ask whether the $250,000 by which an item under national war services was reduced has been deducted from the total?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would give me some idea of what the item was.


Grote Stirling: It was item 200, for the Canadian travel bureau. It was reduced from $500,000 to $250,000.


James Lorimer Ilsley: At the bottom of page 11, schedule A of the bill, I find an asterisk opposite the $500,000, and a footnote indicating a deduction of $250,000.


Grote Stirling: I just wished to make sure that it had been noted.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Would it not be possible next session to bring down the war appropriation bill and the estimates in the same fashion as the estimates are now

Alberta Natural Resources
brought down? Could the appropriation bill and the estimates not be brought down together, so that they could be discussed in the early part of the session, piece by piece?
Some hon. members have felt that they have not had an opportunity, except at the end of the session, to discuss certain things. That criticism could very well be avoided. Not only that, but I believe we would avoid a tremendous amount of repetition if the estimates and the war appropriation expenditures were placed together in some kind of book form, so that they could be handled in an orderly way?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Consideration will be given to improving the method of presenting the war appropriation bill. I do not know what change can be made, but I agree that the present method is not very satisfactory.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Not only do the nerves of members of parliament get frayed toward the end of the session, but they become annoyed at so much repetition. In addition to that, they are taken away from their ridings for long months, when work in their ridings is required. I suggest to the Prime Minister that the session might be broken up, possibly into three parts. For instance, we might have the speech from the throne and the debate thereon, after which we would return to our constituencies. Then let the government have something else brought forward, and we would then take part in the next portion of the session. I do not know exactly how one would go about it, but it should be arranged so that members could return to their constituencies, and learn the feeling therein. In this session we have been away from our ridings for six months.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, let us get back as soon as we can.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I do not know whether I have contributed much in making this suggestion, but I will contribute now and I would add this, that members might be allowed, if they so desire, to place themselves on record by writing their speeches. Then we could have a committee of the house to go over those speeches and see if they are all right. Let them be put on Hansard, as far as that is concerned, and let us get on with the war.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Georges Parent: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa,
August 1, 1942.
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Sir Lyman Poore Duff, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day, Saturday, the 1st August, at nine o'clock p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.


ALBERTA NATURAL RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 27, consideration in committee of Bill No. 18, to amend the Alberta Natural Resources Act -Mr. Crerar-Mr. McCann in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Grote Stirling: Mr. Chairman, I must
protest most strongly against proceeding with this bill at this late hour in the session. For two weeks at least the house has been giving every assistance it possibly can to the government in this tiresome method of dealing with all the estimates in one lump at the end of the session. There are dozens of members in the house who have given considerable study to the estimates, but with the desire to assist they have forgone their opportunity to discuss matters they desired to discuss. I know of a great many hon. members, including myself, who have refrained from debating the estimates in the desire to-get through.
Having given that assistance, it is a most unreasonable thing to proceed with this bill after the estimates are through. In the second place, this measure has proved a most contentious one. It was introduced in March and received second reading in May, and the debate at that stage was most contentious. The leader of the opposition expressed his views pretty strongly on the subject matter of the bill. The hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence) and the two members from Calgary, both of whom are government sup-
Alberta Natural Resources

porters, and voicing the view of Liberals from Alberta, if I correctly understand the situation, spoke strongly against the bill.
Probably the strongest ground of all is that before the bill can become a statute it has to receive the royal assent. There are processes therefore which must be gone through before that time arrives, and it seems to me very improbable indeed that the time will be sufficient for the enactment of those other processes. I suggest the Prime Minister would be well advised in withdrawing the bill, and not proceeding with it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The acting leader of the opposition has put forth 'a strong plea. Let me say at once that personally I should have liked to see the bill considered by the committee long before this. However, whatever the fate of it may be this evening, there are a few observations I should like to make.
When the bill was last before committee, about the end of May, a point was raised by the leader of the opposition, by the hon. member for Saskatoon City and the hon. member for Calgary West that this legislation would interfere with the rights of certain companies in Alberta. I stated at that time, and I wish to restate now, that a considerable majority of the oil companies operating in Alberta reached an agreement with the government at Edmonton, and as a result of the understanding reached between the oil companies and the government, this amendment to the Alberta Natural Resources Act was introduced. When the matter was before the committee at the end of May the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) suggested that I should get the opinion of the law officers of the crown on certain points. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Edwards) cited two cases which he claimed showed clearly that the bill was seeking to give the Alberta government powers that it did not possess under the existing agreement. As a result of the request of the leader of the opposition I had my deputy minister address the following letter to the deputy minister of justice:
Dear Mr. Varcoe:
Re-"An Act to amend the Alberta Natural Resources Acts".
When Bill No. 18 was considered in committee of the house on Wednesday last certain questions of law were raised by the members taking part in the debate. Please see the discussion in Hansard commencing at page 3063. The following among other questions were raised:
Mr. Bence (page 3075) inquired if the opinion of your officers had been obtained as to the reason for the incorporation of section 2 in the Alberta natural resources transfer agreement and whether it was put in for the purpose of protecting the dominion against possible actions for damages.

Mr. Hanson (page 3076) asked if the law officers of the crown were consulted as to the legal effect of the bill.
Mr. Edwards (pages 3078-9) referred to the case of Anthony vs. the attorney general of Alberta, 1942 (1 W.W.R. page 833), and the Spooner Oils Limited vs. Turner Valley Gas Conservation Board, 1933 (SCR 629). He expressed the view that in the light of the reasoning in these eases there was very grave doubt as to whether even the federal government could alter the terms of the leases.
Mr. Hanson (page 3079) stated that there was no doubt from the language of the chief justice in the Spooner case that there is a contractual arrangement which cannot be altered and that what the bill was trying to do was to violate a legal decision. He further stated as follows (page 3083):
"If the law officers of the crown say that the decisions are wholly inapplicable, then of course the minister is on pretty sound ground with regard to his second major premise, that they had the right to vary the terms if the transfer had not been made. I do not think that is true, and I listened very attentively to that decision. If the minister finds that the law officers of the crown say that the decisions are applicable, then certainly he should review the whole position and tell the province of Alberta that since we negotiated, the courts have passed on this very question."
Early in the discussion the minister made the following statement (page 3070):
"There is no question whatever that had these resources remained with the federal government under dominion administration the dominion had the right to vary the terms of royalty. That is not disputed."
It is now desirable that you should express your views on these questions and particularly whether the two decisions of the courts referred to are applicable and have the legal effect attributed to them. For your information I am enclosing a copy of the form of lease and also a book containing the various dominion regulations and orders in council. Your attention is particularly drawn to paragraphs 38 and 39 of the lease form which deal with the payment of royalties.
That letter was dated May 29, a few dayg after the discussion took place in the committee. Under date of June 9, 1942, Mr. Varcoe, the deputy minister of justice, replied as follows:
Dear Mr. Camsell:
I beg to reply to your letter of the 29th ultimo with reference to the proposals contained in Bill 18 to amend the Alberta natural resources transfer agreement.
Paragraph two of the amending agreement will affect royalties payable under leases of petroleum or natural gas rights granted by the dominion prior to October 1, 1930, but only, as I understand it, in the case of wells developed after the 31st day of May, 1941.
I might interject here to say that the provision in the agreement is that all wells that were in operation before May 31, 1941, continue under the 10 per cent royalty. Mr. Varcoe's letter continues:

Alberta Natural Resources
The practical effect will be, apparently, to establish in the ease of such wells, a maximum royalty payable of twelve and one half per centum during the period ending May 31, 1951; thereafter there will be no restriction on the authority of the province to exact royalties.
An examination of the forms of the leases granted by the dominion and the relevant regulations persuades me that there was no contractual or other limitation on the power of the proper authority

that is the governor in council prior to the transfer agreement and the proper provincial authority since-to fix any rate of royalty. The leases expressly provided that the royalties payable were such as might from time to time be prescribed.
It is true that maximum royalties of five per centum during the first five years of the lease and ten per centum thereafter were established on the 29th day of October, 1920, by order in council, but these could have been varied by the proper authority from time to time without breach of contract. This view is supported by the decision of O'Connor J. in the recent ease of Anthony vs. attorney general for Alberta and minister of lands and mines, 1942, 1 W.W.R. 833, in which he held in effect that the lieutenant governor in council would not, in fixing timber dues, be affecting or altering contracts contrary to paragraph 2 of the natural resources transfer agreement provided that the dues so fixed were not prohibitive.
In other words, in the very case cited by the hon. member for Calgary West on that point the court found that so long as the dues were not prohibitive the province had the right to vary them. This was under licences issued prior to the transfer of the agreement. The letter then goes on to refer to the case upon which the hon. member for Calgary West based his main argument, and which excited the support of the leader of the opposition. The letter continues:
The decision in the case of Spooner Oils Limited v. Turner Valley Gas Conservation Board, 1933, S.C.R. 629, has no bearing upon the question of royalties for the reason that the rate of royalties was not in issue in that case. The dominion lease in issue was granted under the regulations of March, 1910 and 1911. The chief justice held that regulations enacted subsequent to the granting of the lease should not apply, but this decision has no significance in connection with the question of royalties for the reason that it was expressly provided in the lease that the royalties should be at such rate as might from time to time be specified by order in council.
It is my opinion that the royalties in connection with these dominion leases could have been varied by dominion authority, without any breach of contract or of the regulations, had the transfer of resources not taken place. Perhaps I should add in conclusion that the purpose of section two of the Alberta natural resources transfer agreement, as was pointed out by the privy council in the case In re refund of dues under timber regulations, 1935 A.O. 184, was to substitute the province for the dominion as the authority responsible for carrying out contracts granted prior to the agreement.
That is not all I wish to place before the committee. The resources were transferred to Alberta under legislation passed by this parliament in May, 1930. The then member for Acadia asked a question of the Hon. Charles Stewart, who was handling the legislation. They were dealing with this very point, and I quote from the record:
Mr. Gardiner: Coming back to the question we discussed a moment ago, would the minister explain what position an oil lease would be in when these natural resources are transferred to the province? Would it be possible for the provincial legislature to amend the contracts in so far as oil leases are concerned, or are they only temporary or for a specified time?
Mr. Stewart (Edmonton): Mining leases and oil leases are in the same category; they are subject to fluctuations in royalties.
They are subject to fluctuations in royalties once they have passed to the province.
Otherwise all the provisions of the contract would have to be carried out.
That is the other provisions as to term of the lease, renewable features and the like. It goes on:
That is, the terms of the contract, whatever the agreement was, will have to be carried out. If the province made a general regulation increasing the royalties on oil, it would apply to these leases but they have no more authority than we possess at the moment because we do not guarantee to keep the royalties at a fixed amount under the terms of the lease. The only exception to that is that grazing leases are for a specified term of years and on a rental basis.
Mr. Gardiner: So that practically all leases would come under the jurisdiction of the legislature except certain specified leases, which would be very few?
Mr. Stewart (Edmonton): Quite right.
That clearly indicates that at the time this legislation went through the house, the intention was that the federal government should pass over to the provincial government all its rights and obligations in its leases and contracts and that the provincial government would accept them, and that was the purpose of section 2 of the transfer agreement. But while the province would be obliged to live up to the conditions of the lease in all other matters excepting royalties, the opinion of the law offcers of the crown is clear from the letter I have read that the power of the federal government in the matter of royalties passed over to the province.
What is sought by this legislation? If there is strenuous opposition to the legislation I rather think, at this stage, that the legislation cannot go through; but I point this out very seriously to the members of the committee, that the whole purpose of this amendment is-to stabilize the situation in Alberta and to get oil production, and anybody who knows any-
Alberta Natural Resources

thing about the oil situation in this country knows that one of our greatest needs is oil production. If this legislation fails to pass, there will be uncertainty. The law officers of Alberta hold one view; the lawyers advising the oil companies put forward another view as to the power of the provinces in the matter of royalties, and we shall have a resumption of a test through the courts. Hon. members who were here when the discussion took place before, will remember that an action was already entered in the courts and was only stopped because of the agreement reached between a majority of the oil companies and the provincial government. That will resume; everyone knows the delay that will be caused, and the case will go from one court to another and ultimately, probably, to the privy council. During that whole period there will be doubt and uncertainty as to what the law is, and under those circumstances it is felt, and I think rightly, that capital will be reluctant to go into the business of oil development which is so necessary to the war effort. I do not wish to take the responsibility of creating that condition of affairs in the province of Alberta and I say here, and I say it with a full understanding of the weight of my words, that a refusal to pass this legislation and to secure that condition of stability in Alberta carries a pretty heavy responsibility for those who oppose the legislation.
I do not know that I have anything to add. I simply wish, before I sit down, to emphasize these points again. It seems clear from the debate that took place when the resources were transferred, that the intention was to transfer to Alberta the powers which the federal government has, and there can be no doubt that the federal government had the power to vary the royalties from time to time as it saw fit. I do not think there is any question of that. I do not think there can be any question in the light of the opinion given by the law officers of the crown and in the light of the understanding with which the debate was conducted at the time the resources were transferred. It may be debatable whether the Alberta government has the power to vary the royalties; I am not a lawyer, but my own opinion based upon the letter from Mr. Yarcoe is that it has the power. That undoubtedly will be contested if the Alberta government endeavours to exercise that right. Then the whole dreary process through the courts will begin all over again, bringing timidity, uncertainty, and a certain amount of confusion where there should be certainty and stability, and we shall not get the oil production which this country needs so much.


Grote Stirling: There is a very simple answer, that if this is so serious a matter as the minister says it is, it is no end of a pity that the government did not proceed with the legislation earlier in the session. I have made my protest; I cannot do more than that, but if the discussion carries on for another two hours and two minutes I am afraid that adjournment will not take place to-night.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I regret as much as the acting leader of the opposition that things have so worked out that this is the last item of business for consideration at this session. I do think that the legislation is very important.


Alfred Henry Bence: This matter came up for discussion on the 26th and 27th of May. On the 9th of June the opinion was obtained from the Department of Justice, and to-day, on the first day of August, in the dying hours of the session, we are asked to conclude this discussion. I am not going to be stampeded by the suggestion of the Minister of Mines and Resources that members must take the responsibility if they hold up something that may be very necessary and essential to assist in the production of oil in Alberta, because, as I expressed myself to the committee the last time I spoke on this question, the whole matter could very easily have been settled by the province of Alberta. They are the ones who are adamant; they are the ones who are stubborn; they are the ones who have insisted on raising this royalties question and on going into court. If they would only comply with the terms of the transfer agreement, that would settle the matter.
I am not going to enter into a discussion of whether the legal opinion on royalties given by the justice department is correct. There is something far more important involved. The minister has quoted from the letter his deputy wrote to Mr. Varcoe, and it contains this reference to the remarks I made in the house:
Mr. Bence (page 2826) inquired if the opinion of your officers had been obtained as to the reason for the incorporation of section 2 in the Alberta natural resources transfer agreement and whether it was put in for the purpose of protecting the dominion against possible actions for damages.
There is no explanation of that, and I do not see how members of this house, unless they examine the position, can understand exactly what they are being asked to vote for in this legislation. But the last paragraph of Mr. Varcoe's letter to Doctor Camsell gives the only answer:
Perhaps I should add in conclusion that the purpose of section 2 of the Alberta natural resources transfer agreement, as was pointed

Alberta Natural Resources
*out by the privy council in the case "In Ee Refund of Dues under Timber Regulations," 1935, A.C. 184, was to substitute the province for the dominion as the authority responsible for carrying out contracts granted prior to the agreement.
What happened was this. At the time the transfer was effected, a clause was put in the agreement, clause 2, which was discussed at length by the committee. That clause was put there for a definite purpose, because the dominion government had definite contractual obligations to the lessees. The point was raised whether the royalties could be changed. The opinion was obtained that that was not a term of the contract and that they could be changed. I have not the time to dispute that point. It is a legal point and I would not put my judgment against that of the officials of the Department of Justice. But with respect to the other terms of the agreement and the general question I asked, if we pass this legislation we are removing completely the protection given under section 2 and permitting the province of Alberta to change the leases in any manner they see fit.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


Alfred Henry Bence: Yes. I put this to the minister. Let him ask the officials of the Department of Justice what is meant, and get an elaboration of the last paragraph of the letter I read, and he will find it is true under the provisions of the leases that the lessee has the right of renewal. The leases are for twenty-one years, and at the end of twenty-one years the lessee has the right of renewal of them, subject to certain stipulations with Tespect to compliance with the other terms of the lease. The dominion government, when it entered into the leases, agreed that it would give a renewal of them.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is not affected by
this.


Alfred Henry Bence: Yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, it is not.


Alfred Henry Bence: I will read the provisions
of section 2 of the agreement. It is certainly affected, because after this legislation is passed there will be no obligation on anyone's shoulders to comply with the terms of the lease. Let the minister examine the provisions of the case to which I have referred and he will see the very point discussed there. This matter had to go before the privy council of Great Britain because there was a complete novation of contract, and it was to place the province in the position of the dominion so that the province could carry out the lease. If at the end of twenty-one years the province decides it does not want to renew
it, the lessee has no claim under the provisions of any contract if the section is passed. Section 2 provided:
The province will carry out in accordance with the terms thereof every contract to purchase or lease any crown lands, mines or minerals and every other arrangement whereby any person has become entitled to any interest therein as against the crown, and further agrees not to affect or alter any term of any such contract to purchase, lease or other arrangement by legislation or otherwise, except either with the consent of all the parties thereto other than Canada or in so far as any legislation may apply generally to all similar agreements relating to lands, mines or minerals in the province or to interests therein, irrespective of who may be the parties thereto.
There was an amendment to that in 1938. I will not read it unless the minister so wishes. Now, this is the proposition. Under the provisions of this legislation, page 3 of the bill which was presented to us for first reading, it is provided:
1. Paragraph 2 of the said natural resources transfer agreement as amended by agreement dated the fifth day of March, A.D. 1938, and duly confirmed by the parliament of Canada and the legislature of the province is amended by adding at the end thereof the following words:
"Provided, however, that the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any contract to purchase or lease petroleum or natural gas or to any other arrangement whereby any person prior to the first day of October, one thousand nine hundred and thirty, had become entitled to any interest in such petroleum or natural gas as against the crown."
It goes on to set out certain stipulations with respect to the matter of rates of royalties, but generally speaking that paragraph goes to the whole root of the thing and destroys the effect of section 2, which gave protection to the lessee under the legislation which was put through in this parliament in 1930 and validated by the British privy council.
The Spooner case, referred to in the remarks made by the member for Calgary West (Mr. Edwards), showed that the matter was debated and the whole question was discussed from the point of view of whether or not there was a right to alter the terms of the agreement, and it was decided that there was no such right. I understand that the Department of Justice said with respect to royalities that it was no alteration of the term. I will accept that for the sake of argument. Nevertheless, with respect to all other terms of the agreement, with respect of the right of renewal, or any of the other terms-I have not a copy before me, but the member for Calgary West has-there is no protection to the lessee. The dominion government in 1930, when it transferred the resources, very wisely in my opinion decided to have that clause 2 put
Alberta Natural Resources

in the agreement. The explanation of that is given in the case referred to in the last paragraph of the letter from Mr. Varcoe in this particular case which is known as "Refund of dues under timber regulations" at page 198. I quote:
Under clause 2 it is the province,-
Clause 2 is the clause which I have just quoted.
[DOT]-to which the lands have been transferred, that can alone as a matter of law thereafter ^rant the patent to an entrant;
This was a timber rights and homesteads case, but it had to do with exactly the same section we are discussing now.
-the agreement, made law by the act of 1930, requires the province to carry out the various specified obligations in respect of the lands transferred; these obligations are now' imposed on the province by law; by the same reasoning they do not any longer attach to the dominion; that implies that by law the entrant must go to the province to obtain the carrying out of the various obligations which the statute of 1930 by confirming the agreement requires the province to fulfil. It follows that even vis-a-vis the entrant the obligation has by force of the law become the obligation of the province. Thus there is effected by force of the law what may be called a statutory novation.
If that wrere not so, the entrant w'ould retain his claim as against the dominion, -while the dominion, on settling the claim, would be entitled to be recouped by the province. But that position, though perhaps not different in the final incidence of the burden, is obviously much less convenient.
I do not want to take up much time and therefore I will not read copious extracts, but the effect of the judgment is that under, these leases the dominion entered into a contractual obligation with the lessee to do certain things. By the transfer agreement of 1930 the province assumed the obligations under the leases, and, as part of the consideration therefor, entered into an agreement as provided under section 2 of the transfer agreement. It agreed to carry out and comply with the terms of these leases. Now, the dominion, having protected itself by the insertion of that clause, had nothing further to worry about. If there was a breach of the lease, if the lessee failed to obtain his renewal when he was entitled to it, then he could go to the province-because he had this contractual obligation, this novation of contract described in the judgment- and could say to them, "you have to comply with the terms of this undertaking because as a result of the validation by the privy council you owe me an obligation." The dominion government having divested itself of its obligations under the lease, in consideration for the resumption by the province, is now turning around and taking that section out of the act and thus taking away all the pro-
(Mr. Bence.]
tection that the lessee has. That is as patent as anything can be if this timber regulations case is read, altogether irrespective of the matter of royalties, a large subject of discussion before. There is a far greater breach of contractual obligations and rights of the individual than I had ever thought of until I carefully examined that case.
These are the only remarks I want to make in connection with the legal side. I am so convinced that that is the position of affairs that I express myself as seriously as I can, because I think this government will be making a serious mistake and putting itself in a position where it would be open to action for damages, certainly would be in a position where it would have a fight, because the matter is so very clear that there are likely to be damages in connection with the breach of some of these other obligations to the contract, that I seriously suggest to the administration that it consider the matter in the light of the position in which it will put these lessees in respect of other terms of the leases.
I have further remarks to make on general lines in connection with the whole matter. Correspondence which was tabled in the house puts the matter in a very different light so far as the people of Alberta are concerned from that which we have received from the minister. I say that with all respect. I also have something to say in connection with the number of leaseholders who hold dominion leases and do not at the same time hold provincial leases. It is they who are objecting to this legislation. These further remarks I think I shall defer until third reading.


Mr. EDWARDS:: This committee is concerned in this bill because of its effect on the oil industry in my province. I approached this bill in the first instance not from the legal point of view, but as result of discussions which took place a few months ago on second reading I became interested in the legal aspect of the case. However, I am sure this committee is in no temper this evening to follow the intricacies of a legal discussion in respect of oil royalties which have already been the subject of considerable litigation. We could not possibly cover all the ground and all that should be said on that to-night.
The simple facts of the matter are these, that in the 1910-11 regulations of the federal government a provision was inserted that there should be no royalty until 1930. Then we come along to the next critical period, the year 1920. In that year the then Minister of the Interior went before the cabinet council, and this order in council was passed:

Alberta Natural Resources
The minister states that representations have been made to the Department of the Interior that failure to fix the royalty which may be charged on the products of petroleum locations has the effect of retarding development, as persons contemplating investment in this industry hesitate to incur the large initial expenditure necessary to ensure success without knowing what tax may be placed upon the oil which may be discovered.	.
The minister therefore recommends that for a period of five years after the date upon which the minister of the interior may decide that oil in c mmereial quantity has been discovered on lands'acquired under the provisions of the regulations aforesaid the royalty to be collected by the crowrn shall not exceed 5 per cent of the output of the well or the sales of the products of the location as may be decided by the minister, nor shall it be less than two and one-half per cent ol such sales during that period. That for a further period thereafter of five years the royalty to be collected shall not exceed 10 per cent of the sales of the products of the location, nor shall it be less than 5 per cent of the sales during that period; and that thereafter-
Without any limitation.
-the royalty shall be 10 per cent of the sales of the products or locations acquired under the provisions of the said regulations.
That order in council was passed for one purpose and one purpose only, as it says in the recital, namely, to give stability and certainty to the oil industry and those people who might be induced or encouraged to invest their money in drilling for oil. Be it said to the credit of each succeeding federal government from 1920 until 1930, that royalty regulation was never changed. It was during that period that the development of those oil resources did, in fact, get an impetus and stimulus which has carried on to the present time.
In 1930 the resources, as hon. members are all aware, were transferred to the province of Alberta, subject to the provision of section 3 of the Alberta Natural Resources Act. Be it said to the credit of the then government of Alberta and the present government of Alberta that for the next succeeding ten years, or from 1930 until 1940, or a total in all of twenty years, the federal government and the provincial government recognized the full force and effect of that which I have just read. The oil industry in Alberta has relied on the order in council.
It is quite true that the Department of Justice, to which these leases were referred, looked at the lease itself with microscopic eye to find out what it contained, whether there was any legal impediment.
I direct the attention of hon. members to clause 39 of the regulations which were attached to all petroleum leases from and after 1920 when the order in council was passed. Bear in mind that that order in *council was passed to give certainty to the
oil industry as to the royalties they had to pay for the next five years, for the succeeding five years, and thereafter. The draftsman of the regulations said, .after his first sentence:
. . . for a period of five years after the date upon which the minister of the interior may decide. . . .
He repeats exactly the words that were in that order in council. But they still leave in the resolution the opening sentence, the old clause, and accordingly section 39 reads as follows:
A royalty at such rate as may from time to time be specified by order in council may be levied and collected on the natural gas products of the leasehold.
The first sentence provides that the royalty shall be at such rate as the governor in council may determine. Then in the same paragraph the regulation goes on to state what the royalty is. I asked the Department of Justice what was the legal position of a holder of federal royalties the day after the order in council of 1920 was passed, and the department said he was in no different position from that in which he was the day before the ordter in council was passed. In other words, this government had in fact given nothing, had given no security to the oil leases, which were just as insecure as before; and there was just as much uncertainty with regard to the rates after the order in council was passed as there was before. But what about the investing public; what about the people who invested millions of dollars in the development of our oil resources? They relied on the order in council, which specifically told them what the royalties were going to be.
Surely we cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. At least up until the end of 1940 this government and the government of Alberta never attempted to change that royalty regulation. If the Department of Justice is right in its interpretation of the strict legal position, which I am by no means prepared to admit, there is laid on this government a much heavier burden of responsibility, to exercise a greater degree of care to see to it that there shall be no breach on our part, or so far as this government may prevent it, of the understanding on which the oil industry has acted ever since 1920. Strangely enough, an agreement similar to this was negotiated by the provincial minister of mines of Alberta with the present Minister of Mines and Resources of Canada a year and a half ago, unknown at the time to any of the members of this house or to the people of Alberta. It did not become public, so far as I know, until the bill was introduced into the Alberta legislature.
Alberta Natural Resources


Grote Stirling: What date was that?


Manley Justin Edwards: About March or April of 1941. At that time I took the position, and made representations to the minister, that this parliament should not proceed with such legislation when the oil industry and the individuals who had bought federal leases in years gone by did not know what was being done. Be it said to the credit of the minister that the bill was not proceeded with at that time. The gentleman who drew this matter to my attention at that time was counsel for the province of Alberta on the royal commission which was set up at the request of the government of that province to ascertain, among other things, what if any loss the province has sustained by reason of the alienation of its resources prior to those resources being transferred back to the province. I do not think I can do better than place before this committee the opinion of that gentleman. After reciting the order in council of 1920, which I have just read, he says:
From the foregoing you will observe that the royalty is fixed at a maximum of 10 per cent, and it seems to me the dominion is under a clear obligation to see that its contract in that respect is carried out just as it would expect any one of us to carry out our contract if we were parties to a like arrangement.
I was counsel for the province of Alberta in the presentation of its case for compensation for the loss of revenue from its resources under the provisions of the agreement of the 14th of December, 1929. A commission was set up and the province presented its case before that commission. That commission made a finding awarding to the province of Alberta $6,250,000. The province has never accepted the award as being adequate. In presenting its claim for compensation the province pointed to many things which the dominion had done with the resources as items on which potential revenue was lost. One of these items for which the province claimed compensation was the loss of royalty revenue due to the very orders in council which I have quoted, which fixed the royalty at 5 per cent for a time and 10 per cent thereafter.
The province in that submission took the position that the agreement of the 14th of December precluded it from raising the royalty or varying it in any way from that imposed by the dominion, and claimed a consequent loss of revenue, alleging that the province would, if free, have at that time imposed a higher royalty.
That is the opinion of the learned gentleman who presented the case for the province of Alberta to the royal commission, and that gentleman had with him as associate counsel a member of the legal staff of the present attorney general's department.
Then the minister referred to the support given this bill by certain oil industries. I said in a previous discussion, and I believe I may reiterate at this time, that the only

companies who have subscribed to this bill are those oil companies who had more potential value in provincial than in federal leases. I challenge the minister and the provincial government to show me the name of one federal leaseholder possessed of potential leases who has subscribed to this agreement. There is not one.
What have they to say about it? I' have in my hand a sheaf of telegrams from various oil companies and leaseholders protesting against the inequity and the unfairness of this legislation. Under date of May 19, 1941, the Alberta Petroleum association write to the oil controller, if you please; and what do they say? This is the concluding paragraph:
The operators are strongly opposed to any interference with dominion government leases and are firm in their view that royalty payable under these leases should not be changed whatever the government may decide to do with the later provincial leases.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What do they say in May, 1942?


Manley Justin Edwards: The letter continues:
The operators are also strongly of the opinion that this is not the time to place any additional financial burden on the industry, either by royalty or otherwise, and that it is essential that so long as war continues there should not be any unnecessary disturbance of the industry and changes in either regulations or crown royalties. The industry needs stability and permanence in these things if it is to do its job properly.
That is signed by the president of the Alberta Petroleum association. What did the oil controller say about this matter when it was considered a year ago? In the documents filed by the minister we find a telegram from the oil controller to the minister, dated April 4, 1941. It- reads:
Stimulus to well drilling dead as result of Alberta legislation made possible by recent agreement between province and dominion government.
This was signed by Mr. Cottrelle.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is quite true that the oil controller expressed that opinion in May, 1941. But as a result of the understanding reached between the majority of the companies and the Alberta government early this year, the oil controller sent a telegram expressing his approval of it, and hoping the legislation would go through.


Manley Justin Edwards: That raises other considerations. Stability, but at the cost of what? A broken pledge and broken promise. Let us not make that our claim to power.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member indicate the pledge or the promise that is going to be broken?

The Royal Assent


Manley Justin Edwards: The pledge or promise on which the oil industry in Alberta has acted for the last twenty years. It is embodied right in that resolution passed in 1920 when, be it said to the credit of the minister of that day, there was an attempt to give certainty and stability to the oil industry. And those people who spend their hundreds, their thousands, their tens of thousands and their hundreds of thousands to dig holes in the Turner valley and elsewhere in Alberta-


John Horne Blackmore: Who is breaking the pledge, or undertaking to do it?


Manley Justin Edwards: Who is breaking the pledge? Well, the province of Alberta did it last year.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member has just read a statement in which he has spoken of the stability which has resulted from what the Alberta government did last year.


Manley Justin Edwards: I am not talking about what the Alberta government did last year. What did Mr. Cottrelle say about the bill which was passed by the Alberta government as a result of the agreement entered into between the province and the dominion? He wired the Minister of Mines and Resources in April, saying that the stimulus to well-drilling was dead as a result of Alberta legislation, partly made possible by reason of the agreement between the provincial and dominion governments. That is what happened. Now, can we face the holders of oil leases and say to them that they have stability?


John Horne Blackmore: And has the stimulus been dead since that time, or does not the evidence of development prove quite the contrary?


Manley Justin Edwards: Not as a result of this legislation. The hon. member knows that when that bill was proposed and went through the Alberta legislature there were numerous well-drilling outfits which closed down their operations and refused to make further expansions until they learned what their legal position was. I personally have knowledge of the Alberta Petroleum association meeting and deciding that they would fight this thing, and I know they retained counsel for that purpose.
As my hon. friend knows, Alberta did pass a bill in anticipation that this house would ratify the agreement providing for increased royalties. They sent notice to all the holders of oil leases demanding that they pay increased royalties. Without, I believe, one exception, every responsible oil company in Alberta contributed, and backed up the oil association to fight that legislation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend would permit me: I dislike very much breaking into the speech the hon. member is making, but it is obvious that we are not going to get agreement on this bill to-night. We have had a strenuous day, sitting almost continuously since eleven o'clock this morning. I do not think there is any possibility of getting the legislation through, much as I think it should be passed. This session does not terminate to-night, and there should be an opportunity of reconsidering the matter. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
[Stage Direction]
The house having reverted to motions:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to table a document entitled "Canada, Treaty Series, 1942, No. 6, Red Cross and Prisoners of War Conventions." These copies have been received from the printer to-day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved:
That the resolution adopted by the house on July 15, 1942, whereunder the house shall meet at eleven o'clock a.m. of each sitting day and shall sit on Saturday until the end of the session, be rescinded.
Motion agreed to.

SUSPENSION OF SITTING

On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the sitting was suspended until 9.55 p.m.
The house resumed at 9.55 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable the house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned,
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor Gen-
518S
The Royal Assent
[Stage Direction]
eral had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act for the relief of Eleanor Adele Rea Barrett.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Eleanor	Edith
McKechnie Barlow.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy	Agnes
Henrietta Russell Cantlie.
An	Act	for	the	relief of	Irene	Coadic
Murphy.
An	Act	for	the	relief of	Lester	Lewis
Catchpaw.
An Act for the relief of Annie Ruth Fisher Allen.
An Act for the relief of Alice Adelia LaFleur Johnston.
An Act for the relief of George Webb.
An Act for the relief of Edith Morgan Black.
An Act for the relief of Betty Leah Bregman Beloff.
An Act for the relief of Malca Levitt, otherwise known as Atty Malcy Levitt.
An Act for the relief of Jack Simon.
An Act for the relief of Marie Louise McCarthy Smyth.
An Act for the relief of Marie Glenna Grace Thomas Reynolds.
An Act for the relief of Isabel Jessica Black Jolley.
An Act for the relief of Margaretha Elisabeth Buck Peereboom.
An Act for the relief of Ethel May Marshall James.
An Act for the relief of Anastasia Tkaczuk Wojtkowyez.
An Act for the relief of Phyllis Wilda Valentine Park Evans.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Louise Mehliss
J ackson.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Bertha Beatrix
Berlind Ripstein.
An Act for the relief of Lola McIntosh.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Stella Kathleen
Marguerite Winnall Barwick.
An Act for the relief of Joyce Elizabeth Blackburn Gordon.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Kate Elizabeth
Laidlaw McNiven,
An Act for the relief of Margaret Livingstone Turnbull Woodard.
An Act for the relief of Dorothy Sunsheine Steirman Cooke.
An Act for the relief of Doris Golt Rosner.
An Act for the relief of Anna Pohopoluck Yacobehak.
An Act for the relief of Myer Levine.
An Act for the relief of George Sutherland Cameron, junior.
An Act for the relief of Fred Catlow.
An Act for the relief of Mary Celina Broadhurst LaRose.
An Act for the relief of Elsie Epstein Cohen.
An Act for the relief of Gertrude Pelletier Patenaude.
An Act for the relief of Marieatt Venditello Diano.
An Act for the relief of Edna Annie Heazle Constable.
An Act for the relief of Dorothy Reed Cushing.
An Act for the relief of Sarto Desnoyers.
An Act for the relief of William Milroy Davidson.	_
An Act for the relief of Audrey Meredith Mann Harrison.
An Act for the relief of Francois Henri Draek.

An Act for the relief of Gladys Irene Dale Weston.
An	Act	for the	relief	of Ruth	Ufland
Fishman.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Norma	Brown
Stevenson.
An Act for the relief of Mary Cummings Bullock.
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Gertrude DeSerres Gould.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	John	Clifford
Stanley Darbyson.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Celia Reynolds
Sehellenberg.
An Act for the relief of Annie Miriam Scott.
An Act for the relief of Marguerite Elsie Ramsay Murdock.
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Molnar Schneider.
An Act for the relief of Max Kaback.
An Act for the relief of George McDonald Joseph Carew.
An Act for the relief of Wandless Joseph Henry Verdon.
An Act for the relief of Mary Eileen Scott Warrington.
An Act for the relief of Joseph Bergman.
An Act for the relief of Marie Martha Hermine Browne Peters.
An Act for the relief of Ethel Gerson Kalmanovitch.
An Act for the relief of Freda Sweet Simon.
An Act for the relief of Phyllis Mary Alice Verrinder Horrell.
An Act for the relief of James McKinna Wood.	.
An Act for the relief of Leah May Jarvis Traver.	, .
An Act for the relief of Barbara Patricia Strange Wolfe.
An Act for the relief of Bella Miller Keller.
An Act for the relief of Effie Euphemia Shannon Monette.
An Act for the relief of Elsie May Cape Newman.
An Act for the relief of Bella White Wolfe.
An Act for the relief of Alan Swabey.
An Act i or the relief of Jean Walker Creighton King.
An Act for the relief of Alice Beatrice Armand Roberts.	_
An Act for the relief of Frederick William Merchant.
An Act for the relief of Irma Kern Ulrich.
An Act to change the name of The Saskatchewan Life Insurance Company to Fidelity Life Assurance Company.
An Act to incorporate the Canadian Dental Association.
An Act respecting certain transmission and distribution lines of Saguenay Transmission Company, Limited, Saguenay Electric Company and Aluminum Power Company, Ltd.
An Act to provide for the Reinstatement in Civil Employment of discharged members of His Majesty's Forces and other designated classes of persons.
An Act respecting the carrying on and coordination of Vocational Training.
An Act to assist War Veterans to Settle upon the Land.	6
An Act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An Act to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
An Act to amend The National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940.

Vacancies
An Act to provide for Insurance of Property against War Risks and the payment of Compensation for War Damage.
An Act to amend The Excise Act, 1934.
An Act to amend the Department of External Affairs Act.
An Act to amend The Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940.
An Act to amend The Dominion Succession Duty Act.
An Act to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act.
An Act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures made and capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1942, to provide for the refunding of financial obligations and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Income War Tax Act.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1943.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.15 p.m. until Wednesday, January 27, 1943, at three o'clock in the afternoon.
Wednesday, January 27, 1943