Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Since the statement I made a week ago on the military operations in Sicily, the offensive of the united nations has been intensified on a number of fronts. Our main interest at the moment naturally centres in Sicily, where Canadian forces are engaged. Before touching upon the progress that has since been made in Sicily, a word about the other theatres, in which there had been significant developments, may not be out of place.
In Russia, after sharp fighting and heavy German losses, the nazi summer offensive was quickly halted. In its stead, the Soviet army and air force have developed1 a powerful offensive against Orel. This strategic centre has been under German control for nearly two years. It is one of the most strongly fortified positions of the central front. The battle for Orel is a dramatic reminder of Russia's share in the total military effort of the united nations.
At the other side of the world, in the southwest Pacific, the present month has seen a sustained attack by Australian and United States forces against Japanese strongholds in New Guinea. In the Solomon islands, the United States forces have advanced northward, and are in fact besieging the main Japanese air base in that area. As more stepping stones are wrested from the Japanese, the offensive will be intensified against all the outlying areas north of Australia now under Japanese control.
In the northern Pacific, the Aleutian area has also seen heavier bombings of Japanese targets by United States and Canadian squadrons.	Kiska,	the last remaining
Japanese outpost, an immediate menace to both Canada and the United States, is being attacked whenever weather conditions are favourable. Until the Japanese are driven out of Kiska, we may expect continued fighting in this area.
In the battle of the Atlantic, the arrangement for increased escorts by sea, and continuous cover by air, which have been in effect for some three months, have more than justified expectations.

Coming to the Mediterranean area, two weeks have now passed since the allied forces landed in Sicily. The second week of the invasion witnessed a continuation of the steady advance of the previous week. Town after town surrendered1. Within the week, the number of axis prisoners taken increased to well over 50,000. The allied invasion forces extended their occupation from one-third to more than two-thirds of the island. Throughout, Canada's troops took a foremost part in the fighting. Their skill and determination have called forth the commendation of both General Montgomery and General Alexander.
At the beginning of the week, after joining forces at Enna, which is the hub of communications in central Sicily, Canadian and American formations continued to press north. Yesterday an American armoured division captured Palermo, the historic capital and largest city in Sicily. By the capture of Palermo, and the advances of American and Canadian units, large numbers of axis forces have been trapped in the western half of the island. Northeast of Enna, Canadian units encountered strong German resistance. Other of our forces have been taking part in the eighth army's tightening encirclement of Catania. The fall of Catania, which may be expected at any time, will compel the retreat of the axis forces towards Messina and the mainland of Italy. That retreat will lead inevitably to the occupation of the whole of Sicily.
The allied land advances on the island were supported throughout the week by intense allied air activity over the island and the Italian mainland. In these aerial operations, the Royal Canadian Air Force continued to play an important part. A Royal Canadian Air Force fighter squadron-a self-contained Canadian unit of the middle east forces-is now based on Sicily, and for some days has been operating in support of the forward elements of the allied armies. The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) is adjutant of this squadron. There are, as well, in Sicily, many R.CAJF. personnel not included in this squadron, but attached to RA.F. units. During the week our bomber units, operating with General Doolittle's force in North Africa, participated in raids on Sicily and on the Italian mainland.
A week ago I referred to the officers and men of the Royal Canadian navy who took part in the landing operations in Sicily. Quite a number of these men are veterans of Dieppe and North Africa. They are still continuing to assist in landing supplies and reinforcements at different ports.

Old Age Pensions
General McNaughton, who has just returned to England from the Mediterranean area, has described the assault upon Sicily as the most perfect example of combined operations in history. This statement is, in part, a merited tribute to the rigorous training and patient waiting of the Canadian forces which have served the longest under General McNaugh-ton's command.
A significant development of the past week in Sicily was the establishment of an allied military government of the occupied territory. General Sir Harold Alexander was appointed military governor. In his first proclamation, General Alexander declared that the purpose of the allies was to deliver the people from the fascist regime, and restore Italy as a land of free people. He ordered the dissolution of all fascist organizations. In this proclamation will be found the basis upon which the allied nations aim to effect the liberation of Europe from Axis aggression, and from fascist domination.
A year ago, when parliament adjourned, the united nations had experienced nearly eight months of reverses and setbacks. This continent was immediately threatened from the west. On the east, enemy U-boats ranged destructively along our coast, and into the gulf and river St. Lawrence. As we leave today for our homes, we will carry with us very different impressions. The tide has definitely turned. Everywhere the forces of freedom have the initiative.
While our fears about its outcome have lessened, the war, in a more immediate way, has been brought closer than ever to us. All arms of our fighting services are now in the thick of the conflict. Our fighting men are certain to continue in action on many fronts, until the enemy has surrendered. No one can say for how long that may be. Our men face a terrible ordeal of battle. Until victory is achieved, above all else, they must command a singleness of purpose in our hearts and minds, and the utmost that our country can give in their support.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I wish to make a brief announcement on pensions for the aged and blind.
Early in the war we had a number of representations made, not only in this house but elsewhere, that the $20 maximum monthly pension payable under the Old Age Pension Act was too low under present conditions and
should be increased either by adding to it the cost of living bonus or by some flat increase, say, to $25 per month.	On
November 14, 1941, I made a statement in this house announcing the government's policy in respect to these representations. In particular, I pointed out that there were substantial variations in cost of living and economic conditions as between the various provinces and in public opinion or social outlook amongst the people of the various provinces as to what is a reasonable amount of non-contributory pension to be paid to aged and blind persons; that several provinces were still paying considerably less than the maximum pension allowable under the act, and there was therefore in such provinces considerable leeway for increasing the average pension paid if the province felt it justifiable; and that in view of the colossal burden of war expenditure which the dominion was having to carry whereas the position of the provincial governments had greatly improved as a result of these war expenditures, it seemed only fair and reasonable that those provinces which felt that a higher pension should be paid should themselves pay it out of their own resources. I, therefore, indicated that if any of the provinces desired to supplement the old age pension paid in that province under our act, we would undertake to amend the regulations in such a way as to assure that such supplementary payments made by a province would not entail a reduction in the pension payable under our act.
Following this suggestion, I went on to say:
Indeed the government is prepared to consider going further than this. It believes, for the reasons already outlined, it would be impossible to justify an increase in the maximum rate of pension payable if the whole cost were to be assumed by the dominion, and that such cases as appear to present immediate diificulties can be met by the provinces on the basis of established individual need. If, nevertheless, all or substantially all the provinces should make representations to the dominion government in favour of some increase in the maximum amount of pension payable, the additional cost to be shared between the dominion and the provinces on the same basis as the present cost, I can assure the committee that the government will be prepared to give consideration to such representations.
This was the substance of the policy I announced on November 14, 1941. Since that announcement was made, six provinces have provided for the payment of supplementary pensions: British Columbia and Alberta pay supplementary pensions of $5 a month; Saskatchewan (beginning July 1) and Manitoba of $1.25 a month; Ontario (beginning July 1) a percentage of the amount of pension
Old Age Pensions

paid; and Nova Scotia (beginning June 1) an amount up to $10 a month, based on the merits of the individual case, with limitation of total income, including allowance, to $365 per year.
These provisional supplementary pensions have gone a long way to help the situation in the provinces in which they are being paid. However, in pursuance of the paragraph of my statement which I have just quoted in full, we have received representations from an increasing number of provinces that the maximum pension payable should be raised, the maximum suggested in most cases being $25. On July 12, I received a letter from a province which brought the total number of provinces making such representations up to eight. Since that time the ninth province has made similar representations.
In view of the unanimity of attitude on the part of the provincial governments which has now been established, the dominion has decided that it should make legal provision for increasing the maximum pension payable under the scheme provided for in the act from $20 to $25 per month. There is not time to submit an amendment to the act in the closing hours of the session. Even if there were, as the whole subject of old age pensions and related matters is being studied by the special committee of the House of Commons on social security, it would probably be desirable to wait until a later stage before a legislative amendment making any permanent changes in the act were proposed. We therefore propose to make the provision which I have mentioned by means of an order in council under the War Measures Act.
This order in council will authorize the dominion to enter into supplementary agreements with the provinces, enabling a special war supplement not exceeding $5 per month to be paid, in addition to the regular pension payable under the act as it stands at present. All the terms and conditions under which the present pensions are payable, including the present sharing of the amount of pensions paid in the ratio of 75 per cent and 25 per cent by the dominion and the provinces respectively, and the provisions regarding maximum total income, will be continued, except for the appropriate adjustment in regard to the provisions of the act covering maximum pension and allowable outside income. In so far as the dominion is concerned, the supplementary war pension need not disturb the supplementary pensions now being paid in several of the provinces; that is entirely a matter for the decision of the provincial governments concerned.
IMr. Ilsley.]
It is intended that the new provision will come into operation at the earliest practicable date. It will, however, take a few weeks to work out the necessary supplementary agreements with the provinces and to enable the provinces to set up the necessary machinery for handling the payments.
At March 31, 1943, there were 183,601 old age pensioners and 6,374 blind pensioners, or a total of 189,975. If a supplementary war pension of $5 were paid to all such pensioners the total annual cost would be $11,398,500. The dominion's share, on this basis, would be 75 per cent of this, or $8,548,875 in a full year. Actually, however, total cost and the share of the dominion will be less than this, because in a considerable number of cases outside income accruing to the pensioner will not permit the raising of the present pension, at least not by the full amount of $5 per month.
The extra cost to the dominion will, of course, be a charge against the war appropriation.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to make a remark and perhaps ask the minister a question? He spoke of the percentage increase which the province of Ontario evidently had been granting on its own prior to this time as a supplementary pension. I take it that is what the minister meant.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was effective July 1, I think.


Gordon Graydon: Yes, I think that was what the minister said. In his statement the minister mentioned that one province had made representations to the government and then another province had made similar representations until finally representations had been received from nine provinces in all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Gordon Graydon: But the minister did not indicate which provinces were the eighth and ninth-in other words, the last provinces to make representations on this score.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I could give the order in which they made their representations, if it has any relevancy. Prince Edward Island was the last province, but it must be borne in mind that that province has never found itself able to afford very much in the way of old age pensions and they have not been paying an amount anywhere near to the maximum.

Butter-Market and Storage
Mr. GRiAYDON: Which was the eighth province?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The province of Quebec.


Mr. G. G. McGEER (Vancouver-Burrard):: I have received some correspondence from the province of British Columbia and the province of Nova Scotia. The premier of British Columbia wrote:
In view of the circumstances the provincial government approves not only of a minimum of $30 a month for aged persons but of the lowering of the age limit to take in persons of sixty-five years and over.
The Premier of Nova Scotia wrote me as follows:
This province has already requested the government at Ottawa to increase the amount of old age pensions. In addition we have passed legislation at the present session, which gives the department under which the old age pensions act functions the authority to pay up to $30 per month. This, of course, is entirely dependent on what the federal government is doing or will do.
So that the two provinces on the east and west coasts were definite in the representations for a pension of $30 a month.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not correct. The province of Nova Scotia did not request the dominion government to authorize a maximum pension of $30, nor does that letter say so. The province of Nova Scotia has authorized a supplemental allowance not exceeding $10 a month, depending upon the merits of the case. It is wholly discretionary with the pension authorities of the province. Their request was for an increase in the maximum under the Old Age Pension Act to $25 a month, and the correspondence has been tabled.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I was only quoting from the letter I received.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What I have said is consistent with the letter.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I should like to put the complete letters on the record. The premier of Nova Scotia writes from Halifax, April 9, as follows-


Mr. SPEAKER:: At this time such a
matter cannot be entertained.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister a question by way of clarification. What will this mean for the old age pensioner in Ontario? How much will he or she now receive?


Mr. MacINNIS:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as someone will be shut off from discussing this question now, should not the whole discussion be left over until the item in the minister's estimates is reached?



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: Yesterday the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) asked a question based on a news report he had seen that a carload of butter shipped from the Morell cooperative creamery in Prince Edward Island to the mainland was returned with the blunt statement, according to the press report, "No market, all storage filled up." It has been impossible to get all the details in the time that has elapsed since yesterday morning, but some of the pertinent facts are known. This creamery may have shipped the butter and it may have been returned, but if so, the creamery company made a mistake in doing so. They were advised late in April that the daily products board were prepared to accept all butter offered for sale that might not be marketed elsewhere, at prices set out in the order. All that this company had to do was to advise the dairy products board and it would have been directed where to send the butter and would have received 331 cents a pound for delivery in the month of July. So far as my information goes I think there was an error or perhaps an oversight on the part of the creamery in shipping the butter in the manner in which they did.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Can the minister say whether the creamery did get in touch with the dairy products board?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They did not get in
touch with the dairy products board, according to the advice given me.



CANADIAN FORCES


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: I told the house the other day that I would endeavour to make a statement with regard to the pay of the various women's services in the armed forces. I wish to state that certain increases have been approved with effect July 1, 1943. The basic pay for women will be 80 per cent of that paid men in the armed forces instead of 665 per cent as in the past. Pay for women in all three services will be uniform in the future, and will be increased at the end of four months' and six months' service subject to good conduct and efficiency. That is, pay of the women of the services will start at $1.05 per day and be increased to $1.20 per day at the end of six months' efficient service.
Canadian Forces

In addition to the increase in rates of pay there will be certain other financial benefits available in future. Women will receive trades pay according to their grouping on the same basis and at the same rates as men. Staff and special duty pay will be on the same basis as in the men's branches of the services. Dependents of women in the services other than husbands and children will be eligible for the same rates of dependents' allowances as the dependents of men. That is, dependent parents or other close relatives may receive the allowance.
In future-this is a point which has had a good deal of discussion both outside and in this house-a woman in the services married to another member of the service will not be debarred from receiving dependents' allowance, with the proviso that the woman's total income including the dependents' allowance is not to exceed $2,100, but that those already in the service who have been married for only a short period or who may marry in the future will not receive dependents' allowance until six months after the marriage date.
In the past it has not been permissible for an officer or man in any of the armed services to have the allowance paid to his wife if she too was serving, although it could be made to a wife employed in a civilian capacity.
The maximum income of $2,100 which I have just mentioned in connection with allowances does not include assigned pay.
The increases at the end of four and six months' good service which I have mentioned are similar to those paid soldiers in tlhe army.



STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO AGRICULTURAL LEAVE

James Layton Ralston: On another matter, Mr. Speaker, 1 said I hoped to be able to make some announcement. I am not able to make a statement in detail here, but I can give the outlines of an announcement which will be made in the press as soon as the order is completed. It has to do with arrangements which are being made and authority which is being given with respect to assistance in agricultural operations by certain members of the forces.
Provision is being made to provide assistance in agricultural help, first, by way of compassionate leave, which I think I have already explained to the house and which is applicable in individual cases where there

is hardship in connection with a particular farm or family; second, by detailing men from certain units or certain formations in the armed services to do work as directed by the Department of Labour. It has been decided to decentralize as far as possible this activity. Complaints have been made, and I know that sometimes they are well founded and sometimes the delay could not have been avoided, with regard to the time taken to have certain applications come to headquarters and be dealt with and then further representations asked for. What we are endeavouring to do is to place this matter in the hands of the general officers commanding in the two commands and in the districts. We feel that, with the experience they have had, it ought to be possible for them to bring to bear judgment as to the general uniform policy of the department and at the same time to give consideration to the needs as they exist, along with the necessity of deciding on the ground as to the exigencies of the service and whether men can be spared. So that the new provision which is being made for detailing men is to be administered by the general officers commanding and the district officers commanding. The provision is that men will be detailed -not given leave, and that they cannot be detailed from training centres; that is a sina qua non which we cannot forgo. Prom the operational units men may be detailed up to ten per cent of the strength of the units, and from depots and other formations outside of training centres the percentage is not necessarily limited to ten per cent, but it is as large a percentage as can be spared. In both cases there is a limitation, of course, that it is subject to the exigencies of the service as may be determined by the general officers commanding or the district officers commanding. The detailing is to be done at the request of the director of the dominion-provincial farm labour committee, and I understand he is representing the Department of Labour. The absence which will be provided for will be thirty days. There will be provision for extension if a case is made and if service conditions permit. Pay will be military service pay and allowances, and arrangements, I think, will be made under which, if the going rate in the particular locality is higher than that, it may be possible for the man to get the benefit of that additional rate. That is now being worked out between the Department of Labour and ourselves.
As I say, a fuller statement will be made in the press as soon as all the details are worked out.

Canadian Air Force


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: What provision will be made for details that are set aside for this task of helping to take off the crop, with reference to the special clothing- overalls, gloves, boots and that sort of thing? Will they be provided with them or given extra money with which to buy them?


James Layton Ralston: I assume that if army military stores are available, they will be issued with overalls.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the procedure for getting individual leave be the same as before, that application will be made to a man's commanding officer and from there to the district officer commanding?


James Layton Ralston: To the district officer commanding, not headquarters.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: There are a couple of questions which I should like to direct to the government if the Prime Minister does not get ahead of me. One is to the Minister of National Defence for Air. Having in mind the minister's previous warning with respect to the anticipated difficulties of obtaining sufficient men for aircrew, coupled with the allegations made in this week's Financial Post that the Canadian air ministry has been battling with army authorities to get priority to enlist category A men for aircrew, will the minister make a statement to the house indicating such changes in the situation as have developed since he last reviewed it for us? I should like also to inquire of the minister as to the steps the government has in mind to avoid this prospective curtailment of the air training programme.


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of this question, and perhaps I had better proceed by way of a statement.
In January of this year, as a result of an intensive recruiting campaign carried on last autumn, the R.C.A.F. had a substantial reserve of many thousands of volunteers for aircrew training. These were on leave without pay to be called up later on, or employed in duties other than training for aircrew. In order to permit absorption of this reserve and in order that the period before candidates begin training might not be too long, recruiting for aircrew was not urgently pressed during the months of January and February. During the months of April, May and June there has been a noticeable falling-off in the number of those coming forward for aircrew training. In fact, we have now reached the point where we are obtaining less than half our current monthly requirements. We must state frankly that we are seriously alarmed at the lack of recruits coming forward in a constant stream sufficient to meet our current requirements. In other words, at the present time we are "eating our fat" and not building up any reserve strength. That is the situation. Now, as to the steps being taken-


Gordon Graydon: The minister spoke of obtaining "less then half our current monthly requirements." Would he mind telling us just what the monthly requirements are?


Charles Gavan Power: I am afraid I cannot.


Gordon Graydon: That is all right.


Charles Gavan Power: That, perhaps, would be giving away to the enemy the number of persons whom we propose to train for aircrew during the year, and it would be giving away the battle order.


Gordon Graydon: I had in mind that the minister had done it before, but perhaps he had not.


Charles Gavan Power: As to the steps being taken, we have inaugurated an energetic campaign to recruit aircrew. We are remustering from ground crew within the ranks of the R.C.A.F. a very large number. Last month 761 ground crew were remustered from ground crew to air training. As I have already announced in the house on several occasions, we anticipate that this will be a fruitful source of potential flying men, though I by no means give any guarantee that those remustering will be sufficient to meet our requirements.
It is estimated that there are a very large number of young men of aircrew age and fitness in both essential and unessential industries. Many of these are persons who embarked on an industrial career before they reached the callable age and have since become important cogs in the industrial machine, to such an extent that employers are sometimes reluctant to permit them to enlist, and in some cases have categorized them as key men. An industrial mobilization survey is now being undertaken by the national selective service in all the industrial plants in the dominion. The Royal Canadian Air Force will be repre-
Canadian Air Force

sented on this survey, and has hopes that with the cooperation of employers and the patriotic response of these young men, when the priority of need for their services as aircrew over that in industry is pointed out to them, will result in a new influx of recruits for flying training.
Generally speaking, the house can rest assured that every step will be taken and every effort will be made to see to it that Canada continues to supply an important quota to the air training plan and bearing in mind the fact, which has many times been stated in this house, that the field for aircrew recruiting is necessarily a restricted one, by reason of the requirements of age, fitness, mental alertness and motivation, Canada will continue to keep up the flow of pilots, navigators, air gunners, wireless operator air gunners, bombers, to our own R.C.A.F. squadrons and to the R.A.F. squadrons so that they will continue to strike the devastating blows which are shaking the axis powers to their very foundations.
Needless, to say, there is no battle between the army authorities and those of the R.C.A.F. We endeavour to work out our problems in a cooperative way, and the personnel and officers of the army and the R.C.A.F. are constantly meeting most amicably to that end. We may not always agree, but we are not fighting, and we hope by means of cooperation to work out our mutual problems satisfactorily.


Mr. WOOD:: With reference to the minister's statement in regard to the obtaining of aircrew, I have on my desk a letter from a young man, a graduate of McMaster university, who is very anxious to transfer from the army to the aircrew. He informs me that he has been making an effort for some time but has not been able to get anywhere. Could the minister advise me of any method which I could recommend to this young man whereby his desire might be satisfied.


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend asking me the question? I have no idea about the case. There have been a number of cases of transfer, but my hon. friend and the public will understand that when men have trained for a considerable period for one arm of the service it does not seem to be desirable to have them transferred because they desire the change. If my hon. friend wishes to bring the case to my attention I shall be glad to look into it. Was he called up?


George Ernest Wood: No.


James Layton Ralston: If he was called up he had an opportunity of joining the air force

rather than the army prior to the time he actually reported for medical examination. He could have joined the air force instead of joining the army. Transfers are made even overseas from the army to the air force where men are specially fitted for the purpose or where there are circumstances which in the opinion of the army commander justify the change. Every case has to be dealt with on its merits.


Gordon Graydon: Are facilities being afforded, so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, to allow all who are in Canada to be given an opportunity of enlisting in the air force regardless of the manner in which they came into the army?


James Layton Ralston: No. I am a little surprised that my hon. friend asks that question. Surely the hon. member does not suggest that everyone in the army be given an opportunity, no matter how long he has been in that arm of the service or what position he occupies, to transfer to another arm.


Gordon Graydon: I did not suggest that. Perhaps I did not make the point clear. The question is one of priority, whether or not the air force is so badly in need of men whom they are not able to get. I wondered what facilities were afforded to supply men from one branch to the other. It is a question of priority.


James Layton Ralston: It is difficult for the army to enlist, train and post men for general service and then have them transfer to some other arm of the service. It would be only in special cases that this would be done, having regard to the army's own obligations and its own commitments, not only to our partners but to our men overseas. We have to provide reinforcements, and it is these very men whom we expect to provide those reinforcements.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Would the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) kindly give the house a list of the orders for returns and orders for the production of papers which have not yet been tabled this session. I sent him notice of this request so that he would be prepared perhaps to give me some information on this point to-day. There was a question by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) which was passed as an order for return and about which I spoke privately to the Minister of National Defence. Perhaps he might give me some information in that regard.

Supply-Pensions and National Health


James Layton Ralston: I did not ask this morning about it, though I did inquire yesterday, and I understood that there was a great deal of information to be obtained. Perhaps the member for Halifax could say.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member was anxious to have as much information as could be obtained before the house rose, and conceivably the minister might see me privately with respect to the matter and give me some information.
Mr. RALSTONI shall be glad to talk to my hon. friend about it.


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: As regards that portion of the question which is directed to myself, the hon. member did give me notice, but I regret to say that between the time of the notice and the present moment no opportunity has been given to prepare the list. However, I shall be glad to prepare one, and perhaps with the consent of the house, without the formal necessity of reverting to motions, I might table it and supply my hon. friend with a copy. Generally speaking, the number of orders for returns this session was 543; answers to 518 have been tabled, leaving 25 outstanding.



NATIONAL PHYSICAL FITNESS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 138, to establish a council for the purpose of promoting national fitness.
He said: The amendments are entirely improvements in the drafting of some of the clauses of the bill and do not affect in any vital way the principle. The title is altered so that the act is known as the National Physical Fitness Act. The other amendments are, as I say, improvements in the drafting of the legislation .and do not in the slightest degree affect the principle.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
193. Departmental administration, $139,321.
Gordon Graydon: I have no desire to delay the passing of these estimates; rather am I desirous of facilitating them so far as the national interest permits, but I should like to support what was said yesterday on the orders of the day by the hon. member for Broadview in regard to members of the Northwest Field Force. If I understand correctly the minister's explanation, these men as to pension are placed in the same position as any other soldiers who served in the South African campaign, the last war or, the present war, and I can quite see the minister's position in the technical answer he gave with regard to pensions. I am wondering, however, if there is not something that goes perhaps a little further than what has been actually discussed. These men served as early as 1885, if my memory serves me correctly.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): That is correct.


Gordon Graydon: I am wondering whether the difficulty may not arise to a large extent in connection with these men being able to attribute their disabilities to service in that particular theatre of war. That is one question I should like to ask the minister, because it may be germane to the discussion in regard to pensions for these men. It is hard enough to produce evidence of attributability in connection with the war which concluded twenty-five years ago. When one adds the years which have intervened since 4885 I have no doubt these men must find great difficulty in presenting any evidence on which they might base a claim that their disabilities are attributable to war service. That is the first point.
Then the minister raised a point in connection with the war veterans' allowance. As this committee well knows, the basis of a claim for the war veterans' allowance, or the burnt-out pension, as it is commonly called, is that the man must have seen service in an actual theatre of war, and it has been decided that those who saw service in England only in the last war may not properly apply for this allowance. I am not so sure that before long the minister will not have to review that position, but I do not want to bring that subject into this discussion. I do not believe the minister is confronted with an insurmountable difficulty in establishing an actual theatre of war in connection with the Northwest Field Force. It is true that this campaign was not on the scale of subsequent wars; nevertheless it was an important campaign from many
5362	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
points of view. I should not think the minister would find it very difficult to have the northwest area established as an actual theatre of war. In effect it was a theatre of war, because fighting took place there.
The minister has given the technical reasons for not extending the war veterans' allowance to those who served in England during the last war. I am not arguing in favour of that at the moment, because I am afraid I have not always been able to see the distinction, but at least during the last war there was not hand to hand combat with the enemy on land in England. Perhaps the minister and the department have based their ruling in this connection on the fact that England could not be regarded technically as an actual theatre of war. But I take it that veterans of the South African war are entitled to apply for the war veterans' allowance; I believe that was provided in an amendment which was made not long ago. If the South African veterans are permitted to make application for this allowance, it seems to me that the distinction between their case and that of the Northwest Field Force is not very great. Certainly having in mind the number of these older, what we might call senior, veterans who would be involved, I am inclined to think that during the recess the minister might give careful consideration to the matter and if possible permit the war veterans' allowance to be extended to these men, not only by reason of their entitlement but for what I fancy would be another cogent reason, that is, the difficulty that most of these men will encounter in making application for pension in the ordinary way, in presenting proof of attribut-ability to war service. No such proof is required in connection with the war veterans' allowance, and the restrictions on the granting of that allowance are of course much less severe from the point of view of the applicant.
I want to place these points before the minister with great earnestness. There are not many of these veterans left, I think only some three hundred, and in all fairness to them we should take the position that they are entitled to make application now under the burnt-out pension arrangements, in view of the facts I have stated.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I have not the slightest fault to find with the remarks of my hon. friend; I think he has stated the position clearly and with accuracy. There would be no objection whatever to meeting this claim except for the implications that would be created in regard to other cases. After all, we have 193,105 men who served in Canada only during the last war. This claim is very small in itself; really it is largely

sentimental, because most of these men are entitled to the old age pension and I would imagine most of them are drawing that pension now. The benefit they would gain through coming under the veterans' allowance act would be very small; it would consist chiefly in the allowance to the widow for one year after death.


Gordon Graydon: They would be entitled to $40 a month, would they not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There would be a difference in the case of some married men. I think the issue is largely sentimental, and in themselves the financial considerations are very small indeed. It would mean, however, that later on the house would have to be prepared to meet the claims of those who had served only in Canada or England during the last war. It would be a measure of social security, and perhaps it will have to come, but that is the implication in doing this for these few survivors of the northwest rebellion. Personally I am not opposed to it at all. But I do say that the principle of veterans' allowances was that a man's age was shortened because of what he suffered in actual warfare, trench warfare, in the great war. It was considered that he was burnt-out and prematurely aged, and as such the old age pension was extended to him at an earlier age. Well, if that is to be extended for all the veterans of the great war, it is another matter. This request could easily be met, but it would involve a larger issue.


Mr. STIRLING:: Is not the difference the fact that there was fighting in the northwest rebellion and that there was no fighting in Canada for the 193,000?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think there were any conditions which prevailed in the northwest rebellion such as those which prevailed in trench warfare of the great war. There they had conditions which merited special consideration, the same as the veterans of the South African war. But there were no conditions in the northwest rebellion which would induce the introduction of a bill such as that which was passed in 1930, known as the War Veterans' Allowance Act. These men were prematurely aged by the stress and strain and terrible conditions which existed in the war of 1914-18.


Gordon Graydon: I raised a purely hypothetical point, without having personal knowledge of the facts to which I alluded, other than by way of inference. These men experienced many difficulties in establishing their claim for pension, in view of the tremendous time which has elapsed.

Supply-
-Pensions and National Health


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, not the slightest. I do not know of one claim pending to-day. I do not think there is any difficulty at all about that. The whole thing is the suggestion that, having fought for Canada within Canada, they should have the same rights under this act as all other Canadian veterans.


Grote Stirling: The minister has referred to the fighting in the great war. but I would point out that in the north-west rebellion there was fighting in Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There were many Canadians who served during the great war who are not eligible, under the act as we have it to-day.


Mr. GILLIS:: While the men who served in the Riel rebellion are certainly entitled to some compensation from the country for the services they rendered, I think that at this time to relate their service to disability from participation in a war is an impossibility. Furthermore, the condition in which these people now find themselves is a reflection on the government of that day. It is rather late to raise the question of pension for men who served during that time. Besides, I am opposed to shelving questions connected with social security by trying to dump them under the War Veterans' Allowance Act. In the past twenty-five years we have shirked our responsibility in the field of social security generally, by trying to handle the whole problem in a disjointed fashion. Under the act as it now stands, service in a theatre of war is not the only qualifying clause. The men who served in Canada or in England, if in receipt of a 5 per cent pension, are also entitled to veterans' allowance. I should imagine that if one were to go over the list of those in receipt of war veterans' allowance he would find as many men on that list, as many men who served in Canada and in England, as there are men who served overseas in a theatre of war.
My experience has been that, by and large, the men who served in a theatre of war are regular pensioners. The other measure was brought in to cover men who suffered disease and disability which could not be attributed to service. I am absolutely opposed to classifying the War Veterans' Allowance Act as an old age pension act. I believe too much of that sort of thing is being done. In many instances war veterans, who come under the war veterans' allowance provisions, are being injured because the provinces and the federal government are using the War Veterans' Allowance Act as an old age pension measure.
I have run into cases of the kind on several occasions, and I have no doubt the minister has too. The provincial government pays an old age pension to a wife, for example, of $15 or $20 a month. When the veterans' allowance is granted to the husband, instead of getting the $40 a month to which he is entitled under the act, the amount of the old age pension being paid in the province is deducted. This militates against the soldier, because it is being used as an old age pension.
I think the minister was correct when he said it is generally recognized by medical authorities that a man's life is shortened, by at least ten years, as a result of war service, and certain provision was made under the act to enable the veterans to receive something at the age of sixty. But I do not think it was ever the intention to deduct from the veterans the amount paid by the provinces to other members of a family by way of old age pension. The men who took part in the Riel rebellion were the victims of a faulty system; their position is a glaring example of the lack of interest on the part of past governments, and this is something which will have to be taken care of.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would my hon. hon. friend permit an interruption? He referred to the number of recipients under the War Veterans' Allowance Act. There were 1,841 who served in Canada and England only, out of a total of 24,192.


Clarence Gillis: The point I wished to make, for the benefit of the leader of the opposition, was that overseas service in a theatre of actual war was not the only qualifying clause.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Correct.


Clarence Gillis: In my opinion the men who served in the Riel rebellion, and any others in that category, will have to be covered by social security. I believe that is the answer to the question. This procedure of dumping everything into the Department of Pensions and National Health, as we have been doing for the past twenty-five years because there has been nowhere else to go, is bad practice. If the leader of the opposition is interested- and I know he is-he would do well to hold up both hands in support of a social security programme.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: There is one matter which I believe should be considered, and might best be considered under this item. May I first however refer briefly to what has been said by the minister and the hon. member for Cape Breton South with regard to the inadvisability of dumping into the War
5364	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
Veterans' Allowance Act problems having to do with social security. I should be inclined to agree with both of them, provided there were any immediate possibility of having social security in this country. But what is now happening, and has been happening for years, is that these men who fought, bled and now suffer are being allowed to go without the necessities of life, while Canada waits upon the introduction of a measure of social security. By the time we have adequate social security most of these men will be in their graves, and we shall have committed what in my judgment is a national crime. I have felt ever since these men went to war and returned from it that it was Canada's duty to take care of them. Never mind social security; if we cannot get it, at least let us take care of these men and their dependents.
Another matter I should like to discuss briefly is one which I hestitate to discuss at this late stage in the session, but one concerning which I believe something must be said. On July 12, when the Prime Minister was giving one of his glowing speeches, I rose and reminded him that Canada had not played fair with her returned men. The Prime Minister made remarks which indicated that I was making innuendoes and insinuations which I ought not to make without having sufficient evidence to support my statement. Before we finished the little passage between myself and the Prime Minister I promised that I would bring forth evidence before this session was over in full support of my statement. My words, as reported on page 4622 of Hansard were:
If I have said anything up to the present time which either by implication or by meaning could be construed as offensive or as inappropriate on this occasion, I withdraw it; but I give assurance to the house that at a later time I shall reassert it, because so far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, as one member of parliament I do not propose to neglect my bounden duty to the people who sent me here and to the soldiers who are fighting our war.
First of all, I shall read a quotation from a letter for which I vouch, which I have right here, written by a veteran of both wars. This letter is dated July 13, so that evidently this man lost no time sending it in. I have others, but I think this is probably better by far than anything else I have. I read:
In the first place I should tell you who I am and what authority I have for making these statements. I am a doctor of twenty-two years' experience. I served as a doctor in the last war and did not get overseas because of the influenza epidemic. I also served in this war but did not get overseas.
While serving at the Atlantic coast in various units I saw examined and boarded for discharge many fine young men who entered the active 
army-they were not draftees. These men were often subjected to rainy, foggy weather, often getting their clothes wet while guarding a coast so that our premier as well as all could rest in peace.
Many of these boys were on active service at the coast two years or more. Suddenly they get a terrible cold, fever and sore throat, tonsilitis or septic sore throat, followed by rheumatic fever or rheumatic arthritis.
May I interject here that even though these boys who are afflicted in this manner may not have seen the heat of battle, they have made a sacrifice for the country which puts the country under an obligation to see that they are provided for. I go on with the letter.
The policy of the army and government has been to date to discharge these men, one month's post discharge pay and to hell with them any more.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is entirely wrong.


John Horne Blackmore: This is a statement by a man who has been right through it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He does not know anything about it.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not see how a man could know anything more about it than the man who had boarded these men.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. friend.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad to hear the minister say that. I shall go on with the letter.
Our government has taken the stand that there is no pension for service in Canada if disabled by disease.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not correct either.


John Horne Blackmore: The letter continues:
I ask you or any person in the democratic world if that is what we are fighting for? Every good soldier does what he is ordered to do. If sent overseas, he goes. If detailed for coast protection-then he does it. Why should any soldier on active service be penalized because his health broke down by service in Canada? I will except all venereal diseases.
I claim that all men are examined by men who are appointed by the military authorities who in turn are acting for the government. I claim that if once accepted and health breaks under the strain of the changed life that the government is responsible. I myself had an attack of coronary thrombosis and have not been able to do any work since. I have talked to 

.
I am going to leave out some names, but I can supply them privately to the minister.
I think it is just as well that these names should not appear on Hansard because there will be plenty of malodorous results from some of these things. "I continue:

Supply-Pensions and National Health
This man has a nose like Major Hoople and shows that he is more interested in something else. He has never had a private practice of his own and has served for too many years. He even refused me a rehabilitation grant. I tried to take a post-graduate course after my discharge so I attended 

 university.
I am leaving out the name of the university. I continue:
Studying is mental work but not physical. I secured my D.P.H. degree (Doctor of Public Health) and I also have my L.G.M.C. All these are no good to me because I thought that I could do work if I removed the night calls.
Apparently this man found himself unequal to the task of carrying on even after he had done all he possibly could to prepare himself. The latter continues:
However, the refusal of rehabilitation was made direct by 

.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is he referring to the rehabilitation grant paid by the army, or to the rehabilitation benefits paid by this department?


John Horne Blackmore: All I know is what appears in the letter, and it is not sufficiently definite to enable me to answer the minister's question. I shall place this letter in the minister's hands so that he can examine it. A member of parliament, generally speaking, receiving a thing like this is in duty bound to consider it. I am simply passing it on. If I receive a letter of this sort from a man who looks dependable I think I ought to bring it up.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has the hon. member brought this letter to my attention before now?


John Horne Blackmore: No, I did not bring this to the minister's attention, largely because of the lateness of the session. I have brought cases to the minister's attention and although he has shown a lot of sympathy I have felt that he was bound by some hidden hand and I pretty well lost heart about taking things up with him.
I should like to read a passage from another letter for which I am prepared to vouch. This is by a veteran of the two wars. He says:
To-day, as always, you can look around you and see the poverty and rags of these veterans from the trenches. The deaf and disabled refused a pension and their pensions and their job handed out to a non-combatant for political reasons.
I cannot vouch for the statement regarding political reasons. I like to keep free of all offensive things like political struggles. I abhor them, I despise them, but they are there and I can do nothing about them. I am not going to talk about them, but this is this man's statement:
These men never out of Canada are not war veterans.
I do not know that I agree with the writer there.
They were never in the war. Recently there was a job open in Woodstock. The civil service made a big time. They need not have bothered. We veterans know. The man appointed got as far as England, says Ottawa. To England where we went on leave; to England where we went for fun, pastime and amusement; to England where we went when we were sick and wounded. We went. We, the slackers from the trenches. God save England. These men never out of Canada and those that got as far as England did nothing but eat our rations and take our jobs and our pensions. They met us when we were coming back.
Those are bitter words, but let it be borne in mind that they come from the lips of a veteran of the two wars.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is not complaining of this department; he is complaining of the civil service commission.


John Horne Blackmore: Possibly, but there are other things that apply to this department. I continue:
The Pension Act states: "That a pension should not be denied the veteran because no disabling condition existed at time of discharge". Just try and get it. His papers come back from Ottawa marked "Application refused" and no reason given except from some previous examination years before. If they did not intend to examine the veteran, why call him before the board, and having given him no examination on what do they base their claim of "Application refused'"? You don't know and neither does the veteran, and this way of handling the veteran has not helped in any way, but only filled him with bitterness, and you can expect nothing else from disabled veterans who watch their families grow up in poverty unable to pay their way for the necessities of life, unable to secure employment on account of war handicaps and knowing of the graft in pensions and jobs handed out for political reward while we continue in our poverty, denied justice or assistance from the country we fought for. Is that what you have in store for those now fighting?
This is a lengthy document and I do not propose to read any more from it. I am sorry to say that my own experience of the treatment accorded to many veterans to whose cases I have endeavoured to have some consideration given has led me to sympathize with the remarks in this document. I will not say that the statements therein are entirely accurate but I will say that there is a cheeseparing, niggardly, inhuman way of dealing with veterans of this war which leaves much to be desired. I lay no blame on the men who are trying to administer the act; I am not in a position to blame them. I do not know that I would blame the minister. I think what we have to do is to blame the whole general
5366	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
attitude which seems to fill the mind of the government and seems to fill too many minds in this country-an attitude which endeavours to treat these men just as cheaply and as niggardly as we possibly can and still get by under the act.
I have had experience in my own constituency with men whose treatment simply revolted every fibre of my being. Let me mention one of them. Just this last year he was receiving a war veteran's allowance. I do not think I had better give any details about what this man is doing, because I find that when knowledge comes to be had regarding some of these men they do not get on so well after that. This man is in receipt of a war veteran's allowance. The way in which the inspectors go around and poke their noses into his affairs and watch and scrutinize every little movement he makes for fear he is going to make five or ten cents more than what the act says he can is simply astounding. This man said he had a chance this year-I am not going to tell what the work was

to go and do some very necessary war work in connection with agriculture. He could work in the harvest field-I will go mo further. This man could have had about fifteen days' work, but if I remember correctly he had to stop work at five and a half days of work. He was quite able to do the work out in the fields, and the farmer needed him, but he had to stop work at five and a half days, or some of his war veteran's allowance would! be sneaked away from him on the plea that he had1 accepted more than the amount of money which the law laid down as being the limit. I am not going to say that the men who were administering the law were not strictly within their rights, but I say that a government that takes such an attitude and forces its officers to take it certainly has a whole lot to learn.
I think the minister is doing everything in his power to make the act better. I am not complaining against him at all; I want him to understand that. But he knows certainly how many, many things in this country ought to be made right in order to give the men who fought our war last time and the men who are fighting our war this time anything like a fair chance.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that I have said enough to support what I said to the Prime Minister, and I will say no more, except that I hope this house will see that a great .deal more generous treatment is meted out to every man who served in the last war and to every man who serves in this war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not going to make a speech at this stage. I merely want to inform the hon. member for Lethbridge that the instructions issued throughout the Department of Pensions and National Health are that every possible consideration must be given to every individual case. These are the instructions given by the minister, and these are the instructions carried out by all members and staff of the pension board and all the veterans' allowance boards. Every single member of these boards is a veteran of the great war. In the four years that I have been in the department I have found nothing but the utmost desire to administer all the statutes and the regulations for the benefit of the veteran and his dependents.


Mr. KUHL:: Within certain financial limitations.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are no financial limitations placed on the Department of Pensions and National Health in administering the act.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: You have only so much money to spend.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We get estimates of what is required from our own experts and they have never Been turned down. Never has an estimate that has been brought in for pensions been turned down-never. In regard to health, yes, but in regard to pensions, never. Certain principles have been established by parliament, and within the ambit of the statute and the regulations we have never by virtue of financial considerations been denied by any government- this applies to former governments as well as this one-anything we required. I have found in this house all the time I have been here a unanimous desire upon the part of all members to do everything possible for these men. There are bound to be cases of hardship, but when they are brought to my attention every single thing that it is possible to do is done and will be done to provide a remedy.
The amazing thing is this. We have the best pension act and the best war veterans' allowance act, passed by all parties in the house, not only in the British empire but among the united nations as well, and in our preparations for rehabilitation we are ahead of the empire and all the united nations. When the empire parliamentary delegation were here they were immediate in their acceptance of that fact when they saw what we are trying to do. I am the first one to want to remedy any case of hardship. It is not a

Supply-Pensions and National Health
matter of government but of parliament and the humanitarian heart of this house. If there are any cases of hardship, and I include the cases wihich my hon. friend has mentioned which 'had not been brought to my attention before, they will be remedied if I have the power so to do. Anything that we can do for the men who fought the last war and for the men who are fighting this war and their dependents will be done.


Mr. McLEAN (Simcoe East):: I am not going to make a speech, but I cannot let the statements that have been made by the hon. member for Lethbridge go without a protest. As a veteran of the last war I want to say that his statements are a reflection on the men who fought in the last war and on all those who are administering pension legislation. It is unfair to those gentlemen to say that the administration of this act is niggardly or inhuman or something for which we should bow our heads in shame. Instead of reading extracts from letters which are not tabled, the names of whose writers are not given, if he would take those letters over to the commission, as other hon. members do, and get the other side, he would find that every man employed in the department is at all times most sympathetic and most willing to go very carefully into every case. I regret that circulation throughout the country should be given to remarks which are a reflection upon the administration of this act by a staff who, within the limits of this act which was passed by parliament after it was gone into thoroughly by a committee composed entirely of veterans of the last war, are giving the most sympathetic and generous administration which under the act can possibly be given.


Mr. QUELCH:: There is one point I would like to draw to the minister's attention at this time. Under the Pensions Act as it is to-day, soldiers serving in Canada who become disabled are pensionable only if their dependents are in necessitous circumstances. I should like the minister to define exactly what is meant by "necessitous circumstances." Does it mean, for instance, that the soldier is an indigent? The minister will remember that during the sessions of the committee last year we discussed the question of free hospitalization, and it was stated that any soldier who was an indigent could receive free hospitalization. I asked, I think it was, Doctor Miller, to define "indigent", and he said, any soldier with an income of less than $1,000 a year. What I want to know from the minister is, will any soldier with an income of less than 81,000 a year be granted a pension provided he becomes disabled while serving in Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not personally aware of the criterion that is being used by the board of pension commissioners. I am aware of the instructions which were given to them after section 11, subsection 3, was passed, and that was to be as liberal and generous as they possibly could in the interpretation of that section. I would have to consult the chairman of the pensions commission, who unfortunately is ill at the moment, with regard to the exact criterion they use in defining necessitous circumstances.


Victor Quelch: The minister would admit that if a soldier is indigent he would be in necessitous circumstances, and if that has been defined as represented by an income of less than $1,000, that should be the criterion by which we should judge necessitous circumstances. Have any applications for pensions been refused on the ground that a soldier was not in necessitous circumstances?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that there have been some. The percentage I have not under my hand; I shall be glad to get it for my hon. friend.


Mr. KNOWLES:: A good deal of the discussion we have had to-day and on other occasions as to whether or not veterans are getting proper treatment really relates to the terms of the act itself. We have been told this morning that the best possible administration is being given within the terms of the act. Has not the minister as the result of his experience realized the necessity, if not the desirability, of making changes in the act so as to make it possible to extend better treatment to veterans of the last war? I have in mind the kind of case of which we receive a great many, and refer them to the department and to the minister. I have a notion that the minister is sympathetic to our point of view. Often, where the pensionable disability resulting from the last war was minor, the amount the man is receiving is not sufficient to live on, and in recent years other disabilities have developed; and to a layman, to the veteran himself, to his friends, to anyone looking at it from a nonmedical and non-technical point of view, it seems clear that the man's condition has deteriorated and that really it relates to his services in the last war. When we take it up with the department we get reconsideration, the case is looked into, but in due course case after case is turned down on medical grounds. We go to the minister and we are told that the best has been done within the act as passed by this parliament. Like other hon. members, I have many cases

5368	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
which I could raise here. I will not take the time to do so, but it does seem to me that the time has come for an overhaul of the act with a view of making better provision for the man who really is suffering as a result of the ordeal he went through in the last war, because his physical condition has deteriorated in recent years, and he ought to be receiving that consideration.
I should like to know whether the minister agrees with me, and whether anything has been done looking towards revision of the act along these lines.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In cases analogous to those mentioned by my hon. friend, where a man is in receipt of a pension and has developed secondary disabilities, he can in the case of a married man have the total augmented to $60 a month by war veterans' allowance, that is the pension plus allowance up to $60 a month, but so far as I recall the provisions of the statute itself, I do not think that secondary disabilities, unless caused by war service, are recognized in the assessment of a pension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This whole problem, as to whether these disabilities are caused by war service, is answered technically and medically "no", but to the layman it looks as though it was the result of the man's war service. It seems to me that some redefining of the terms of the act is long overdue.


John Horne Blackmore: I would like to ask a question or two. First, may I refer to the hon. member for Simcoe East, who got up and read me a lecture.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I do not think it is a fair statement that the hon. member referred to was giving a lecture. Nobody is trying to give a lecture, and I say so having listened attentively to what has passed. I hope we have now reached the stage where we shall avoid repetition. Some statements have been made a dozen times in this committee.


John Horne Blackmore: I will withdraw the term "lecture", but I would say to the hon. member who resented the remarks I made, that I find always somebody ready to resent any remark which is made on behalf of people who are suffering. That has been my experience for a good many years.
I want to ask the minister one or two questions for my own information, to see whether I am right. How much is allowed a married veteran per month under the War Veterans' Allowance Act?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Forty dollars a month, which can be increased to $50 with casual earnings added. I think I went into this thoroughly when we were discussing the war appropriation. A single man is entitled to $20 per month plus $5 per month, plus casual earnings of $125 per year, or a maximum from all sources of $480; and a married man, accordingly.


John Horne Blackmore: I merely want the figures so I can draw a conclusion from them. A married man can get between $40 and $50, but not more than $50.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Plus casual earnings.


John Horne Blackmore: That allows him the possibility of an income of $600 a year. In addition to that, how much can a veteran earn on the side without forfeiting any of his war veterans' allowance?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A married man can get $60 per month, plus $125 casual earnings, or a maximum of $845.


John Horne Blackmore: That would be the limit? Now, suppose such a man found himself in debt because of an accident, or because of any one of a dozen things which might overtake a married man, and his wife went out and took work at $10 per month, what would happen to him? Suppose he had that $845 coming in and then his wife went out and worked for $15 a month, what would happen to his war veterans' allowance?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If the earnings were casual earnings they would be disregarded; if they were permanent earnings they would be taken into account according to the statute.


John Horne Blackmore: In other words, if the wife went out and worked for $15 a month he would be likely to lose $15 from his war veterans' allowance? That means that the family will be in an absolutely impossible position financially.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is paid that amount on her behalf and if she gets such income from some other source it is deducted.


John Horne Blackmore: Then the family will be put in an impossible position. No matter how they scheme, whether they raise chickens and sell eggs or sell garden produce, no matter what they do, their income is absolutely limited from that time forward. I will submit that to any fair-minded man in this country or in this chamber and ask him whether that is a decent way to treat veterans.

Supply-Pensions and National Health


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say one word. This is the most
generous system of the kind in the world to-day.


John Horne Blackmore: Then it is certainly high time the world mended its ways.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is my hon. friend's mission, probably.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rehabilitation branch-
199. Veterans' welfare division, $129,744.
Clarence Gillis: What is the department doing in the way of increasing the number of personnel in the offices of the welfare organization?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are very much alive to the necessity of having welfare officers in all parts of Canada where they are required, and we are extending the service from time to time. We have now under consideration an extension of the services in my friend's constituency, in Sydney, I believe, and we hope to be able after two or three months to have one established there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Direct payments to veterans and dependents-
ZOO. European war pensions, $37,500,000.
Clarence Gillis: I wish to say a word with regard to section 32(a) as applied to widows who do not come under the arrangements now made under the additional appropriation to provide for those whose husbands might have qualified under the War Veteran's Allowance Act. There are a large number of women in Canada who are in poor circumstances and who are not provided for yet. With regard to section 32(a) and the limitation it places upon certain classifications of widows, women who marry after the time limit was set, to all intents and purposes these women are single so far as the pension regulations are concerned. There was quite a long discussion on section 32(a) before the pensions committee when it sat, revising and bringing up to date the Pension Act, and strong recommendations were made to the minister for the removal of section 32(a), or at least to bring it into conformity with the act as it applies now to the widows of veterans of this war. The recommendation was made that where they were in necessitous circumstances, regardless of that time limitation, they should be given the privilege extended to widows of this war.
One important matter I would bring to the minister's attention is this. Many veterans of the last war who came back suffering mentally
were not provided with any kind of institution except the ordinary mental institutions of the country. I had the privilege of visiting one and I felt that it was certainly a lack of foresight on the part of the Canadian government to take men who were not insane in the real sense of the word, but merely suffering from shock, and put them in with mental patients of all descriptions. It is a horrible condition for a man to be placed in after receiving the shock he did while fighting for his country.
Listening to the Minister of National Defence for Air, I thought he made a very kindly statement. He pointed out that this was a shock war and therefore the problem of mental cases coming back will be magnified one hundred per cent. That applies particularly to the boys in the air. He pointed out that great difficulty was being experienced. Many of these boys who are coming back from service over there are in such a condition that it is hard to place them, and as time goes on, if that disability is not taken care of properly, I am afraid that we shall have to build mental institutions in this country. I suggest that the matter be taken into consideration and that proper neurological hospitals be established, with trained staffs to take care of cases of this kind.
I have a suggestion to offer. The statement of the Minister of National Defence for Air has proven conclusively, to my mind at any rate, that from the point of view of medical science, it is not certain what can be done with such cases. I suggest to the minister that as regards the air force boys now returning, every possible means that might be provided to bring relief to these boys should be studied. Two or three cases should be taken as test cases and chiropractic used in order to bring relief. I remember some years ago when the Chiropractic Association of Ontario made an offer to the provincial government. They were prepared to go to the mental institutions of the province in order to become legally qualified to practise in Ontario, and they said that they would make a test, guaranteeing to turn out of the mental institutions a certain percentage of cases as cured. That was to be the test. I do not know anything about it, but the Minister of National Defence for Air proved conclusively to me' that so far as those cases that are now coming back are concerned, there is nothing to-day that will bring them relief. The whole matter is in the experimental stage. We should not lose any bets in trying all the facilities we have in order to bring some relief to these boys. I do not know anything
5370	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
about chiropractic, but after experience with many cases following the last war I had a good deal to do with assisting to write the legislation that is now on the statute books of the country. I sat in on the machinery that started the original War Veterans' Allowance Act, and I know that there are many men in Canada in mental institutions, victims of the last war, who should not be there. I sat in on that work.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So did I.


Clarence Gillis: I know the minister did, and that is why I objected strenuously this morning to the effort to make provisions of this sort an old age pensions act. I know the purpose for which it is intended. In my opinion, institutions separate and apart should be provided for the men who are victims of shock from this war. I visualize a great deal of that in the future.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Every point raised by my hon. friend is receiving the anxious and sustained consideration of the department, both in regard to occupational centres and in regard to special buildings for psychopathic or the like cases. That is all receiving attention, and we have I think the best advice in the world in regard to all these matters. We are conscientiously pursuing the study of these points, looking for a solution.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
20b. Decoration awards-V.C. and D.C.M.,
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With the permission of the committee I would ask that this item be amended by leaving out all the words after "awards". The reason is that other decorations in addition to those mentioned will be eligible for consideration, and I do not want to limit it.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: I move
accordingly.
Mr. 'CASSELMAN: Would the minister mind giving some more information in this connection. I have always understood that the Victoria Cross carried an award, but I did not know that applied to the distinguished conduct medal.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
211. Health branch administration, $60,852.
Victor Quelch: I understand that a protest was made to the minister some time ago by the united electrical, radio and machine, workers of America, union 521, regarding feeding conditions at the Ajax works in Pickering. I believe an investigation was made and conditions were found to be unsatisfactory. Apparently some measures were taken, because conditions improved. Now, however, the charge is made that conditions are worse than ever. I understand the catering is done by George Coles of Toronto, and that this is the only feeding place for a considerable distance. The charge is not only that the meals are poor but that the method of serving the meals is very unsanitary. A month ago something like sixty workers were taken ill with ptomaine poisoning. I think the minister will agree that few things will cause discontent more quickly than poor meals. The union has asked that the government take over the catering at that plant. I understand also that similar conditions prevail at the small arms plant at Long Branch, and I should like the minister to say whether any action is being taken.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In regard to the second point, two officers of the department are on their way to investigate

Supply-Soldier Settlement
conditions at Long Branch. I am not aware of the first matter to which the hon. gentleman referred at Pickering, but we will look into it immediately.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
236. Victorian Order of Nurses, $13,100.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Under one of these items I wanted to ask the minister if the government has given any consideration to granting a larger amount to one of these organizations, the health league or some other, to extend the work which has been done and which greatly needs to be done in reference to the combating of venereal disease. I have seen the results of some private surveys which have been made in some of our larger cities, and if the figures I have seen are correct the increase in venereal disease has been startling. I wonder if the minister has given any consideration to increasing the amount of money made available to meet this condition.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has been done this year. For the last several years an item of $50,000 was provided for the distribution of arsenicals. That has been supplemented this year by a special vote of $175,000, making a total of $225,000, which I think is the most we have ever voted for this purpose.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The campaign is being carried on by whom?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Under Colonel Williams; under government sponsorship.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health branch-
500. Financial assistance to the provinces under the National Fitness Act, $225,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would ask my colleague to move an amendment to this item.


Ernest Bertrand: I move.
That the word "physical" be inserted between the words "national" and "fitness".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
1,66. To provide for the replacement of the Gaspe peninsula fisheries experimental station, $45,000.
Gordon Graydon: Would the minister
explain this item?


Ernest Bertrand: Our fisheries experimental station at this point was burned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
336. Administration of soldier settlement and British family settlement, $542,930.
Mr. FAIR:: Shall we call it one o'clock, or go on?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps hon. members would be agreeable to the having the house resume its sitting at two o'clock, by unanimous consent, this would enable us to be a little more certain as to the time of adj ournment.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at two o'clock.


Robert Fair: Perhaps I shall have a chance, after three attempts, to say a few words on this question. Yesterday afternoon, just before the dinner recess, we started to discuss this matter, but the departments were switched, I believe for the convenience of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier). At five minutes after one o'clock we were able to get back on this subject and I hope we shall be able to finish it up at this time. As I pointed out yesterday, we are fighting the greatest war in history, but I feel we are neglecting a number of the men who fought in the last war. Since coming to the house in 1935, I, along with the group to which I belong, have continually advocated that something more should be done for the men who went overseas to fight the battles of the last war. I think we all realize that had it not been for those men who fought in the last war, and were it not for those who are fighting in this war, we would not be able to sit here in comfort and discuss the matters we have discussed up to the present time.
The practice, in both the past and the present war, has been to recruit a number of men from the farms-in this war we are recruiting a number of women as well-to take part in the struggle at home and abroad. At the conclusion of the last war there were over 72,000 men who wanted to settle on the land. After quite a sifting out, we were able to settle 25,017 of these men. Those hon. members who were farming at that time will recall that when this settlement took place we had high land prices, high stock prices, high machinery prices; everything that went into the building up of a settler's home was at the very peak. Credit was extended to these soldiers to set themselves up, but on account of the policy which has been followed since that time in connection with agriculture these men have been faced with a condition over which they had absolutely no control.
Supply-Soldier Settlement

I think it is now recognized that at the time of settlement a number of grave mistakes were made. A number of men were settled on the land who should never have- been settled there. These men might have made a success in some other line of industry, but they were entirely unsuitable to life on the land. Many of them were placed on some of the poorest land in the western provinces. That was a mistake which could not be overcome by the settlers themselves. The total cost of the scheme at its inception was $109,034,331, and the rate of interest was fixed at five per cent. Five per cent may have looked all right to those who settled on the land at the time, but to-day we find that two per cent is considered good enough for those who make compulsory savings under the income tax act.
This and previous governments realized that mistakes had been made and consideration in different forms was given to these settlers. There was a consolidation of the loans and a little later a cancellation of interest charges. Later on there was a revaluation of the land, and then about 1930 there was a thirty per cent reduction in the loans. Still later there was the dollar for dollar bonus which was wiped out by the present government, I think about 1938. Then, still later the settlers were allowed to go before the farmers creditors' arrangement boards to have their debts adjusted. Up to December, 1941, about twenty-two years after the scheme was set in operation, the board had collected, not only from soldier settlers but from civilians and settlers under the British family scheme, an amount of $65,640,518. Up to that time the deductions which I have enumerated amounted to $47,518,215. At that time it was estimated that there could be salvaged from all settlers something like $30,000,000. This would represent an over-all loss of something like $13,000,000. I do not know the exact amount of the outstanding soldier settler loans, but I believe it would be ten or twelve million dollars.
During the period under review, from the inception of the scheme to December, 1941, the cost of administration was $25,910,495. Up to that time only 2,750 settlers had obtained title to their land. A number of others had sold out or got out because they could not see any way of getting title. As at December 31, 1941, 7,360 of the settlers who had been originally settled on the land still remained. Of these, 2,953 had an equity of 67-5 per cent; 606 had an equity of 32-2 per cent; 1,078 had an equity of 16-8 per cent, and 2,723 had no equity whatever. Breaking down these figures
fMr. Fair.]
still further, we find that 3,801, or fifty-two per cent, had an equity of less than sixteen per cent in their holdings.
Now we come to the cruel part: Because they were unable to make a living; because they had wives and families to support, a number of these settlers enlisted for service in the present war. Many of these men were heavily in debt to the soldier settlement board, but without saying very much about it we find the government hiding behind a smokescreen which one might call an order in council, and which makes provision that a certain amount of the dependents' allowance which rightfully belonged to the wives and families of men who had gone overseas was to be applied on the settlers' debt to the board. That, perhaps, is one way which the country took of showing its appreciation of the services of these men, and I do not think we should close our eyes either to the smokescreen or to the government which is hiding behind it to-day. If anyone else had done a trick like that, if we had heard that it was done over in Germany, we would have said, "What an evil bunch of people those huns are." But we find that our present government, in order to take care of the almighty dollar, played a trick like that on our men who went overseas to fight for the second time; the almighty dollar took precedence over the health and happiness and welfare of the dependents of those men.
The order in council I refer to was passed, I believe, shortly after the war broke out. A little later on, in November, 1942, another order in council was passed, which gave the right to settlers who were still on the land to make application for adjustment of their debts. That is contained in the first section. The second section gives the settlers who enlisted in the present war the right to apply for a reduction of interest to 3i per cent, which is the same rate as that extended to the proposed settlers under the Veterans' Land Act. I am wondering to-day and have wondered for quite a while why we could not have used the Bank of Canada for the creation of credit to finance this scheme and have given those settlers a rate of perhaps one per cent to cover the cost of operation of that account. I pointed out before that it was impossible for these settlers to make good, because they had bought at inflated prices and had continued to produce at below cost of production.
This question has been before the country for quite a while. The soldier settlers on the land are not organized, and because of that, as in the case of a number of other farmers,

Supply-Soldier Settlement
we find that they are the victims of an agricultural policy or lack of policy which has been in effect under the various governments.
Saskatchewan took the lead last April, and their settlers held a conference at Saskatoon on April 9. They were convinced that they could not make things go; they were not satisfied with their treatment. I shall read some of the resolutions which were passed at this conference. They are four in number, not very long, but rather effective. The first one is:
That we request all soldier settlers to withhold their applications for reduction and amortization under order in council P.C. 10472 and submit instead to the office of the Minister of Mines and Resources (Hon. T. A. Crerar), the following resolution:
"Whereas the majority of soldier settlers, although handicapped by poor crops and low prices, have already paid more than their land is worth to-day, they should now be relieved of their responsibility by the government."
I might say that these resolutions were forwarded to the Minister of Mines and Resources. Here is his answer, under date May 3, to resolution No. 1:
The essence of resolution No. 1 is that soldier settlers be given title to the lands covered by their contracts with the director of soldier settlement, the principle of which is that the Canadian taxpayers should single out a very small fraction of the total number of veterans of the last war for such treatment. Such a policy does not commend itself to the dominion government.
Resolution No. 2:
Whereas it has come to our notice that by order in council the soldier settlement board has been permitted to order deductions made from the pay and allowances of dependents of men now serving in the armed forces, to be applied against land and taxes.
Therefore we demand that the above order in council be rescinded immediately, and that any sums of money already so deducted be refunded.
The reply to that is :
With regard to resolution No. 2, no unfair deductions have been made from the assigned pay and allowance payable to dependents of members of the active service forces. At the present time there are 1,128 persons in the active forces whose dependents or representatives continue to occupy the lands which are under purchase contract from the director of soldier settlement. Of these, 279 have made voluntary assignments of amounts sufficient to meet the terms of their agreements, and in quite a number of cases of amounts which will accelerate payment for their farms. Eight hundred and four made no assignments but their agreements are nevertheless being met. In only 45 cases throughout the dominion are deductions in effect under the order in council to which you refer, but as an offset to such deductions the dependents concerned have the use of the farm and the revenue therefrom.
Resolution No. 3:
That this mass meeting of soldier settlers is opposed to any land settlement scheme for men of the armed forces serving in the present war and instead favours payment of an outright cash bonus to these men instead of saddling them with debt and interest charges.
The minister replies:
Regarding resolution No. 3, it is a matter of record that approximately 60,000 men now serving with the active forces have expressed a preference for land settlement upon their return to civil life. The Veterans' Land Act 1942 contains provision for a substantial grant to the settler upon the fulfilment of reasonable conditions. This seems to be an effective answer to the views expressed by your relatively small group at Saskatoon.
Might I pause here for a moment to comment that, unless an agricultural policy is made effective in this country which will guarantee cost of production to soldier settlers and other agriculturists, the men under the Veterans' Land Act must necessarily go on the rocks. I urge that precautions be taken now to put such an agricultural policy into effect.
Resolution No. 4:
That we condemn the threatening attitude adopted by officials of the soldier settlement board in collection of payments from soldier settlers.
This is the minister's reply:
Resolution No. 4 relates to collection policy, and I am reluctant to believe that threatening tactics are being resorted to in cases where there is inability to pay which results from factors beyond the control of the settlers concerned. In credit operations there are always a few cases where firmness is required in making collections, and in fairness to those who meet their obligations fully and on time the director of soldier settlement insists upon payment by those who are inclined to pay scant attention to their principal creditor.
In conclusion, I wish to observe that resolutions of this character are most unfair to the great majority of soldier settlers and they express a singular lack of understanding of all that has been done by succesive governments to overcome undue hardships which have confronted those who are established under the Soldier Settlement Act. I am quite prepared at all times to make inquiry into individual cases where it can be shown that there has been unfair treatment, but the generality of the resolutions you have submitted makes individual identification impossible. I trust, however, that the foregoing will place some of these matters in a more favourable light.
In commenting upon that reply, I would say that the soldier settlement officials are bound by government policy to make those collections; and as soon as government policy is fixed, I believe the officials, including the director and his assistants, will be only too glad to conform with any policy which may be adopted by the government. In the very near future we shall have a number of the men and women who are serving overseas coming back to settle on the land, so that I
Supply-Soldier Settlement

suggest that the government take immediate action. These cases of settlers harassed for the last twenty years are sticking up very prominently, and a number of us are witnesses of their cases, and know how they slaved over the last twenty years or more in trying to make their payments but were still unsuccessful. I feel that the government will be removing a cause of complaint among the new settlers by taking care of those already on the land.
There is a part of the reply to resolution No. 2 which I omitted to read. It is as follows:
The average voluntary assignment is $16 per month, and the average deduction by order in council is $14.20. Apparently the backers of this resolution did not take into account that there are thousands of dependents of enlisted men who are occupying rented homes in Canadian towns and cities for which they must pay regular rent. That is one of the purposes for which these allowances are made.
I omitted that, and I may also remark that when the returns were being made in answer to a question which I placed on the order paper, this and some other correspondence was omitted from the list supplied.
Following this, we have another meeting of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League, Alberta provincial command. On June 6 to 9, at a provincial convention held in the memorial hall, Edmonton, some more resolutions were passed. I will read resolution No. 1:
Whereas the majority of original soldier settlers who are still endeavouring to carry on under the soldier settlement scheme, have now found it, owing to advanced years and the adverse conditions prevailing in agriculture, particularly the lack of parity prices, increasingly difficult to liquidate their indebtedness to the soldier settlement board;
And whereas the settlers have struggled on through years of drought conditions and low prices unprecedented in the agricultural history of this country and have now nothing to show for their years of toil and struggle but whatever equity they may have in the land which is liable for foreclosure;
Therefore be it resolved that we now petition the government to relieve the soldier settler of any further payments and that they be given the title deed to their land or, failing this, that a parliamentary committee in conjunction with representation from the dominion command of the Canadian Legion, review the whole situation of the soldier settler with a view to alleviating their present financial difficulties.
Resolution No. 2:
Whereas it has come to our notice that by order in council the soldier settlement board has been permitted to order deductions made from the pay and allowances of dependents of men now serving in the armed forces to be applied against land and taxes.
Therefore we ask that this order in council be rescinded immediately, and that any sums of money so deducted be refunded. . . .

Comrade R. H. Inglis, Wetaskiwin,
Chairman
Comrade S. Bowcott, Edmonton Comrade J. G. Baker, Camrose Comrade T. Sneddon, Calgary Comrade Neil Donald, Barhead
The signatories are, I believe, the members of the soldier settlers committee.
While dealing with resolutions, may I read one which I placed on the order paper on February 15 last:
Whereas veterans of great war No. 1 who settled on land under the soldier settlement board scheme, as well as their wives and families, have in many instances suffered severe hardships because of purchase of land and equipment at inflationary prices, and,
Whereas the present agricultural policy does not guarantee cost of production.
Therefore be it resolved,-that, in the opinion of this house the government should take into consideration the advisability of giving clear title to soldier settlers still on the land who have paid to the hoard, either as principal or interest, an amount equal to fifty per cent of the original purchase price, and in the case of those who have paid less than fifty per cent, their outstanding debt to be reduced accordingly.
I am quite willing to amend that resolution to place it in line with those passed by the soldier settlers conference at Saskatoon on April 9 and the Alberta command of the legion at Edmonton on June 6 to 9. I feel that if each Canadian citizen were to put up one dollar in taxes, which he would never notice, for it is only a drop in the bucket compared with what we are contributing by way of taxation to-day, and of which I am not complaining, we could relieve these men who went over in 1914 to 1918 and wipe the slate clean. Let us give these men and women, after their twenty-odd years of struggle, something on account of the very great debt we owe them. It will cost us one dollar each to do it; let us do it before it is too late.
We find that in order to keep payments in good standing it was necessary for settlers to pay on their indebtedness 7-1 per cent of total indebtedness each year. In 1925 the average percentage paid was 3-75; in 1926, 5-63. May I point out that those were good years compared with what we have had since-very good years indeed, because in 1926 wheat averaged over SI.40 a bushel. Later on, that average was cut down to below forty cents, without taking into consideration the dollar. In 1931 the average payment was 3-52 per cent, approximately half of what they would have had to pay in order to keep their accounts in good standing; in 1932 the average was 2-79 per cent; in 1933, when prices were forced to very low levels, those men and women were able to pay 2-06 per cent. In 1933 wheat went

Supply*-Soldier Settlement
down to 19% cents a bushel in my territory for No. 1, and the average grade there was No. 4 tough, which netted us 12% cents a bushel. Some of these people had to sell feed wheat, and in some cases where carload lots were shipped an amount had to be paid to the elevator company to take care of the freight charges, because the wheat, after being shipped to Fort William, did not sell for enough to take care of freight charges, without speaking of threshing and other expenses. The best grade hogs were sold at two cents a pound, eggs at three cents a dozen, butterfat at nine cents a pound. I ask the government, was it possible under those conditions, over which the government had at least some control, for these people to make a living and keep up their payments; and is it right that now, after all these hardships which have been endured, for the government still to insist that these people pay the last pound of flesh, the last dollar?
During the period when we had these low prices for agricultural products, what was happening to machinery prices? So far as I am aware there was only one year when the price of the farm machinery which these people were compelled to pay in order to produce was lowered, and then it was only about S5 on each implement they had to buy. So that I do not see any reasonableness whatever in compelling these people, who, as I said before, went over and fought so that we may enjoy the liberty we have to-day, being asked to complete their contracts. If they were not able to pay up during the twenty years they have been on the farms, what are the prospects under present conditions of clearing up their debts during the next twenty years? The approximate average age of these men is now, I believe, fifty-four years. Some of them are pretty close to seventy years old, and if we condemn them to another twenty years in the penitentiary, what is the use of their trying to live or eke out an existence? Let us take the humanitarian side of the question into consideration and forget the almighty dollar for once in our lives.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Robert Fair: Supply-Soldier Settlement

I am going to go a little farther if this situation is not remedied in the near future. I am making a temperate request to-day; and if the Minister of Mines and Resources and the other members of the government could hear some of the remarks I have heard on the trains, in restaurants and in other places, talking with men and women of the armed services, the Minister of Mines would get off the treasury board and use his influence to see that titles were granted to these men and women who have suffered for a long number of years in order that we might have the privileges which the minister and the rest of us enjoy at the present time.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Had it not been for the last five minutes of my hon. friend's speech I would not have wearied the committee at this late hour of the session by attempting anything in the nature of a reply. The hon. member has certainly been persistent in putting his point of view before the house and the country. I regret that it is an extreme point of view, when we take into consideration the treatment that has been given to the soldiers of the last war who settled on farms in Canada.
In the opening part of his remarks the other day the hon. member quoted a statement made by Sir Robert Borden, giving what Sir Robert-and it was the point of view of the government of that time-regarded as the obligation of the country to the returned men. I believe that on any fair examination of this whole question, so far as the land settlement part of the work done for the returned men of the last war is concerned, they have been fairly treated.
The hon. member identifies himself with the request made by a small group of soldier settlers who met in Saskatoon some time during the past year. They have put forward the demand that they should receive titles to their property and should not be asked to make any further payments, either of arrears or of amounts owing in the future. That point of view has been very strongly pressed by this little group, but I say to my hon. friend that to consider anything of the kind would be a gross injustice to the thousands of soldier settlers who have met their obligations and who are meeting them to-day and are not asking for treatment of this kind.
I know there are some soldier settlers who, notwithstanding all the aid they could be given, would even then probably not make a success of their farming operations; but I may give the committee, since my hon. friend has brought up the matter, one or two illus-

trations to show how little substance there is in the plea made by the hon. member. One of the soldier settlers, a man who was active in this meeting in Saskatoon-indeed he was one of the chief organizers of the meeting-has had a reduction in his indebtedness, incurred from the time he settled on his farm, of $6,337.98. Not only that, but he is in receipt of a pension-no; I am wrong. It was another case I was thinking of.


Robert Fair: I thought the minister was wrong.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I congratulate the hon. gentleman upon the acuteness of his intelligence. What I was going to say was that last year, in 1942, this settler had 3,150 bushels of wheat and 2,000 bushels of oats. That was his own statement to the administrative office of the soldier settlement board in Saskatoon. I might add that this crop came from 145 acres of land, so that he must have a pretty good farm. Up to April of this year he had not paid a dollar on his obligations for the current year.


Robert Fair: What is the name of that man, please?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not going to give his name here. I would have no objection to giving it to my hon. friend privately, but I do not wish to mention it in the house. Furthermore, evidence has come to the attention of the soldier settlement administration that within the last few months, in response to an advertisement, this settler listed his farm for sale, placing on it a value of $6,000, and asking a cash payment of $4,000. That is probably one of the most extreme cases, but those are the facts in this instance, and that is the sort of thing for which my hon. friend is making a plea to-day.


Robert Fair: That is not correct.
Mr. CRERAR; Of course it is.


Robert Fair: No. The minister is taking a case at one extreme, but he is not going to the other extreme.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I did not interrupt my hon. friend while he was speaking, but I could cite other cases as well. The hon. gentleman made the plea that these farmers should get at least the cost of production. Well, how is one going to get evidence as to what is the cost of production? Let me give the committee some information as to how this soldier settlement account as a whole has operated. Current payments due from soldier settlers, that is payments coming due in the autumn of 1942 for the period from April 1, 1942, to

Supply-Soldier Settlement
March 31, 1943, amounted to $983,900 in round figures. Of that total, $841,000 was paid, and I venture to say that this record compares favourably with what can be found on the books of any private mortgage company. It is not correct to say that the government was hounding these people to pay their debts. Proof of that is found in the fact that in addition to the payments from soldier settlers last year on current accounts, they paid over $257,000 in advance against future years. My hon. friend can consult any business house, any rural municipalities, any people who do business in the rural communities of western Canada; they will all tell him that their collections are in better shape now than they have been for many years. In the light of those facts, for my hon. friend to rise and endeavour to give the committee and the country the impression that this government is dealing harshly and hardly with these soldier settlers is wholly misleading. On reflection I think my hon. friend would agree that such criticism is not very wide of the mark.
The hon. gentleman outlined some of the benefits that have been given to returned men. There is no doubt that the soldier settlement scheme was hastily improvised following the last war, and in many cases too much was paid for land, equipment and live stock. It will be recalled that this scheme became operative in the latter part of 1919, and during 1919 and 1920 inflation did its deadly work as far as costs were concerned. Everyone knows the inflated values of land, live stock and farm machinery at that time. From 1914 to 1920 the prices of farm machinery in this country practically doubled.


Clarence Gillis: Why?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Because we were in the midst of a serious inflation. I remember that hogs were selling at 20 cents a pound live weight.
Mr. GI'LLIS: Because somebody wanted to exploit the public.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No; my hon. friend is quite wrong in it. There was inflation all along the line, in -wages, in the cost of goods, in the price the farmers received for their products. While farmers were selling hogs at twenty cents a pound live weight and beef cattle for something like fourteen cents a pound, they were paying $8 a hundred for flour and twenty-six cents a pound for sugar. That was the result of the inflationary spiral that took place at that time and, just as an aside, that is one of the things we have tried to prevent during the present war. I merely mention that to emphasize the fact that the
72537-340}
returned men who settled on the land at that time -were placed under very severe handicaps, which were recognized later on by parliament and the country. Then, through reductions of one kind and another, and under the provisions of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, an effort was made to get this whole thing into a fair balance; and on the whole I think that has been successfully achieved.
I repeat that to meet the hon. member's request and wipe off the outstanding indebtedness of soldier settlers would be unjust to those settlers who paid off their debts and to-day have title to their land. Why, during the last year several hundred of these soldier settlers have paid off what they owed on their land and acquired title to it. I can assure hon. members that the government has no desire to deal harshly with any of these men. We recognize what they did from 1914 to 1918 but, after all, governments have to shape their policies in line with the general good. If to-day we took the action urged by my hon. friend and wiped off the existing indebtedness of soldier settlers, it would be a gross injustice to those who have met and are meeting their obligations.


Robert Fair: In reply to the minister's argument-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Robert Fair: It is not carried yet. If hon. gentlemen who are silent most of the time want to go home, that is all right with me; I have a case to present for the soldier settlers, and I am going to present it. The minister says that the treatment given was all right. I am not satisfied that it was all right, and the trouble that exists at present is a direct result of the fact that the treatment was wrong in the beginning. Inflated prices were, paid, and as a result these men are still suffering. The minister says that gross injustice would be done to those who have . obtained title to their land if these settlers were given clear titles. I must say that the number who have obtained title is not very large. When we look at the figures we find that something like 2,750 altogether got title to the land up to two years ago. That is not a very great figure, out of 25,000, after twenty or more years. A number of those who had got title perhaps did not pay such a high price for their land, live stock and other equipment. Then again, perhaps they had a succession of crops without failures. I know a number of those who have gone under were victims of crop failures, for different reasons, so that I believe that takes care of that particular point.
Supply-Soldier Settlement

Again, the minister told us that a number of these men could not succeed, no matter what the conditions were. I will agree with that, because I believe a number of men who were settled on the land should never have been settled there. They were not fitted for farming, and would have made a success if they had been placed in some other line of work.
Then the minister spoke about the organizer of the Saskatoon conference. I am not making any case to-day for the organizer of that conference. I do not know who the man was. I did see some letters in the Western Producer which led me to believe that the minister's statement was not quite correct. I am speaking about this matter in general, and I am not picking out any who are well to do, or any others who are very, very poor. I am talking for those who are on the land at the present time, and also for those who have been on the land, but have been compelled to get off.
Then the minister asked who could estimate the cost of production. Time and again I have pointed out to the government that industry has been able to get statisticians and accountants who could work out the cost of ships, planes, guns and everything else needed for the war. If they were not able to do that, how in the world would we haye paid out all the money we have paid out, and have remained satisfied to pay it.
Again, when speaking of cost of production, let me ask the minister this question: Has the government ever estimated the cost of the interest on credits advanced to soldier settlers; and if they have, what is the percentage in excess of actual cost. The minister said that current amounts payable for 1942 amounted to S9S3.000. That is the amount which should have been paid. Actual payments were $841,000. The minister will not dispute the fact that at the present time we are getting much better prices than we have had for a number of years. In 1942 we had the best crop Canada ever had-and I say "best"', because there were not many crops grown in western Canada before I went out to that country.
Another reason is the price being paid for live stock to-day. May I give the minister one more reason, in case he has forgotten it; I have given it once before, but I shall repeat it. During the period from April 1, 1941, to March 31, 1943, there were 253 settlers who signed quit claim deeds, and 108 were served with 30-day notices. I say without fear of successful contradiction that the fear of being
rMr. Fair.l
driven from their homes has been the cause of many people going to the insane institutions in Canada. We have many there now, and we will have more before this matter is cleared up.
Conditions on the farm, both for soldier settlers and for civilians have been drastic and, to a very great extent, have been ignored because the government is not concerned. If the government cannot find statisticians and accountants in Ottawa, then let them go out and get the information from some of the farmers. I am not seeking either the highest or the low'est cost of production. But we can at least strike an average, and when the -average has been struck we should get at least a parity price, or the same treatment as is being accorded to labour at the present time.
I am not complaining about the manner in which labour is being treated to-day. We know it is performing a necessary service, and they are being paid a good wage. Why not use exactly the same means to figure out the cost of production of farmers? I believe the figures I have given the minister will possibly set him right as to the reasons for the 1942 payments being as near meeting current accounts as they did.
During the past years western provinces have enacted debt legislation for the protection of farmers and others. That legislation has always been wiped away-or at least it was, until the measure which was passed the other day. I have in mind the one which took the place of the former Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. That is one more reason which the minister might consider, and for which he must take some responsibility, for having the payments brought up so very close to what they should be in 1942.
He has said that between 1914 and 1920 the price of machinery almost doubled. I tell him he had better check his figures, because since 1920 we have had a far greater increase in the price of farm machinery than we had between 1914 and 1920.
The minister said we were paying $8 a hundred for flour and $26 a hundred for sugar. At the present time we are guaranteed 90 cents a bushel for our wheat. Because of gambling, to-day the price is SI .07 or approximately that, and that price has existed only for the past few weeks. In 1920, when those fancy prices were being paid for flour and sugar, does the minister remember what the price of wheat was? Does he remember that at one time it went as high as $3.60 a bushel? Does he remember that at that time, when the farmers

Supply-Soldier Settlement
had a chance to pay off some of their debts, the government set up a wheat board to cut down and to control the price of wheat? Did they set up a board to cut down the price of machinery, and other things the farmers are compelled to buy? No, they did not. It was not in their interests to do so. The minister has said that people have acquired titles in the past few years. I think the records will show what number of titles have been acquired. And because my speech was broken the other day I shall read again into the record the speech delivered by the late Sir Robert Borden to the Canadian Expeditionary Force in 1917.
I say it is important that this parliament should do its duty to the men of the last war. This is what he said:
You are men actually facing the enemy day and night. You are suffering greatly from fatigue, over-strain, and lack of rest. The marvel of it is that men could undergo such a strain without breaking; but you have never yet broken, and history will appreciate that in days to come.
You men are about to enter one of the most serious engagements that ever faced the Canadian corps. I cannot, at this moment, give any information as to where this attack will be staged, whether it be successful or not, it is to be borne in mind that it will not be an easy success. ... We feel confident that you will succeed where others failed; for you have never yet failed in anything you have set your hand to, as a Canadian corps.
You can go into this action feeling assured of this, and as the head of the government, I give you this assurance; that you need have no fear that the government and the country will fail to show just appreciation of your service to the country and empire in what you are about to do and what you have already done.
The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of the people at home, and it will always be our endeavour to so guide the attitude of public opinion, that the country will support the government to prove to the returned man its just and due appreciation of the inestimable value of the services rendered to the country and empire; and that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken with the men who won and the men who died.
I am trying to bring to the attention of the committee and of the country the duty that we owe these men. In conclusion, let me say:
We love our nation's heroes dead,
We very much adore 'em,
And since they haven't to be fed We build grand tombstones o'er them.
These lines are not funny; they are incredibly, bitterly, damnably true. Let us clean up this mess.


Victor Quelch: I had intended to speak
at some length on this question, but since the hour is getting late and the hon. member for Battle River has spoken at some length, I shall be very brief. The minister stated that the request put forward by the hon. member for Battle River represents only a small number of soldiers, and he referred to the meeting at Saskatoon. I think he overlooks the fact that the legion in annual convention at Calgary passed a similar resolution, and the legion to-day speaks for a large percentage of the soldiers of this country.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not aware that the
legion organization had asked for the wiping out of all soldier settlement debt.


Victor Quelch: The hon. member for
Battle River read a resolution to that effect passed by the Alberta legion. I did not say it was the legion representing all Canada. The minister said also that it would hardly be fair to the soldiers who have paid off their debts if we wiped out or greatly reduced the debts of other soldiers. That argument would apply to all debt legislation; it would be equally true of civilian debts. If the minister's argument is a sound one, we should wipe out the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act; we should do away with all debt legislation. I think one realizes that where a person can pay, he should pay, but where he cannot pay, then a reduction will have to be made. That is in regard to civilian debt. In so far as this soldier debt is concerned, I believe we would have been better off if we had wiped out the whole debt at the start, because the cost of administration has practically equalled the amount of the debt. I think most of us feel dissatisfied with the government's policy regarding soldier settlement. There are only 7,000 soldiers still on the land, 2,000 of whom have no equity in their land. I should like to quote one paragraph from the repgrt of the special committee on land settlement which sat last year. It reads:
3. The minister may with the approval of the governor in council appoint a committee of not more than three members to be known as the adjustment committee at such rate of remuneration as the governor in council may fix and allow and for a period of not more than twelve months with powers to review and confirm or reduce the indebtedness of soldier settlers whose agreements with the director of soldier settlement were the subjects of proposals formulated under the provisions of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act prior to October 1, 1939, or in the case of such other soldier settler as may be recommended by the director, with
53S0
Supply-Soldier Settlement

the objective if feasible and practical of establishing an equity for the settler; provided that the settler is in personal occupation of the land and that such agreements have not been terminated, rescinded or assigned.
The minister is fully aware that there was considerable discussion on that section. I think the majority of the committee were in favour of applying the principles of the new act to the soldier settlers of the last war, so that they might be given an equity of forty-three per cent and have their interest rate reduced to three and a half per cent. I must admit that I am amazed that no provision has been made up to the present time to cut the rate of interest on the old soldier settler debt to three and a half per cent in order to make it conform with the interest charged the settlers of this war. As I said, the discussion at that time was in favour of giving the soldiers of the last war an equity in their land, and I definitely had the understanding that was going to be done. I was amazed when order in council P.C. 10472 was passed, and I received a circular letter, from which I quote as follows:
(b) make application to the director for a reduction of his indebtedness to the director, and the treasury board may on the recommendation of the director confirm or reduce such indebtedness, provided, however, that the recommendation made by the director shall be based upon the amount which in his judgment constitutes the present e._j prospective productive value of the land; the effective date of reduction if any shall be the standard date in 1942.
Apparently the order in council does not provide for the giving of any equity in his land to the soldier; it merely reduces the debt to its present-day value. As the minister must know very well, if it is considered necessary to give the soldier settler of the present war a forty-three per cent equity in his land, in order that this soldier can carry on, how can it be expected that the soldier settler of the last war, who is now getting along in years, whose equipment, generally speaking, is in poor shape, whose buildings have depreciated, can get along even though the debt is extended for another twenty years? As I say, if the soldier of this war cannot do it with a forty-three per cent equity and new equipment, how can we expect the soldier of the last war to do it with no equity in his land, with worn-out machinery and with depreciated buildings? It absolutely cannot be done. Imagine, how the soldiers felt when it was suggested that their debts should be amortized over another twenty years! They have not been able to pay them in twenty years, and they will not be able to do it in the next twenty years when they are getting that much older.
rMr Quelch.]
In spite of the fact that the order in council does not make any provision to give the soldier settler an equity in his land, the soldier settlement board is taking a more liberal view of that order in council. But why should the director of the soldier settlement board be handicapped by having to take action which really is not in conformity with the order in council? The order in council does not provide for the giving of an equity, and yet I believe the soldier settlement board is granting a certain equity. The director should not be placed in a position where he has to go beyond the provisions of the order in council.
I am worried about the soldier settler who has no equity in his land. He is getting on in years and he cannot do the work himself. He now finds himself in a position were his farm will not pay sufficient to service his debt, keep him and his family and pay for a hired man to do the work. It has been suggested that such a man should sign a quitclaim and leave the land. Where is he to go? It may be said that he could live on his war veteran's allowance, but I ask any hon. member if he would like to wander around Canada and try to establish himself on $20 a month. It is not so bad if a man is married, for then he would receive $40, but a single man getting only $20 or $25 a month will have pretty heavy going. I think it is high time the government faced this situation realistically. The minister probably considers that this problem will solve itself, because it is only a question of time before these soldiers all die off. But that is not the way to deal with the problem. I am going to make a suggestion to the minister which I think is a reasonable one and will not cost very much money. The government should erect a number of medium priced cottages located in some pleasant surroundings for instance on the Pacific coast and let these old soldiers who cannot work any more live in them rent free. Ownership would not be given over; they would simply be permitted to live there rent free on their veterans' allowances and finish out their lives in peace and contentment.	[DOT]


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I know the time is getting late and I am not going to take up any time other than to say that I associate myself wholeheartedly with what the hon. member for Battle River and the hon. member for Acadia have said.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to put one question to the minister. Two or three times when matters like this have been raised we have been asked, "How are you going to compute the cost of producing any agricultural

Supply-Finance
commodity, such as wheat?" In return I ask, "How do they compute the cost of a mowing machine?" There seems to be no difficulty in computing that and determining what the farmer must pay. There seems to be not the slightest difficulty in determining the cost of a suit of clothes which the farmer must buy, or a pair of shoes. How are those costs computed? If a group of men went to work with thorough zeal to compute the cost of producing oats and barley and other farm commodities, I think they would have no difficulty in doing so.


Clarence Gillis: I have had considerable correspondence in the past with the department on matters of this kind, and I am led to make these remarks to-day on account of the minister's observation that a lot of the difficulty to-day is owing to the inflated prices of land after the last war. We are going through a similar experience now. We have a land settlement scheme and there will be hundreds of soldiers who will settle on the land after this war. I am anxious that we shall not permit those who wish to make money out of the exigencies of war to create a situation similar to what we have now; that land speculators, looking ahead to feather their own nests, shall not be permitted to put their representatives on these boards. Most of the land to-day in western Canada and to some extent in eastern Canada is in the hands of the mortgage companies and banks. If you will note the personnel of the boards that are being set up to administer the soldier settlement scheme you will see that these are the very people who are in on the machinery that is going to administer the scheme. The subject of inflation is conveniently brought in every time that the interests of the common people are affected.
Let us, however, clarify our minds on this subject. I do not claim to be a monetary expert. I have another term than inflation for what is going on.	It is profiteering,
robbery, some people taking advantage of their country's emergency to make things easier for themselves and to guarantee their future at the expense of the country. Look at what happened in Britain. During the first seven months of the war, prices increased by twenty-five per cent. There was no ceiling on wage rates at that time, but prices of commodities were sent up by those who sought to take advantage of the confusion. Then from December, 1940, until the end of last year wage rates and the salaries of the mass of the people went up as high as thirty-seven per cent in some cases, and during the same period the increase in the cost of living was only 3-3 per cent. So that it is
obvious that the run-away in prices during the early months of the war was not caused by any economic disturbance in the wage rates and salaries of the great majority of the people.
I shall not go into details now, but the conditions I have described are to be found to some extent in my own part of the country, and the minister and those who devise the regulations will have to understand that all cases are not the same. There are men on the land to-day who took up the land twenty-five years ago and raised a family of boys and girls who have since grown up. Markets changed, and many of the settlers eventually found themselves unable to discharge their obligations. Some administrative latitude should be allowed to take care of these cases. I would not say that the obligations should be wiped out altogether, but a careful examination should be made of cases where there are hardships and if there are extenuating circumstances, some latitude should be allowed. I do want to urge on the minister at this time that land speculators be not allowed to go in and create a similar situation to what we had after the last war.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
46. Departmental administration, $466,942.
Mr. REID:: Even at this late stage of the session there is a matter of importance which I must bring up. I raised the question of honey prices in British Columbia when the minister's estimates under the war appropriation were before the committee, and on the following day the minister was good enough to bring down to the house an answer given to him, I suppose, by the wartime prices and trade board, in which the statements made by the beekeepers of British Columbia were contradicted. I immediately air-mailed the minister's statement out to the beekeepers, and I am taking the opportunity now on behalf of the beekeepers to refute the statements given to the minister, I presume by the wartime prices and trade board. I make the statement that the board have given him wrong information, and I am going to place on the record alongside the statement the minister gave, the latest information I have received from the beekeepers of British Columbia. I received this letter from the British Columbia honey producers' association:
For your information I want to say that the cost of a 14-ounce jar of British Columbia honey before the war was 25 cents. A one-pound jar sold for 30 cents, although the cut
Supply-Finance

rate departmental stores occasionally priced these as specials at 23 cents and 28 cents respectively. Imported -honey-mostly sweet clover-from the prairie provinces usually sold in the larger stores at from three to five cents lower after paying transportation charges from distant points to Vancouver.
By the way, there are 5,000 beekeepers in British Columbia.
The letter continues:
Over 90 per cent of our beekeepers must sell their product direct to the public, mostly in 4-pound cans, the pre-war price of which was 80 cents plus the cost of the container. The ceiling price allowed by the wartime prices and trade board for a 4-pound can is 67 cents plus the container.
The cost of beekeeping supplies has increased about 20 per cent. Wages of helpers are considerably higher; yet the British Columbia beekeepers are compelled to sell their honey at a lower price -than formerly in face of the increase in the cost of living. Mr. Ilsley ignores the fact that Mexican honey of very inferior quality is being sold to the general public in competition with our own honey. This honey can be bought at many of the chain and departmental stores regardless of the minister's statement that some imports of Mexican honey were authorized for sale or use by industrial _ users of honey or contractors operating logging camps. I personally interviewed the manager of the Safeway Stores here in New Westminster yesterday, and *was shown a 12-ounce jar of Mexican honey, grade No. 2. The price was 24 cents for 12 ounces. The quality was very inferior and, in my opinion, unfit for table use. The sale of this kind of stuff to the public is detrimental to the Canadian honey industry as many people who, owing to the scarcity of sugar, may buy honey for the first time will probably swear off honey for life, after tasting this Mexican stuff. British Columbia beekeepers are rightly proud of the quality of their honey. As you know, their honey displays at the fall fairs o,f New Westminster and Vancouver were for many years the largest and finest of any in the dominion of Canada. They have consistently secured the highest -honours for quality year after year whenever they have exhibited their honey at the imperial fruit and honey show's in England, in competition with not only the rest of Canada but with the whole British empire. The majority of the awards came -to British Columbia beekeepers, which can be verified by the report of our agent general for British Columbia, Mr. A. W. MeAdam.
Here is a serious statement, and a serious situation. A price is set for honey all over Canada which is far lower than -the pre-war price for honey in British Columbia. On top of that, imported honey of a much inferior grade is being imported into British Columbia from Mexico and selling for 35 cents a pound, whereas the price for our local honey has been set by the wartime prices and trade board at only 15i cents a pound. I am sorry I have not brought a sample of this Mexican honey with me; it is being airmailed to me, as the following letter shows;

I am forwarding you a parcel containing two small samples of honey just as I received them from Mr. C. L. Dimock of Smithers, B.C. This is the honey mentioned in my previous correspondence with copy of Mr. Dimock's letter.
The white honey is British Columbia honey produced in Smithers, that Mr. Dimock is allowed to sell retail at 15J cents in bulk. The dark honey is what Smithers merchants sold, according to Mr. Dimock, for 30 cents a pound.
The other part jar is a sample of Mexican honey purchased by -a neighbour from Sa-few-ays, Ltd., New Westminster. She says she was determined to eat it, after paying such a high price for the stuff, but that her courage failed her by the time it was half gone and she glad-ly gave it away. I think you will agree with my opinion that it is unfit for table use.
What is the wartime prices and trade board going to do about it? Here is stuff coming in that is not fit to eat and being sold at 35 cents a pound, while the price of our own local honey has been fixed at 35 cents a pound. I ask the minister to take the statement I have put on the record from the British Columbia honey producers' association back to whoever gave him his information and have them put on the mat. I should like to be there during that interview because I know a little of the subject I am discussing. We have another grievance. The minister pointed out that pasteurized honey can be sold at li cents per pound. That is very nice. But what do you think has happened? There is a method introduced by some honey producers in Ontario called -the Dyce patented process of pasteurizing honey, and although the beekeepers of British Columbia have been pasteurizing honey for the past forty years, their pasteurization is just swept aside and they are not allowed- to come under the price of li cents. They must use this patented so-called Dyce process. We claim that is a hold-up and that our method of pasteurizing honey should be recognized. I would ask the minister to take these statements seriously into consideration in the light of the conditions that exist to-day and have the matter further investigated.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have the hon. gentleman's statements carefully investigated.


George Alexander McLean: I suggest that there is a serious defect in the method of procedure by -which the House of Commons deals with the items of supply submitted to us for approval. There is no adequate procedure by which we may put ourselves in a position intelligently to deal with the amounts submitted to us for our approval. Year after year, and this year again, I have heard criticism of the government for having the estimates dealt with so late in the session in

Supply-Finance
large amounts. But no matter at what tirhe they are dealt with, the weakness I suggest would still be there. I am going to vote that this item before us be approved by the committee, but I am not in a position to judge whether or not the amount asked for, or an amount somewhat less, might be sufficient to carry on adequately and properly the work of the department. If I were to ask any other private member of the house whether he is in a position to determine that question, he -would have to answer, no. The same applies to the vast majority of items submitted to us. How can we know? What method is there, what procedure, by which we can put ourselves in a position intelligently to vote on the amounts submitted to us? True, we can ask the minister questions, and I think all hon. members will agree that the minister now presiding has had infinite patience throughout the session in answering questions. We might ask all the questions we liked and he might answer to the best of his ability with the assistance of the officials in front of him. During the session vve can put questions on the order paper or have motions passed for the production of papers and for orders for returns and all that sort of thing. But every private member will agree that these methods are cumbersome and slow and entirely inadequate for the purpose I have in mind.
It is also true that any individual member, if he has initiative and is persistent enough, may dig up a certain amount of information for himself, with regard to the administration of this, that and the other branch. But I do submit that it should not be necessary for a private member, in order to discharge the duty which he owes to those who elect him, to put himself in the unenviable position, if I may use a crude phrase, of poking his nose into the affairs of this, that and the other department. It should not be possible that members of the staff should be subjected to criticism or censure because of the suspicion that they might be supplying to private members information regarding their branch.
It is the right of every private member, more than that, it is his duty, to familiarize himself with the method by which all public money is expended. It is the right and the duty of every private member, by some regularly established procedure, to be able to judge whether or not economies and improvements are possible in the administration of any department of government for which he is asked to vote supply. If I were to ask other private members whether they think
that as regards seventy-five per cent of the items submitted to them for approval, they are able to determine whether it is possible that, with care and economy, the amount they were asked to vote might be reduced two, five, ten or twenty per cent, if they answered truthfully they would have to say no. They do not know; they are not in a position to know. Our procedure does not provide any means by which they may put themselves in that position. .
This is not criticism of the government. Is it not a fact that when we vote on seventy-five per cent of these items we vote blind confidence, not just in the members of the cabinet-I have a high degree of confidence in the members of the cabinet-but blind confidence that those who are assisting and advising the cabinet, the members of their staffs, from the deputy minister down, at all times and in all things give adequate consideration to the interests of the taxpayers? This is not criticism of the government. If there is a weakness in our system the effects of that weakness will operate no matter what government is in power. Nor is this criticism of the staffs. The most efficient members of the ministers' staffs, the most valuable civil servant, valuable as he may be in carrying out the work of his department, may be, by reason of his background and training, lamentably lacking in appreciation of dollars and cents, just as in private enterprise there are many very valuable employees, highly skilled men, men indispensable to the organization in other ways, perhaps men in charge of sales or of advertising, or research, who nevertheless are likewise lamentably lacking in a conception of the value of dollars and cents, and who must be continually checked up. And private enterprise does not fail to provide that check.
In what I am saying with regard to the estimates, I am not referring of course to the great bulk of our war expenditures. We have the war expenditures committee, and it is supposed to deal with those items. Here I am dealing only with ordinary expenditures. My suggestion is that a method should be adopted by which private members will be in a position to judge intelligently on the amounts of supply submitted to them for their approval. It may be recalled that last session I took occasion, at some length and in great detail, to submit to the house examples from one small department of what I regarded as waste, inefficiency, lack of economical organization and the unnecessary expenditure of money. I do not propose to follow that course at this time. I have not done so this session.
Supply-Finance

If I were to judge by any morsel of support I have received in this house I should have to come to the conclusion that I was all wrong. But, Mr. Chairman, I was not wrong. I can assert now that the statements I made on that occasion were mild in relation to matters as they were at that time and as they are still, to a very large extent. I am not going to pursue that further; my statement is on record, and it has not been challenged.
I want to ' suggest now a change in our procedure in order that private members of the house may be able to familiarize themselves with all these matters and be in a position to vote intelligently on every item coming before us. I suggest that immediately the house assembles for the next session a committee be set up, with wide powers of examination, to which the estimates shall be submitted. It may be recalled that early this session the Prime Minister announced that he was considering setting up such a committee, but that before doing so he wished to consult the leaders of the other parties. I do not know whether that consultation took place, or, if it did, what was the attitude of the leaders of the other parties, but for some reason or other that action has not been taken. I should think that, from the point of view of carrying out efficiently the important functions of an opposition, this would be the very thing opposition members would want. This is precisely what we do in connection with most legislation. When an important bill is brought before the house by the government very often it is referred to a select committee. That committee may sit as often as it wishes; it may call as witnesses anyone inside or outside the service, in order to become familiar with every detail and all the implications of each section of the bill. Any hon. member who is interested, even though he is not a member of the committee, may sit in and listen. The proceedings of the committee are printed and made available to all members of the house, and the time of the whole house is not taken up with the matter while the committee is dealing with it. Then when hon. members have to vote on that bill there is no reason at all why they should not do so intelligently and with full knowledge of what they are doing.
That is precisely what I think ought to be done in connection with this other important function of this house, namely the voting of supply which must be provided through the taxes of the people whom we represent. Someone may suggest that this is the function of the public accounts committee. I entirely

disagree. Usually it has been the function of that committee to investigate suggestions or charges of maladministration, something culpably wrong; and we all know that the tendency is for members of the opposition to try to produce evidence of maladministration and perhaps exaggerate it, while on the other hand members supporting the government offer a defence and attempt to minimize it. Invariably considerations of political advantage or disadvantage intrude into the deliberations of the committee; they always have and I suppose they always will. I do not think that sort of thing would occur in a committee on the estimates. A critical examination of the estimates, involving as it does possible recommendations in regard to reductions, it seems to me is not the sort of thing which would involve any considerations of political advantage or disadvantage.
I fancy I hear someone say that this is the responsibility of the ministers in charge. It is the responsibility of a minister to see that his department is run with due regard to economy and care, but surely a private member has a responsibility in this regard also. I suggest that we should be put in a position properly to discharge that responsibility. Furthermore, cabinet ministers, especially those newly appointed, have to depend largely on their staff for advice and assistance. I imagine that the primary object of a minister is to have the work of his department carried on as efficiently and smoothly and with as little friction and trouble as possible. I can quite imagine that the recommendations of this committee in regard to changes, reorganizations and so on if made only by the minister might not tend towards smoothness and lack of friction in the working of a department, but I think such a committee would be of very great assistance to the ministers in running their various departments. I think it would be of great assistance to the Minister of Finance. I hope he does not think that instead of being a help such committee would immediately recommend extravagant expenditures. I hope that is not in the back of his mind; I think that would be wrong.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was in the back of my mind, I may say.


George Alexander McLean: Well, in passing I should like to say to the minister that some things have been said in this house which perhaps would justify that doubt in the back of his mind, but my advice to him, speaking for myself only, would be not to pay too much attention to the attacks on the

Supply-Finance
treasury board that have come from various parts of this chamber. I have been alarmed at the numerous thrusts that have been made at that essential board, made by hon. members, coming from almost every party, and I want to give the minister my opinion for what it is worth. I do not think these attacks represent the considered opinion or attitude of the vast majority of the members of this house; I am sure they do not represent the considered opinion of the vast body of taxpayers in Canada. So far as I am concerned, and I think so far as the house is concerned, in these days of high taxation we should lend all possible support to the Minister of Finance and the treasury board instead of trying to weaken the confidence of parliament and the country in that valuable organization. When I hear demands from every quarter for increased expenditures, with nothing said on the other side, I sometimes fear for the future of this country. Therefore, I hope the minister will not pay too much attention to the attacks that are made on the one organization that is trying hard to protect the interests of the taxpayers.
No matter what may be our ideas in regard to economic and monetary matters; no matter whether the government obtains money through taxes, or by borrowdng, or by printing it; whether it is this government, the provincial governments or municipal governments, in these days we must realize that when we spend money, in the last analysis that money has to be paid for in one way, and one way only. It is paid by the labour, by the sweat of the brow of our taxpayers, high and low, or else from the savings of those people which have been earned by the sweat of the brow and accumulated through habits of thrift. We must remember that in each constituency there are thousands of individual taxpayers who for the first time are paying direct taxation to the federal government. What is more, there are thousands more w-hose direct taxes have been increased to an extent never before thought possible or necessary. When I go back to the people of my riding, and they ask me whether or not it would have been possible to relieve their burdens a little through exercising a little care here or a little care there, a little more economical organization, I have to tell them that I do not know. I cannot give them that assurance. I have not that assurance myself, because the procedure we follow in dealing with estimates is not such that I can secure that measure of information which would enable me to give that assurance.
I know that in view of the colossal amount of money necessarily being spent in the prosecution of the war there are many hon. members who will say, "But after all, the point discussed by the hon. member is very insignificant." Well, I confess I am attacked by that feeling myself. But when I go home I find a most effective corrective when I see the care, the planning, the labour and the energy expended by little groups of people in every community who, loyally and voluntarily, are carrying out the plea of the Minister of Finance to promote the sale of war savings stamps. The sales in each small community are comparatively small, but when taken over the whole dominion the amount is most impressive. I was delighted that in his budget speech the Minister of Finance saw fit to pay tribute to these small groups of workers. Many of these people are overworked and have suffered the headaches involved in the production of munitions and food, under very difficult circumstances. When I see these people, regardless of class, regardless of party and of circumstance, voluntarily and willingly throwing themselves into the sale of war savings stamps and war bonds, I am convinced that the tribute of the Minister of Finance was well merited. I believe we owe to those people the assurance that if there is any method capable of adoption which will result in better administration, in economies here and there to lighten the burden of taxation being imposed upon them, then I think it is our duty so to act in their behalf.
I suggest therefore, Mr. Chairman, that this method be adopted. I believe nothing better calculated to promote economy and efficiency in administration could be done than the appointment of a fairly small select committee, with wide powers of examination, to whom all estimates would be referred for examination and recommendation. Possibly they would not be able to handle all departments in one year, but they could work on one or two. I believe this would be of the greatest assistance to the government, and that it would help to. bring about a better and a more economical administration. Nothing could be done more calculated to assure the people of Canada that we are carrying on the work committed to us with the same degree of care, economy and frugality repeatedly urged by the Minister of Finance on the people of Canada. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the government seriously consider the formation of that committee at the next session.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I greatly appreciate the remarks of the hon. member, and I should like to hear more speeches of the kind made in this chamber. I have the feeling, as I sit month after month, for five or six months, that the
Supply-Finance

temper of the house is one which favours fairly free expenditures. From every quarter and from all parties we have demand after demand for the pouring out of government funds on one project or another. I stand against a great deal of it, as best I can. My advocacy of the position taken by the hon. member might be considered as professional, in view of my position as Minister of Finance. It gives me a great deal of encouragement when I hear speeches such as the one which has just been completed. But may I tell him that in case he may underestimate the influence of a speech of that kind, he ought not to do so, because, let me assure him, it has influence, and it is good.
With regard to the appointment of a committee to examine estimates, let me say that from my point of view I should not want that committee to have the power to recommend increases in expenditures, because, if it did, it certainly would make such recommendations. For instance, if such a committee were to examine the estimates for the Department of Finance I am sure, if they understood the work many of my staff are doing and the salaries they are receiving, they would recommend increases in salary in many instances. The end would be effected only if there were no power to recommend increases. If such power were given to a committee one would be subjected to pressure from every part of the house to correct this or that situation, and the allegations would be made that certain injustices were being done-and in most cases there would be no injustice.


Thomas Reid: Especially if we were drawing near to an election.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


George Alexander McLean: The rule applying to all committees is that they cannot make recommendations of that kind.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But, within the rules, they can recommend that the government give consideration to the advisability of increases.


Mr. NEILL:: It would lead to log-rolling.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, exactly. In that connection I would draw the attention of hon. members to recommendations-a long list of them -pointing out to the government the advisability of an increase here, an increase there and an increase somewhere else. In many instances these recommendations are traceable to political pressure-possibly I should not say political pressure exactly, but to pressure by certain special sections of the population.


Thomas Reid: Which would be political.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, which would be political. If that qualification were added, I believe such a procedure would save much time for the minister and departmental officials, and I would not see anything wrong with the hon. member's proposal. From my point of view, however, the condition I have stated would be necessary, and it is one which I believe would be objected to. I think members of the committee would say that in order to make an intelligent report they would have to have power to recommend increases as well as decreases. If they had that power, the reports of such committees on estimates would develop into reports recommending to the government consideration of the advisability of considerably increasing the government's outlay.


Gordon Graydon: I listened with a good
deal of interest to what was said by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean). I have no desire at this time to enter into a lengthy discussion because I think that would be entirely inappropriate, but 1 wish to point out to the minister, to the hon. member and to the committee that we get reforms only by exploring the various avenues through which reforms can be accomplished. During both the early and later stages of this session I suggested to the government, and I think this suggestion might be repeated to-day, that this problem which has been brought up by the hon. member and spoken to by the minister, is one of the important problems which face members of parliament and the government in a war-time session such as this.
I think there is a feeling in the country and in this chamber that there are many reforms that could be made and that the machinery of our parliament could be brought up to date and some of the cobwebs swept away. I felt that this problem should have been tackled at the beginning of this session by setting up a committee which would have had as its special responsibility the investigation of how this parliament could more efficiently serve the people of Canada at this particular time. The call for parliamentary reform is an urgent one, and one which needs repetition at the present time. The reform suggested by the hon. member for Simcoe East is one which I think all of us would want to consider most carefully, but he should be commended for having brought it before the committee, as should other hon. members who have made similar suggestions.
I am hopeful that at the beginning of next session the government will appoint a committee to look into the whole problem of our rules of procedure and the organization of

Supply-Finance
our parliament in order that there may be a more effective and better scrutiny of public expenditures.


Thomas Reid: Bring it up to date.


Gordon Graydon: Bring it up to date. I
do not think there can be any real argument about that. It is not a question of finding fault with the government, because the government is operating under a peace-time system, and an old peace-time system. When I made my suggestion at the beginning of the session it was supported by a number of members on all sides, but the Prime Minister took the view that nothing should be done until peace had been declared. But I think we should prepare for peace in times of war. For a number of years I have had the feeling that there is a lot of waste man-power in the House of Commons. This is not the fault of the members generally; it is largely the fault of the system under which we work. Instead of dealing with the matter piecemeal; instead of setting a committee up as an experimental committee to see how it works, I thinK we should make a survey of the whole situation, our parliamentary procedure and parliamentary machinery. Having surveyed this, having brought down recommendations, we could then go ahead and work out a more effective method of handling our parliamentary affairs which would meet with the approval of the public and make for a better parliament.


Alan Webster Neill: I agree with most of what has been said by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean), with the exception of his suggestion about an estimates committee. I am absolutely opposed to that. This matter was brought up some fifteen years ago and at that time I think it more or less had the approval of the Prime Minister, but I opposed it at that time. The general sentiment was such that the discussion was ended then and there; the debate was adjourned and the matter was never brought up again. It is alleged that what he suggested would save the time of the house and1 of the cabinet, but it would not do any such thing. It would mean that the estimates w'ould be gone over in a committee and then considered again in the house. The ministers and officials would have to attend in the committee and then go through them all again in the house later on. I am not going to be deprived of my right to talk about estimates that affect my district. I am not going to be told that these have been passed and approved or condensed by five or six or ten estimable gentlemen who have taken this action in my absence and without hearing my
views. It might happen that something might be brought up in the committee which did not appeal to the members and be voted down on account of the lack of the benefit of the local knowledge of the member. He might not be able to be present at the committee and give the necessary details in connection with the expenditure. As I say, the cabinet ministers and the officials would have to attend in committee and' then be here again when the estimates go through the house.
We are always told that our rights are not going to be taken away from us. We are told that we shall be able to bring up any matter in this chamber. Why do this twice? The present system is a protection to the ordinary member. We want to be very careful and not give away any of our rights, because we are losing them little 'by little. We may have to spend some time in listening to statements by hon. gentlemen which are of no interest to us but which have to do with the district they represent, but they in turn are ready to listen to us. That is our privilege and our protection. We can go home and tell our people that their grievances have been voiced.
Then there is the other side of it. We shall be told that since these estimates have been considered carefully in committee, they should not be discussed any further when they come to the house. I may say that that argument would! not stop me, and there are many other members who will not be ready to keep their mouths closed simply because these matters have been discussed by a committee. The fact would be that very many of the items would be of no interest to the members of that committee. We had1 a good illustration of this the other day when the divorce bills were being considered. They were rushed through at the rate of about ninety-two bills in sixty minutes. We were asked why we wanted to talk about these when they had been carefully studied by a committee of the Senate and a committee of the House of Commons. The same thing would happen in connection with the estimates. We would be told that they had been considered by a committee. It might be that there was a bare quorum in the committee, or that it was getting close to lunch time and they were ready to rush things through. As I say, there would be an exact duplication of what happened in connection with the divorce bills. The estimates will be railroaded through in the same manner. That will be the inevitable result and we, the common members, representing the common people, will be deprived of our right to speak
Supply-Finance

for them. As I say, many years ago this matter was brought up, looked into and turned down.
I am entirely in accord with what the hon. member for Simcoe East has said, but the remedy is not to do it by way of a committee. You would not be curing an evil, you would be perpetrating a worse evil. We who represent the common people would not be heard at all; it would all be done in the committee. Many private members would not have even a chance to be on these committees unless they had party affiliations. A worse evil would be created than if we have to spend a few days extra here listening to Tom Jones talking about something in which we are not particularly interested. The price Tom Jones has to pay for that is that he has to sit and listen to me while J am talking, but that is part of democratic government.	*


Mr. DUPUIS:: Mr. Chairman, I am in duty bound to ask the indulgence of hon. members of this committee while I say a few words about an urgent matter which seriously affects our farming community, and which comes under this item. It has to do with the restriction imposed by the wartime prices and trade board which, forbids the ordinary farmer to sell his hogs in cuts on the local market unless he first obtains a licence to do so. I have discussed this matter with some of the officials of the board and recently with the hon. Minister of Finance, who seemed sympathetic. But since the matter has not yet been settled, I think the situation should be made public. But first I want to say publicly how much we appreciate the patience of the Minister of Finance in listening to us, despite the very heavy burden he has to carry and does carry so successfully.
This is a matter which concerns all the rural members representing at least eastern Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes, and I was told just a few moments ago that the same situation obtains in the west. Since the question has not yet been settled, I want to summarize the situation publicly in this house, which has the right to settle this acute question. I am bringing this matter up here on behalf of bona fide farmers who have been in the habit of selling hogs in cuts on the local market once or twice a week. These farmers, on account of the restriction imposed by the wartime prices and trade board, are now prevented from doing so unless they first obtain a licence from the board.
I, jointly with several other members representing rural districts of eastern Ontario, 
Quebec and the maritimes, have made a fairly complete investigation into the matter, and our findings are these:
The local market business is generally left to the farmers' wives who are in charge of raising poultry, eggs and hogs, which they bring weekly to the market to make money to pay the family's ordinary expenditures. They sell direct to the consumers, who prefer to buy fresh meat from the producers. Since they do not raise hogs in large quantity, they are not interested in selling to the abattoirs, because they have found by experience that the abattoirs have graded their hogs in a lower grade, with a consequent loss of money to the farmers' wives. This is probably owing to the fact that the farmers have not time to specialize in the proper grading of the hogs. So that if the licence is refused them, they will surely abandon the raising of hogs altogether. We are told that the production of hogs by these farmers amounts to approximately 100,000 hogs a year.
It seems clear to us that if the proper means to grant licences to these farmers are not taken, there will be a shortage of 100,000 hogs for local consumption, which the packing plant will be bound to supply to city consumers. It is evident that consumers must be supplied with meat and the only way to solve that problem is to allow these farmers to sell on the local market. In this way the packing plants will have just that much more at their disposal to supply the needs of our armies and those of our allies.
There are many ways of distributing these licences to the farmers. A large poster could be placed prominently in every local market, stating how the licences can be obtained. The clerk of the market or government inspector could be charged with the distribution of these licences.
The farmers are satisfied to collect ration coupons from the buyer. These coupons could be handed over to the clerk of the market or to the government inspector. In this way, not only could we contribute to sending a larger quantity of classified hogs overseas, but we would also prevent an injustice from being perpetrated against these farmers.
That is why I think this question is urgent, and why I have felt it my duty to bring it before the committee, so that it may receive immediate attention with a view to an early solution.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As the hon. member says, he has discussed this matter with me on two or three occasions and, I think, with the officials of the wartime prices and trade

Supply-Finance
board. As he knows, one of the great menaces to the success of any rationing scheme is a widely scattered source of supply, and perhaps one of the reasons why it is easier to ration in Britain than in Canada is because in Britain it is easier to control the source of supply. For that reason, generally speaking, our rationing authorities have felt that they must see that the slaughtering was done by large slaughterers

I do not mean very large slaughterers but those who are doing a considerable amount of slaughtering. They are not able to carry that out in deficiency areas. To date they feel that they are pledged to carry out the rule in areas which cannot be called deficiency areas. At least that is my latest information. I would call situations like this to the attention of those members of the house who think the problems of rationing are not difficult in a country like Canada. There are some hon. members who think it would be very easy to put everything under control and make an equitable distribution by rationing, but as a matter of fact nothing is more difficult and vexatious to work out than a rationing system which will work without imposing on the popula-lation intolerable burdens of inconvenience and so forth.
All I can say to my hon. friend is that I will bring this matter once more to the attention of my officials and it will be given further consideration. I do not know myself what it may prove practicable to do.


Vincent Dupuis: There is one feature I should bring to the minister's attention, namely, that on the Montreal market there are two types of people selling goods. First, there are the bona fide farmers who are allowed to sell there freely. Then, there are the pedlars or dealers who go around the county and buy up hogs of different types and grades and, in the guise of farmers, try to sell those hogs on the market. These are the people who were the first to ask to be granted a licence under the wartime prices and trade board. But they are not farmers. I am told by a number of hon. members that many of these traders make a black market, so that the result will be much worse than it is to-day; farmers will suffer injustice, and our war effort will be correspondingly hindered. I want the minister to know that, and I know it personally. I should very much like to see the wartime prices and trade board rectify this injustice, annul a policy which makes for black markets, and grant ithis concession to the ordinary farmer who sells one or two hogs on the local market.


Victor Quelch: I wish to discuss as briefly as possible the proposals which were put forward by certain officials in Great Britain, the United States and Canada regarding an international stabilization of currency and an international exchange union.
The Canadian officials in their pamphlet outline their objective in the following words:
The establishment of an international monetary mechanism which will aid in the restoration and development of healthy international trade after the war, which will achieve a high degree of exchange stability, and which will not conflict with the desire of countries to carry out such policies as they may think appropriate to achieve, so far as possible, economic stability at a high level of employment and incomes.
The British proposals also outline their objective, in subsection (g) of section 1, in a very similar way.
I have read these proposals through carefully, and I have come to the conclusion that the officials of all three countries were apparently more interested in trying to find a profitable market for the gold of the world, more interested in trying to devise ways and means whereby the gold production of their countries might be utilized to dominate world trade, than they were to reach their declared objective, namely, to find ways and means of bringing about the freest possible exchange of goods as between nations.
I have looked through a number of periodi- [DOT] cals, including the Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor and Foreign Affairs Quarterly, and I find that the majority of their writers seem to take the same view.
I will quote what John H. Williams has to say in the last number of Foreign Affairs:
Not only are the tvro plans fundamentally similar in their mechanical aspects-
He is here referring to the British and United States plans.
-but the monetary mechanism provided in both is essentially a gold standard mechanism.
Then, referring to the Keynes plan, he says:
One can read fairly readily bet-ween the lines that these provisions are due not to any great concern about gold on Keynes part but most likely to his recognition of the political requirements of getting his plan accepted. With the British empire the principal gold producer, and the U.S.A. the principal holder it is not likely that any plan which does not provide a market of a monetary use for gold will be acceptable in either country.
If that is true, I think we must admit that a very selfish motive is behind that proposal. It is specifically what might be called a rich nations' proposal, and for that reason personally I am not in favour of it, because I do not think it will achieve the objective laid down
Supply-Finance

Submissively the premiers carried a series of resolutions at the dictation of Sir Otto, declaring:
(a)	their fixed determination to balance their respective budgets for the financial year 1930-31 and to maintain a similar balanced budget in future years;
(b)	that no further overseas loans would be raised until the current short-term indebtedness was dealt with;
(c)	that future loans will be for reproductive works only.
These were the steps which the mission assured the conference were essential to "place Australia on the road to prosperity." Time has surely proved them the steps of the treadmill.
In the light of these quotations, I think the Minister of Finance will agree that I do not exaggerate when I say that at that period we were under a form of financial dictatorship, because there was Australia able to produce far more than she needed, but other nations were not willing to accept her production, and consequently she was told that she would have to curtail her expenditures in order to bring about a balanced budget. Well, we know what happened in Australia at that time. Their depression was even worse than the one we experienced,
I cannot say, of course, whether a similar mission came to Canada, but we do know that Sir Otto Niemeyer came to this country. Members of this group asked to have the house informed exactly as to what occurred between Sir Otto and Mr. Graham Towers or other officials of the government, but that information was refused. Apparently the officials of this country are not quite as free in their discussions of such matters as they are in Australia. If we could get as frank a statement in Canada as the people got from those in Australia, I have no doubt that we would find that the same thing happened in this country and that we were dictated to by international financiers.
A further proof of what had been happening in Canada is to be found in the election speeches of the Prime Minister in 1935. The Minister of Finance will remember what the Prime Minister said at that time during the election campaign. He declared that in this house there would be waged a great battle with the money powers. I must admit that I have never seen that battle materialize. I have been optimistic, hoping to see the fight started every session, but nothing has happened. Those are the Prime Minister's words, not mine, and when the Prime Minister said that there was to be a battle between the government and the money powers he had in mind, I presume, certain money powers who were forcing destitution upon the people of the country. Either that, or he was speaking for the sake of the

election. If so, that was his fault. But I am giving him full credit for having meant what he said at that time, and I believe he had good cause for that statement.
Of course, we are being told now that never again will such things exist. We are assured that there is to be a new order. I would remind the minister and the committee again, however, that Lloyd George at the end of the last war made speeches similar in every respect to the speeches that are being made to-day prophesying a new order. Lloyd George also talked about a newr world and declared that depressions were a thing of the past. There would never be another depression, he said. Well, does anyone doubt that Lyold George at that time was as sincere as the Prime Minister of Canada is to-day? Undoubtedly he was sincere, but he overlooked for the time being the fact that pressure would be exercised on that nation when the war was over. The cry began as soon as the war was over, "We have spent a great deal of money in carrying on the war and now we have to pay for it." And you will find here many people, like the chief architect of depression, the hon. member for Simcoe East, saying the same thing. He will be one of the first to cry out for a general restriction of spending after the war is over, and that will mean one thing and one thing only-another depression.
The only reason why we have prosperity to-day is that the government has become the greatest purchaser of labour and materials in the country, greater than any other institution. The moment the government stops spending at that rate, unless certain other institutions are prepared to take up the slack, undoubtedly we shall go down into another depression. So that I think it is well that we should keep clearly in mind the fact that these monetary proposals actually deal with results and not with causes, and that until the causes are eliminated there must be a dubious future for any form of international stabilization of currency or international exchange union. Therefore, while I wholeheartedly agree with the objectives as they are outlined in the British and Canadian proposals, I cannot agree that there is much chance of these proposals bringing about the things they 'wish to achieve. While it is true that the proposals admit that a creditor nation has a certain amount of responsibility for an unbalanced trade, the strange thing is that when the experts come to make certain proposals they place the main responsibility upon the debtor nation and not upon the creditor nation. They make certain recommendations to the creditor nation and then immediately state that the creditor nation

Supply-Finance
will not be forced to accept those recommendations. Then they make recommendations to deal with the debtor nation, and the debtor nation has to accept them whether or not it agrees with them. In view of the fact that the debtor nation is not nearly as much to blame as the creditor nation, I say they are putting the pressure in the wrong place, and that is one reason why I say these are undoubtedly the proposals of the rich nations and do not represent the wishes of the poor nations or their ability t-o deal with these matters. This matter is referred to on page 8 of the British proposal, subsection (g) and on page 14 of the Canadian proposal, section 5, subsection (c), but I do not want to take time to read those provisions.
What is the real situation in regard to the question of favourable and unfavourable balances of trade? A nation can only pay for goods and services with goods and services. An importing nation can give an exporting nation a claim against its goods; that is, a credit, but it cannot force that nation to buy its goods and moreover should not be obliged to do so. A nation should only be required to pay for its imports with its own national currency, because that nation will have to exchange its goods for the goods that were imported, and the only money that will buy those goods is its own national currency. Therefore there is no possible excuse for trying to force any nation to pay for its imports with international currency. I shall give a simple example. If I owe a certain individual $5 I can give him a cheque for that amount, and when I do so I have met my obligation. He now has credit in the bank for $5, but it is not my obligation to see that he spends that S5; I have wiped out my obligation.	The same situation
applies in connection with a debtor nation. As long as the debtor nation gives the creditor nation a claim against its own production, it should have wiped out its obligation; then it is up to the creditor nation to buy its goods. I will admit that you could have a nation without goods, but I am talking about a nation such as Australia which in 1929 was willing and anxious to export its goods to balance its budget, and was optimistic enough to believe that it could do so. It could not, however, because the creditor nations were not willing to accept those goods. So that if we are to put pressure on any nation, let us put it in the right place, on the creditor nation instead of on the debtor nation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then my hon. friend means that Canada did right in taking Australian wool?


Victor Quelch: I would not say there were not other things we could have taken. On the other hand, take a nation in the position of not being able to produce enough goods to satisfy her import requirements; a "have-not" nation. The situation there is entirely different, and no form of international stabilization of currency can deal with it. In that case you must do one of two things; you must move some of the people out of that area, or you must continue indefinitely such measures as mutual aid1 and lease-lend in order to provide that nation with goods. You might have a joint contribution by all nations on a permanent basis, to maintain that country. That must be done, or the people must be removed from that area until the population is reduced to the point where the resources are sufficient to maintain them. That, however, as I have pointed out, is an entirely different matter.
The London Chamber of Commerce has put forward proposals to deal with this matter; no doubt the minister is familiar with them. Those proposals are very different from the proposals of the experts of the three nations. The London Chamber of Commerce recognizes the fact that the creditor nation is largely responsible. Therefore it maintains that when a nation establishes a credit abroad1, that nation should be willing to accept goods in payment of it, and if the nation refuses to accept payment of that credit within a period of seven years, the debt should be cancelled. I should like to quote that proposal, which appears at page 26 of a pamphlet entitled, "A Twentieth Century Economic System," which has been endorsed by the London Chamber of Commerce:
. . . the primary responsibility for establishing a counter account, by importing from the country to which a sale had been made, would remain with the exporting country. If it did not wish to do so that would be its affair and not that of the importing country, which would have done its part by establishing the necessary credit. The importing country would be entitled to cancel the credit, under a statute of limitations, if it were not used within seven years. The principle is that with which we are all familiar in internal trading: if you have a credit with a shop, you cannot take it out in cash but you clear it when you take goods.
In reply to the minister's suggestion that we should have taken wool from Australia, that is not Australia's affair. Australia is willing to pay with whatever goods she has, and it is up to us to decide what goods we want to take. Having established a credit in Australia, it is up to us to find goods there that we want. If we do not, then we do not get paid; but under a multilateral clearing we would not
Supply-Finance

need to buy goods from Australia; we could buy them from another nation. I shall deal with that later on.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not wish to get into an argument on theory, but Canada is likely to be a creditor nation on current account after the war is over; we are almost certain to be. What is Canada to do? Is Canada to take such things as wool and wheat from Australia, cane sugar from the West Indies, manufactured goods from Great Britain, and so on, or is Canada not to do so? And if Canada does not, how will Canada continue to export? Some of my hon. friend's associates over there are very sure that Canada should not import anything we can make ourselves, no matter at what cost. If that is so, how will Canada continue to export; will we give our goods away? Perhaps that is what is projected?


Victor Quelch: The minister asks if we should be willing to import wool. This would not apply in war time, but let us go back to the period from 1935 to 1939. Did all the people of Canada have all the woollen goods they desired? Would the minister suggest that the million people on relief were all warmly clothed and had good woollen coats? If not, I should say we should import wool so that they could be warmly clothed. Would the minister suggest that all the million people on relief had sufficient sugar? Of course they did not, so that I say we could have imported sugar in order that they might have been properly fed. It is the question of an internal distributing mechanism; we have not been able to maintain an effective demand against our production.
Such action as the London Chamber of Commerce proposes would force a nation either to accept imports in exchange for exports or, after a period of time, have that credit abroad cancelled. The interesting point is this, that Maynard Keynes in his proposal recognized the fact that that may be necessary in future; that some proposal such as the London Chamber of Commerce put forth may be necessary. But evidently he did not have the necessary courage to include it in his proposals. However, he does refer to it at page 10 in this way:
It is not contemplated that either the debit or the credit balance of an individual country ought to exceed a certain maximum-let us say, its quota. In the case of debit balances this maximum has been made a rigid one, and, indeed, counter-measures are called for long before the maximum is reached. In the case of credit balances no rigid maximum has been proposed. For the appropriate provision might be to require the eventual cancellation or com-
IMr. Quelch.l
pulsory investment of persistent bancor credit balances accumulating in excess of a member's quota.
Apparently he recognized, as the London Chamber of Commerce does, that it may be necessary to cancel those credits if a creditor nation persists in being a creditor nation, and is unwilling to put its own house in order, by importing freely in exchange for its exports.
Immediately after the war the nations devastated thereby will be unable to pay for the things they require. That condition should still be regarded as the responsibility of the united nations, either through lend-lease or mutual aid. Mr. Churchill in a speech which he made some time ago referred to the fact when he said that for the first four years there would have to be a transition period in which they might have to accept goods, without exporting but that after that period Great Britain would demand her share of the export trade. He did not mention anything about import trade, but said that Great Britain would demand her fair share of the export trade, so that Great Britain might be in a position to pay for imports with her exports.
First of all, I would say that this proposal does not make any provision to deal with that matter. They will carry a nation for a short period; that is, they will make supplies of bancor unitas available to these nations which have unfavourable balances of trade. But since they will not be in a position to export, they will exhaust their quota and lay themselves open to pressure from union officials. It does not define what that pressure may be. I think we can all agree that the pressure would be that you would have to curtail your expenditures and exert a deflationary policy, thereby forcing down prices. It must be recognized that that is the form which the pressure would take.
My main criticism of the proposal-and it is a criticism just as necessary as that of an unfavourable balance of trade-is that it would mean a return to the gold standard. It calls for international currency backed up by gold, and internal currency tied to that unit. So that it is a gold standard mechanism. That is the way in which the British scheme is built, and also the American and the Canadian. I should like to point out my objection to the gold standard mechanism. No longer would a nation's standard of living be dependent entirely upon its productive capacity. There would be another limiting factor. When we went into this war and wanted production expanded to the maximum, what did we do? We immediately went off a gold basis. We realized we could

Supply-Finance
not carry out our war effort efficiently if we did not, and accordingly we immediately went off gold. If after the war, we are to make a maximum peace effort, then I am satisfied we shall have to see that no artificial restriction such as a gold standard is allowed to impede the success of that effort. There is nothing new in these proposals whereby international friction may be eliminated, except that it means the loss of sovereignty. I would say this is a beginning. It is a first step toward a form of international dictatorship. And in view of the fact that to-day we are fighting to maintain the democratic way of life, and fighting dictators in enemy countries, I do not think for one moment that the men who are fighting this war want to have an international dictatorship set up.
There is no question that this proposal, if put into effect, would be an international dictatorship. And unless hon. members have read these proposals through to the finish, they will not realize just how they propose an international dictatorship. We find this on page 18 of the British proposal:
The union might set up an account in favour of any supernational policing body which may be charged with the duty of preserving the peace and maintaining international order. If any country were to infringe its properly authorized orders, the policing body might be entitled to request the governors of the clearing union to hold the cleaning account of the delinquent country to its order and permit no further transactions on the account except by its authority. This would provide an excellent machinery for enforcing a financial blockade.
Therefore we are going to build up an international police force, so that any nation which finds itself in the unhappy position of having an unfavourable balance of trade, and which does not follow out the recommendations of the union, will have an international police force sitting on its doorstep to see that it carries them out.
Is that what we are fighting for? Are we fighting to maintain an international dictatorship to determine their own affairs in their own country?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not quite fair.


Victor Quelch: I think undoubtedly that is what this proposal means. I am not saying that the people who formulated this proposal realized that. I would like the minister to tell us the terms of reference given when they drew these proposals up. What were the Canadian proposals? Were they told to draw up proposals by which gold could be utilized, or were they told to disregard gold entirely, and bring about ways and means
of making trade among nations as free as possible? I am inclined to think that they were told to bring about proposals by which gold could be utilized. The gold standard itself has always been to a certain extent a dictator, because it has meant that, under certain conditions, as the gold left the country the banks were automatically compelled to call in their loans so as to maintain a certain fixed ratio between gold and the money in circulation. There you had a compulsory reduction in the standard of living, due to the operation of the gold standard. That, in itself, is the work of a dictatorship. Surely we do not want to go back to that.
The minister probably remembers that when Australia and the British empire went on the gold standard in 1925, many people were enthusiastic about what the results would be. I wish to quote what Mr. Bruce, the Prime Minister of Australia, had to say in that regard. This is taken from the book, "Why I Fight", and reads:
It must have a tremendous influence throughout the world, and 'will go down in history as one of the greatest financial achievements in the empire's progress.
That was the prophecy of Mr. Bruce regarding the gold standard of 1925.
Now, let me quote what happened.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Victor Quelch: May I quote one statement by Mr. Churchill?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will speak for a moment, and then the hon. member may have another forty minutes, if he wishes. At one stage I interjected that one statement was not quite fair. The hon. member was quoting from a clause of the British memorandum, and seemed to be arguing that it was for setting up a supranational policing body. It does not say that. It says that if any supranational policing body is set up, this clearing union might assist it. But it does not, in fact, advocate the setting up of a supranational policing body. I am not defending the Canadian memorandum, but when I made my interjection the hon. member shot right off on the Canadian memorandum.


Victor Quelch: When he made that statement Keynes suggested that it might take a police force to keep these proposals in effect.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend has not that right at all. It apparently contemplates or envisages the possibility of some body like the League of Nations having policing powers for the purpose of preserving peace in the postwar world, preventing aggression or something
Supply-Finance

of that kind. It would be necessary for that police force to have power to impose certain sanctions, one of which might be financial in character. If that were agreed to by the nations of the world and this police force were set up, it is pointed out in the memorandum that this clearing union might assist it. That is all that was contemplated in the setting up of the policing force; it was not contemplated that it would police the operations of this union.


Victor Quelch: I do not take exception to what the minister said; I simply refer to the last line which states that this would provide excellent machinery for enforcing a financial blockade. If there is a police force, it would provide a convenient way to enforce a financial blockade against those nations which are not doing exactly what the union has told them to do.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend is not as dull as all that. He says he agrees with what I say and then he puts an interpretation upon my words which they do not bear at all. He says that financial blockades will be enforced by this supranational policing body. If there is to be such a policing body, that will not be any part of its duties, but it is pointed out in this memorandum that such a clearing union might be of assistance. From there my hon. friend runs off and changes the situation altogether and says that you are going to set up an organization to establish a financial blockade.


Victor Quelch: I quite agree with the minister that this proposal does not provide for an international police force; it merely states that if an international police force is established, this union will be a very handy place in which to deposit money for the payment of the force. It then concludes with the statement that it would provide excellent machinery for enforcing financial blockade. I am not saying that they are going to create an international police force for the express purpose of bringing about a financial blockade. But if you have a police force, it will be very convenient to use it for that purpose. In other words, it can be used to bring a certain amount of pressure to bear upon certain nations.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot seem to get it through my hon. friend's head that the police force is not to be set up for the purpose of carrying out the desires of the clearing union. The supranational police force would be set up for another purpose altogether. I am not defending Lord Keynes' proposal because there is no reason why I should, but I do not like to see any proposal twisted.


Victor Quelch: I am not attacking this proposal on the grounds that it intends to set up an international police force; I merely mention the fact that it states that, if there is such a force, it could be utilized for the purpose of enforcing a financial blockade.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I said a few minutes ago that the hon. member had spoken for forty minutes. It is true that in the meantime the Minister of Finance has made a statement, but I do not think we would be within the terms of standing order 58 if we allowed an hon. member all the time he wanted simply because he had been interrupted. Standing order 58 reads:
The standing orders of the house shall be observed in the committees of the whole house so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the seconding of motions and limiting the number of times of speaking.
It would be almost farcical if an hon. member spoke for forty minutes, and sat down, and then when another member asked a question, to get up again and make another speech for forty minutes. Again I repeat that there are other members who wish to speak on the item before the committee.


Victor Quelch: May I conclude my remarks with one short statement? Mr. Bruce had pointed out in 1925 that the gold standard would bring prosperity to the world, and this is what Mr. Churchill had to say in 1932:
When I was moved by many arguments and forces in 1925 to return to the gold standard I was assured by the highest experts, and our experts are men of great ability and of indisputable integrity and sincerity, that we were anchoring ourselves to reality and stability; and I accepted their advice. I take for myself and my colleagues of other days whatever degree of blame and burden there may be for having accepted their advice. But what has happened? We have had no reality, no stability. The price of gold has risen since then by more than seventy per cent. That is as if a 12-ineh foot rule had suddenly been stretched to. 19 or 20 inches; as if the pound avoirdupois had suddenly become 23 to 24 ounces instead of-how much is it?-16. Look at what this has meant to everybody who has been compelled to execute their contracts upon this irrationally enhanced scale.
And further on.:
This new House of Commons contains a great number of new and young legislators. I commend this problem to them as the supreme topic of the age.


Mr. JAQUES:: I wish to add a few words to those of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. He has made one of his valuable citicisms of financial matters. I should like to tackle this question from a different angle and I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman,

Supply-Finance
that even though I may seem to, I am not wandering from the subject. This is a world proposal, and one cannot very well discuss a world proposal unless he uses a world wide approach. I should like to go back a few months to April 1, when an article was published in the Ottawa Citizen headed, "New authority to guide affairs." It went on to state:
A supranational authority with power to settle questions of immigration, natural resources, treatment of minorities, repudiation of debts, finance and other questions was predicted by B. Iv. Sandwell of Toronto in an address before the Ottawa branch of the league of nations society.
At that time I brought to the attention of this house and of the government those remarks and I asked if they were not seditious in the opinion of the government. At once I was assailed in the press as a fascist, as a moron, as a Jew-baiter, as one who filled his mind with such rubbish as the protocols of Zion and the A plus B theorem of Major Douglas, and they even went so far as to couple the two together. I was surprised at the notoriety which I had achieved, shall I say so easily, on that occasion, until a few days later when the following was published in the Ottawa Citizen. The dispatch is dated "Washington" and says in part:
Secretary Henry Morgenthau disclosed to-day comprehensive administration plans to stabilize post-war currencies and fix their value in terms of gold. The plans involve:
1.	Creation of an international stabilization fund by the united nations and their associates.
2.	Fixing the value of currencies in terms of gold.
3.	An agreement among participating countries not to devalue their currencies without consulting other members of the stabilization funds.
Both plans entail the establishment of a stabilization fund to be managed by an international bank, vitally important because it would mean that participating countries would lose control over the value of their currencies for world trade purposes. This control would be vested in the bank, not in a parliament or a congress, and if a country wanted the rate lowered or increased it could only appeal to the bank, not take action itself.
When we speak in terms of gold it is well perhaps to ask ourselves who are the owners of these gold reserves the greater part of which are piled up underground at Fort Knox. I suppose the vast majority of the people of this country and perhaps of the members of this house fondly imagine that that gold belongs to the people or, if you like, to the government of the United States, but I am informed on the highest authority that eighty-five per cent of that gold is owned and controlled by private interests. I will go
farther and say that it is those interests that are behind this scheme to stabilize world finance in terms of gold.


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I ask who is the highest authority?


Norman Jaques: I am not going to give
names. I make that statement and I stand by it.


Mr. ISNOR:: That is no good.


Norman Jaques: I am told by well-informed
Americans that anybody in the United States who understands finance understands that as well as they understand anything.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am informed that the gold at Fort Knox is all owned by the United States and is shown in the treasury statements. That is why I asked my hon. friend for his authority for his statement to the contrary.


Norman Jaques: I am perfectly willing to
stand by that statement, and if it can be proved otherwise, that is all right.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh!


John Horne Blackmore: You have your chance to disprove it. Come along with your proof.


Norman Jaques: I am perfectly willing to
let my reputation stand by that statement. The federal reserve system in the United States no more belongs to the government of the United States than the Bank of England belongs to the government of Britain. I say that both governments are run respectively by those banks.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not say that the gold was owned by the federal reserve board.


Norman Jaques: By the federal reserve
system.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, nor by the federal reserve system. I said it was owned by the' treasury.


Norman Jaques: When I brought to the attention of the house this policy of encouraging Canadians to surrender their loyalty to the crown and give it to this supranational authority, at once I was accused of indulging in such foolishness as reading the Protocols of Zion, which were described as absolute nonsense. I am going to read two of them to see how far they are absurd when applied to this matter under discussion.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I must rise to a point of
order. When an hon. member gets so far afield as to read the Protocols of Zion I must take exception. That is more than latitude allows.
Supply-Finance


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: There is a rule which, is hard to apply in committee against repetition. I would hope at this stage the hon. member would not go over old ground which has been thoroughly covered many times this session. I believe it is the wish of ninety-nine per cent of the members of this house that we get down to business.


Norman Jaques: It says this-


James Lorimer Ilsley: I object. I do not base my objection on grounds of repetition but on the ground that on an item for departmental administration he cannot read into the record some fraudulent or forged Jew-baiting documents which are called the Protocols of Zion.


Norman Jaques: I have not mentioned the word "Jew", but I am going to read this because it is absolutely pertinent to what I have to say.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I do not know that I can rule it out of order, but surely no member at this time would wish to overload Hansard after the thousands of pages we have had on the general subject. I do not want to hurt anybody's feelings, but surely there should be a limit somewhere.


Mr. HANSELL:: Might I just say on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that you have been most fair to everyone this session. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin has taken less time than almost any other member of the house. He has spoken only occasionally and then forcefully, in my opinion. He has been waiting for many weeks for this item to come up. This is the last speech he will make this session. He lives and moves and has his being in this particular subject and pays little attention to anything else that goes on in the house. I trust that the committee will bear with him for the remainder of the time at his disposal, perhaps only twenty minutes, and then we can go right on with the item.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is an appeal to sympathy or something of the kind.


Ernest George Hansell: It is the truth.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would be disposed to meet the hon. gentleman along those lines, but we must not get too far away from the rules of the house even on grounds of mercy. We must stay within shooting distance of them. The hon. gentleman apparently was attacked by some paper or editor for some remark he had made in the house and he wants to make a reply to that attack.


Norman Jaques: Nothing of the kind. If I like to make myself ridiculous, I do not see why anybody else should worry about it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not mind that.


Norman Jaques: Then what is the minister worrying about?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am worrying about the infringement of the rules of the house.


Norman Jaques: I am not, I believe, in the habit of breaking the rules. I quote:
We shall replace the free market with stabilized control of foreign exchange by whicl we can fix industrial values to suit ourselves.
All industry will come to depend upon us, bringing stupendous power to us.
In our hands is the greatest power in the world-gold: in a few days we can procure from our vaults any quantity we may please.
Having said that, perhaps I may be allowed to quote from a speech which was made in the congress of the United States by Mr. Smith, one of the congressmen from Ohio. Speaking on Monday, April 12, 1943, on this United States plan for stabilization of currency, he said:
We are apt to be led to believe from the newspaper, radio and other reports that this scheme emanates from a few individuals. Mr. Harry D. White, special assistant to the secretary of the treasury, is being credited as the prime mover of the United States contribution to the plan. Professor Maynard Keynes is being credited as the prime mover of the British contribution to this plan. Now, of course, , we would be naive indeed if we were to believe that the officials of our treasury had undertaken this task on their own initiative, or that Professor Keynes, and perhaps a few of his associates, had inaugurated their part of the scheme on their own accord. We may rest assured that back of this move are the most powerful international moneyed interests and financiers of the world. Furthermore, we may be certain that world power politics are playing a prominent role in promoting this movement.
Upon first sight the Keynes plan and that of Mr. Morgenthau may appear to be quite different from each other. It would not be surprising if this impression had been received by many from reading the brief news dispatches describing the two proposals. . . .
Both drafts embrace the idea of a completely politically managed international currency.
Both contemplate the surrender by the individual countries to the international monetary power of a large part, if not all, of the very heart of national sovereignty, that is mastership over monetary and credit resources.
Section 8 of the constitution provides that Congress shall coin money and regulate the value thereof. ... If Mr. Morgenthau and the forces back of him should be able, to get around this provision of the constitution, then the last vestige of our great charter of liberty will have disappeared. All hope of restoring it would be gone, and the totalitarian state would be complete.

Supply-Finance
No, I cannot believe that the American people have as yet en beaten into such abject submission that'vUey will allow this to happen.
These are the words of a congressman, spoken in congress. But unfortunately neither the American people nor the Canadian people are permitted to learn the truth of these things.
I was going to quote from a speech made by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill in the British House of Commons in 1932, but the hon. member for Acadia has already put it on Hansard, and the omissions will rather spoil my record. But there is one part which he did not quote. Let me repeat very briefly. Mr. Churchill said) that he was moved by many arguments and forces in 1925 to return to the gold standard and was assured by the highest experts, men of great ability and indisputable integrity and sincerity, that they were anchoring themselves to reality and stability, and he accepted their advice. He continued:
I take for myself and my colleagues of other days whatever degree of blame and burden there may be for having accepted their advice. But what has happened? We have had no reality, no stability.
He goes on to say:
The price of gold has risen since then by more than 70 per cent. That is as if a 12-inch foot-rule had suddenly been stretched to 19 or 20 inches; as if the pound avoirdupois had suddenly become 23 to 24 ounces instead of-how much is it?-16. Look at what this has meant to everybody who has been compelled to execute their contracts upon this irrationally enhanced scale. Look at the gross unfairness of such a distortion to all producers of new wealth, and to all that labour and science and enterprise can give us. Look at the enormously increased volume of commodities which have to be created in order to pay off the same mortgage debt or loan. Minor fluctuations might well be ignored, but I say quite seriously that this monetary convulsion has now reached a pitch where I am persuaded that the producers of new wealth will not tolerate indefinitely so hideous an oppression.
"So hideous an, oppression." Those are the words of the present Prime Minister of England, and, thinking that those words would be of interest to those sections of the press which had attacked me in such a vitriolic way, I had copies of that speech made and sent them to the editors of Saturday Night, the Sifton press and other papers that had attacked me and suggested that the speech would be of interest to their readers. From that day to this I have never had an acknowledgment, and not one word has been printed. Yes, the Right Hon. Winston Churchill is a great man when he is hurling defiance at the nazis. But when he proves his greatness by acknowledging the mistakes that he made in the past, not a word
5399
of it is published. That speech was made in 1932. Some people say, "Ah, but you went off gold in 1929," or was it 1930, "and the depression came after that." Well, Mr. Chairman, when a person has been drugged; when he is a victim of drugs, you cannot cure him by suddenly cutting off the drug; that would bring about a collapse.


John Horne Blackmore: They went off gold in 1931.


Norman Jaques: That is what happened, but the mischief and the damage had been done. I suffered; I am not speaking because I personally suffered, but the farmers of this country for whom I am speaking were ruined by that policy. As Mr. Churchill said, think of the increased production that has to be exchanged to pay off the same mortgage indebtedness. We have heard a great deal in this house recently about farmers' debts and how lazy the farmers were, and how dishonest for not paying. But Mr. Churchill is, I think, more honest than our critics. He admits his mistake.
I happened to spend the winter of 1930-31 in a small town near Yancouver. The house where I was living overlooked the Canadian Pacific railway, and every freight car that came to the town going west that winter was loaded with the victims of that policy. From the beginning to the end of that winter there could be seen thousands of the victims of the return to gold. I spoke with many of them. They were men just as good as I am, many of them better, and there they were without homes, without food, without money, without clothes, without shelter. It made me think, and I undertook the study of economics. I had time on my hands and I borrowed every book I could find in the Carnegie library, but at the end of six or eight months I was none the wiser. When I returned to Alberta later in the year I came across an article headed, "Money, the basis of exchange"; I read that, and in ten minutes I had the key; and I have been applying that key from that day to this. That is why I take the interest in this affair that I do; and I say that until the control of financial policy is taken away from those who have usurped it, and is returned to governments in trust for the people, there is no hope of lasting peace, happiness and prosperity.
Now let me refer to an article that was published in a well-known magazine by Doctor Ludwig von Mises. We are told at the end of the article that Doctor Ludwig von Mises was recently professor of international

Supply-Finance

economic relations at the graduate institute of international studies in Geneva, previously professor of economics at the university of Vienna, and author of "Socialism". Speaking of international finance between the two wars, he makes this statement:
The state of things which prevailed in the last decades can be characterized as a complete surrender of the rights of the creditors and of the investors. Every nation successfully made use of its sovereignty to the disadvantage of foreign creditors and investors. Every nation exercised its power to expropriate foreign investments directly or indirectly by discriminatory taxation, to debase the currency, with -which loans had to he repaid. The history of international financial relations has, in the last twenty years, been one of almost continual embezzlement. The governments of the debtor countries behaved like swindlers for the benefit of their own treasury and for the benefit of pressure groups within their population.
The new covenant of the League of Nations will therefore have to include a rigid limitation on the sovereign rights of every nation. Unilateral measures which affect the essentials of the contractual obligations, the currency system, taxation and other important matters have to be rendered unlawful. The debtor countries should not have any rights which are denied to private debtors.
All these provisions will have to be efficiently enforced by international tribunals-*


Mr. FAUTEUX:: I rise to a point of order We are here to vote expenses for the wartime prices and trade board and not to listen to theories on monetary systems and international monetary reforms.


Norman Jaques: May I remind the committee that we were promised a discussion on this matter of international currency by the Prime Minister in this house, and it is not my fault that I have been driven to the last hours of the session. I have been waiting for two or three weeks for this opportunity and, if the question of international currency is not of interest to the hon. member all I can say is, I find it hard to believe. The whole future not only of Canada but of the world is involved in these very proposals. Let me finish the quotation.


Gaspard Fauteux: I insist that the hon. member is out of order. It is our duty to put in as much time as is necessary to pass these estimates and vote the necessary moneys to help the government and the country, but I do not think we are called upon to spend so much of our time in listening to hon. members who want to take advantage of the House of Commons as a tribune for the exposition of their political views. I do not think the house is at the moment interested in theories of international finance such as those put forward by the party to which the hon. member belongs.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, what item are we discussing?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We are discussing item 46. On the point of order, the rule is clear with regard to discussions in committee, but I am afraid it would be impossible for me to rule the hon. member out of order. We are not making progress, but I do not think I can rule the hon. member out of order.


Norman Jaques: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To continue this quotation:
All these provisions will have to be efficiently enforced by international tribunals and by sanctions which the league must apply with a greater measure of success than in the past. Without some kind of international police power such a plan could not be carried out. Coercive measures indispensable in order to make reluctant debtor countries pay.
You can see the beauty of this scheme. First of all, you put the world on the gold standard so as to double and treble debts and then, when private individuals and countries find it impossible to carry out their contractual obligations, why the bailiff will enter the country, and the bailiff will be supported by the international police; and whether members of this house think so or not, let me tell the people outside the house, the people who will have to pay the price and who have been paying the price for the last twenty-five years, that that is exactly what it means, that and nothing else.
I know perfectly well that the vast majority of those who believe in and have worked for the League of Nations are well-meaning people, but unfortunately these things are a little hard to see. I have made it my duty for the last ten years to study this subject, so that I know what I am talking about, and what I have said has been supported by no less a person than the Prime Minister of Great Britain.
I could very easily continue my remarks, but I do not wish to detain the committee longer. My excuse for having spoken at this time is that I believe this is the most vitally important subject that has come before the house this session. My final suggestion to the people of Canada is that they remember Professor Keynes has said that gold has a psychological value. That is true; and the worship of gold is idolatry. It is as old as history, and has always brought ruin to those who have indulged in it. There is no reason why we should return to gold, and every reason why we should not.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should like to correct one misstatement of fact by the hon. gentleman. He said he would stake his reputation on the statement that eighty-five per cent of all the

Supply-Finance
gold at Fort Knox was owned by private interests and not by the government of the United States. I have sent for the federal reserve bulletin of July, 1943, and the annual report of the secretary of the treasury on the state of the finances for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1942. At page 638 of the federal reserve bulletin I find a table headed, "Analysis of changes in gold stock of the United States," from which I find that in June, 1942, the gold stock of the United States of America was $22,737,000,000.


Norman Jaques: In the United States?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, in the United States.


Norman Jaques: I do not deny that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: At page 594 of the annual report of the secretary of the treasury on the state of the finances for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1942, I find the following item: "Assets. Gold, 1942. $22,736,503,160.69." That is stated to be the position as at the close of the fiscal year 1942, which would be June 30. In other words, the amount of gold owned by the treasury and shown in the annual report of the secretary of the treasury checks almost exactly with the total gold stock of the United States of America, so that the gold there is owned 100 per cent by the treasury.


Norman Jaques: May I have your permission, Mr. Chairman, to read a letter which was my authority for the statement I made:
Dear Mr. Jaques,
The answer to your question in your letter of June 8th is very simple and is shown either in the treasury statement or in the statement issued from time to time covering the condition of the federal reserve banks. The federal reserve banks hold gold certificates which are nothing more nor less than warehouse receipts for all but about two billion dollars of all the gold in this country. The amount of free gold is somewhat less than two billion dollars. Against the warehouse receipts for the actual gold, which are held by the privately owned federal reserve bank system, a somewhat lesser volume of federal reserve notes have been issued and are in circulation in this country as money.
I do not have a treasury statement available at the moment, but nobody in America who understands the operation of our monetary system would question my statement.
The per cent actually is much greater than 80.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does the hon. gentleman
prefer not to give the name of the writer of the letter?


Norman Jaques: It is signed, "Most sincerely, Carl H. Mote."


James Lorimer Ilsley: Who is he?


Norman Jaques: I understand that he is president of the Indiana Telephone company. I
72537-341J
looked up his record in the American "Who's Who", and apparently he is a man of large business experience.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The records are perfectly clear, that the gold stock of United States is owned in its entirety by the United States treasury.


Mr. SLAGHT:: I have two points I wish to bring to the attention of the minister and his assistants, and I am not sure whether item 46 covers my first point or whether I should bring it up under item 47, which has to do with bank inspection. However, perhaps it is covered by the administration item. I have before me the Bank of Canada return of December, 1942 and January, 1943, indicating the securities which the chartered banks hold under the item, "dominion and provincial securities". Those two types of securities are merged; they are not broken down separately. The chartered banks, in furnishing the total of the two, could just as well furnish the total of each. It is a matter of some importance, and I bring it to the attention of the minister and his deputy, because this return shows that at the end of last year the chartered banks held $2,201,000,000 of these two types of securities. Some time ago I placed a question on the order paper asking how much of that item represented dominion securities. The answer was that the banks do not separate them, so that I was unable and the house was unable to get the information. I regard it as important, and I would ask the minister to consider requesting the chartered banks, because that is all it means, to break that return in two in order that this house may know how much of dominion securities, whether in bonds or in short-term treasury notes, the private banks of the country hold.
I think my second point is in order under this item; if not, I can discuss it later when we come to the item on page 10 of the estimates, dealing with the interest on the public debt, which this year shows an increase of $56,000,000. I want to request the Minister of Finance and the treasury board, in the financing that is ahead of us, not to go to the private chartered banks to borrow any money whatsoever for the Dominion of Canada, but rather to go to the Bank of Canada. This increase in interest of $56,000,000 would be cut in two; in effect, it would be reduced by, roughly speaking, $30,000,000 if we would borrow the money the people of Canada, both individuals and corporations, are unable to lend us on our
Supply-Finance

victory bonds-either unable or unwilling to lend us-from the Bank of Canada, instead of from the chartered banks.
The committee will recall that with the wonderful organization we had for victory loan purposes the minister found himself in the last fiscal year, after borrowing all he could from the public, short in his budget requirements to the extent of $982,000,000, or nearly a billion dollars. Last session I advocated in committee that, instead of borrowing from the private banks, the minister should borrow a billion dollars from the Bank of Canada. In answer to my suggestion the minister said that, if he did that, it would simply blow the whole ceiling off. His expression will be found at page 4271 of Hansard for July 15 of last year. This is what he said:
Whatever may be the situation normally, you have now a wartime prices and trade board, which will hold prices down and you can put your money into circulation without forcing prices up. . . .
And I skip a few words there. Then he eontinues:
My hon. friend has the most sublime faith in the price ceiling. I wish I had as much faith in the price ceiling without that billion dollars is he has with that billion dollars.
Then the hon. member for York-Sunbury interjected:
It would just blow up.
And following his lead the Minister of Finance said:
I wish to tell him that if we put into circulation a billion dollars of new money, it would blow the price ceiling to Kingdom come before you could say "Jack Robinson".
That was his strong and forcible way of desiring to have us realize the evil which he genuinely felt would result.
I wish to pause to compliment the minister upon the administration of the price ceiling. It has been remarkable. It has been the envy of the United States and has received favourable comment in the mother country. The figures under it, when compared with what took place at the time of the last war, are startling. During the last war our present Minister of Finance was not minister. I should like to give, first, the price increases in this country, under another government, from November, 1916, to December, 1917, a period in the last war equivalent to the one through which w.e have passed. There was no price ceiling during the last war. Then I shall place on record the price increases from November, 1941 to December, 1942, a relative period in the present war, with a price ceiling established. My figures are taken from the
[Mr. Slaght.l
dominion bureau of statistics, and they show how our wartime prices and trade board under
the present minister has prevented prices from sky-rocketting, as they did during the time of the last war. Since the price ceiling became effective, in the fall of 1941, the cost of living index has risen a total of only 2-5 points. That is the figure up to six weeks ago, and there has been only a very slight difference, if any, since that time. In a comparable period in the last war it jumped 21-2 points.
The following schedule shows the percentage of increase-not the point increase- for leading commodities, and then for all items combined:
Increase Increase
last war	this war
(1)	Food	
26J	%(2)	Rent	
7-4%(3)	Clothing	
17-9%(4)	Fuel, etc	
11	%(5)	Miscellaneous items (doctor,travel, etc.) ____ 10	%
5-9% Fioof 1% Via of 1% Via of 1%
iof 1%
Total all'items-last war-17-8 per cent.
this war- 2-2 per cent.
That is a tribute not only to our Minister of Finance and his department, but also to the men and women of Canada as well, whose willingness and ability to submit to the prohibitions which have been imposed upon them I ventured to predict last year on July 15. The minister was sceptical about it. He said that the creation of a billion dollars of new money would blow the lid off. His department created $982,000,000 of new money. He got $182,000,000 of it from the Bank of Canada and $781,000,000 of it from the private chartered banks. Where did they get it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I may interrupt the hon. member, I should hope it would suit the convenience of hon. members if we were not to rise at six o'clock, but were to continue right through. If that is agreeable, I would move accordingly.


John Horne Blackmore: I think it would be better if we took a recess, even if it were only forty-five minutes.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: No; let us go on.


John Horne Blackmore: I believe we would not be doing our best work if we weary ourselves in that way.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Shall I put the motion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend object to continuing?


John Horne Blackmore: I do not think it is in the best interests of the house, may I say to the Prime Minister. * In my opinion if we took forty-five minutes recess, and then came back, it would be better.

Supply-Finance


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What about thirty minutes?


John Horne Blackmore: I do not mind, but I think there should be a recess.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All right; let us recess for thirty minutes.


John Horne Blackmore: Hon. members have been here since eleven o'clock this morning. We sat until one o'clock, and we have been sitting from two o'clock until six o'clock, and I think we should have a short recess.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at 6.30 p.m.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make it quite clear that in my request to the minister I am in no sense reflecting upon or attacking the chartered banks of Canada. The bankers of Canada have rendered and are rendering a great and genuine service to the people of Canada in the development of our natural resources, and this they can continue to do and receive just rewards for their proper services. There is a party in this house which attacks the banks of Canada and proposes to take them over and, as they say, nationalize them if my hon. friends ever get into power. To nationalize the banks in their programme simply means to politicalize the banks and, translating it one sentence farther, that simply means to C.C.F.-erize the banks, and no greater calamity could happen than that the commercial profits of the banks advancing money should be placed in the hands of any political party, even granting that they have no selfish motive. That would be contrary to all proper safeguarding of the interests of the nation.
My point is a simple one and I can state it in a very short time. I am not opposed to interest being paid by individuals or corporations for the use of other people's money that they have hired or that has been lent to them, nor am I opposed to the payment of interest by provinces or municipalities for money that they may borrow. But I am opposed to the Canadian government, which possesses under the British North America Act the sovereign and exclusive privilege of creating money, paying private bankers for the use of our own money. These private bankers do not lend their money to the government; they lend the government's money to the government and collect from the government an interest charge annually, which, of course, comes out of the taxes and
the pockets of the taxpayers. It would be a simple matter to discontinue dominion government borrowings from the chartered banks. In his able budget presentation on March 2 of this year the Minister of Finance, as reported at page 845 of Hansard, said this:
The plain fact is that this year we have had to depend too much on bank borrowing. I was able to say last year that "aside from the increase in treasury bills, there was no new direct borrowing from the Bank of Canada or the chartered banks during the year." During the current fiscal year, we shall have borrowed direct from the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks a net amount of $983 million.
Then he says:
We borrowed from the banks because we were unable to borrow as much as we needed from personal savings.
I am concerned to know upon what he bases that statement; I am concerned to know who advised him that we had been unable to borrow as much as we needed from personal savings. It will be recalled that every issue of victory bonds made since the war began has been oversubscribed. Was it the officials of his department who told him that if he floated another loan he would not get money from personal savings, or was it the heads of the victory loan campaign who told him that? We all know the bankers of the country were the heads of the victory loan campaign, and they did a fine job. But I should like to know from the minister, if it is not outside the public interest to tell the committee, why he said that we could not borrow as much as we needed from personal savings when every victory loan he has offered the public has been oversubscribed.
In the coming year the minister and the treasury board have budgeted to borrow $2,748 million, which is about half a billion dollars more than they budgeted to borrow last year, and which they did not borrow last year, because they were unable to borrow. We did not borrow last year within $782 million of what we ought to have borrowed from the people, and accordingly we went to the banks for it. If we have the same measure of success with our victory loan this year, we shall have to borrow from the banks between $1,200 million and $1,500 million, because our requirements will be that much greater.
I say to the minister that there is no more danger of inflation in borrowing that money from the Bank of Canada than there is in borrowing it from the chartered1 banks. When the chartered banks lent him that $782 million, they did not do anything more than make a bookkeeping entry in pen and ink, crediting the Minister of Finance with that amount of
Supply-Finance

money and putting the securities, whether bonds or treasury bills, away in their boxes. At the end of the year the chartered banks were holding over $2,000 million of securities. Why do we carry on in that way? Are we not apprehensive that the debt load we are creating will wreck this country? As I say, in borrowing from the Bank of Canada we are not incurring any greater danger of inflation than if we got the money from the chartered banks.
I want to support that statement with the authority of the Minister of Finance himself. On October 15 he had a carefully considered article, answering questions and elucidating for the people the intricacies of our banking and borrowing system, in Maclean's magazine, and at page 75 he made this statement.
When the banks lend large sums to the government, they create additional deposits in the process. In the first instance, the new deposits are turned over to the government by the banks when they make the loan. But the government spends these deposits by drawing cheques against them-and they arise in the hands of the public in exactly the same way as if the government had printed more dollar bills to pay its expenses.
And he concludes by saying:
These bank deposits are the commonest and most important form of money these days and the increase in them produces the same inflationary effects, and must be subject to the same sort of limits, as the issue of money.
That being so, what justification is there to add a further unnecessary load in order to finance our necessary deficit in war time? None whatever. Let me say to the minister that there is plenty of scope for the chartered banks in the other fields of activity in which they engaged. I have prepared, and I am going to take the time of the committee to put on Hansard a statement of the original capital of the chartered banks of Canada-$145 million. They have surpluses in the billions and all their buildings, and they have accessible to lend at five or six or seven per cent some $1,700,000,000 of time or savings deposits which the public have entrusted to them at one and one-half per cent. They have all this and their original capital, so that I think it is as clear as the noon-day sun that the Dominion of Canada must stop borrowing on its own security from the chartered banks of this country when we can borrow equally well from our own Bank of Canada.
The minister might tell us: "I have done a wonderful job in getting down the rate of interest which I pay to the chartered banks." Of course, he has. But while I give him great credit for that, the chartered banks have seen the handwriting on the wall. They 
know this is a terrific monopoly which they enjoy and which we gave them for nothing, and I believe that I am speaking in their own best interests when I ask them to join with the government and give up this monopoly and this practice of making bookkeeping entries, of pretending to lend money to the government, when all they are doing is taking interest from the government and not putting up any money of their own.
The system was well described by the Minister of Finance last year when he said in an able address on July 15 as reported at page 4270 of Hansard:
Everyone familiar with the working of the banking system knows that, the moment the banks get their hands on additional cash-I mean by that Bank of Canada notes, or deposits by the Bank of Canada which are convertible into Bank of Canada notes-when the banks get those reserves in their hands, powerful forces are set in motion to get the banks to buy securities themselves, to make loans themselves, so that the deposits of the chartered banks will be seven, eight, nine or ten times as great as their cash reserves. That lies at the base of their whole profit-making activities; the way they make money is by lending more money than they have. What they have is their cash reserves; and unless a bank has out several _ times-six, seven, eight, nine or ten times-its cash reserves, it is not being profitably, or, from a banking point of view, properly conducted.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I gather from the remarks of the hon. member that the banks lend credit but actually get back cash. Is that the idea? When a loan becomes due it is repaid to the banks, so that they are getting money they never created.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: If their loans are repaid, of course they do, and having lent $782,000,000 to the Minister of Finance in the last fiscal year by a stroke of a pen, and with nothing behind it, when the minister pays them back that loan they are getting something they never had. Their business of lending something they have not got would not otherwise be properly and profitably conducted, to use the minister's words.


John Power Howden: And they do get it back in the end.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: If they lend money or pretend to lend money they never had, and if the borrower pays that back, they have got back a loan that was just as much a loan as though they had counterfeited a bill. There was no security and no goods and services behind it; there was no gold behind it; there was not a pennyworth of gold in the Bank of Canada behind it, nor is any required to be kept. So that, of course, if they got paid back these loans by making

Supply-Finance
entries in books they did get something for nothing. Mark you, we are not paying back any bonds. Canada will owe billions for bonds, and I am looking to the day when we shall be called upon to pay the capital back on our loans. But what I am pointing out now is this awful burden of interest that is eating us up and costing the taxpayer so much, and which is quite unnecessary in so far as the government of Canada is concerned, because it is given the power to create new money, but it passes that power over as a blessed privilege and monopoly to the private banks.
One more point and I am through. The minister might point out that under the present system, if he had borrowed that $782,000,000 from the Bank of Canada instead of from the chartered banks, on top of the $192,000,000 he did borrow, the chartered banks would have had the privilege, because we would have created that much new money, that much new credit of the Bank of Canada, of multiplying that twenty times. They only have to have 5 per cent, and if they had done that, the spiral of inflation would have run away. The minister borrowed $192,000,000, and instead of the lid coming off, it did not even quiver. The bankers knew better than to take advantage of that privilege and did not take it. All the minister has tb do is to pass a statute overnight requiring the Bank of Canada not to lend what they have not got to the government of Canada but only to lend by bookkeeping entries or to extend credit and create new money in so far as the Minister of Finance or the board of governors of the Bank of Canada permit them to do. I do not think that would shake in the slightest degree the foundations of the profitable business which the chartered banks of this country have been enjoying.
Let me ask the Minister of Finance not to invite me this year to feel ashamed because, after blaming me last year for discussing the government's financial policy, he said that I was directly against the financial policy of the government. I do not agree with him in that. I believe that 1 am enunciating the policy of the Liberal party as laid down by the Prime Minister and in our platform, when the Prime Minister said that public credit should be issued according to public needs, that that was Canada's duty and the policy of the Liberal party. So that if anybody is going to cross the floor, I would have to ask the minister to cross the floor because, when we depart from that policy, we are departing from Liberalism. I say that we should use the Bank of Canada for the legitimate purposes for which it has been created.
Next year is the end of the ten-year period when the Bank Act will be up for revision. It is too late to amend the act this year, and we cannot do it fairly by order in council, but I do press on the minister and his advisers that we wake up next year and put upon the statute books a control of the use of credit and new moneys and put that control back where it belongs, under the guidance of the Bank of Canada, the treasury board and the Minister of Finance.


James Lorimer Ilsley: ing from the Bank of Canada. When we borrow from the chartered banks we, of course, increase the volume of money, currency, spending power in the country by the amount which we borrow, and to that extent the transaction is of the same nature as borrowing from the Bank of Canada or issuing what my hon. friend called last year "national currency", because there we are increasing up to that point the amount of currency in the country to the extent of the exact amount which we borrow from the Bank of Canada. Up to that point the two transactions are the same.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Not "currency"; the medium of exchange.	.
Mr. I'LSLEY: "Currency" is incorrect-the medium of exchange. I got mixed. But immediately thereafter the consequences are entirely different. Borrowing from the Bank of Canada sets loose powerful inflationary forces beyond the amount of the original borrowing, forces which are not set loose by borrowing from the chartered banks, and those forces are released in this way. That fact is well understood by hon. members; we have gone over it time after time, but perhaps I should repeat it again. The chartered banks, as part of the normal business of banking which has been carried on in this way by banks for a great many decades, and probably centuries, use their cash reserves as a basis for extending credit, and their deposit liabilities may be in many eases, by law, twenty times as great as their cash reserves. As a matter of fact, however, they are almost always about ten times the amount of their cash reserves; and if banking is to be carried on profitably, banks inevitably do multiply the amount of medium of exchange by something like ten times.


John Horne Blackmore: Which is wrong.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will come to that. So that if we borrow from the Bank of Canada a billion dollars-we were talking last year about borrowing $1,200,000,000, although I gather that in my speech I talked about it as if it were a billion-under our present law and without restrictions or regulations, the normal development thereafter is for the medium of exchange in this country to go up to perhaps ten billion dollars.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Why not change overnight?


James Lorimer Ilsley: All right. That is what I meant when I said to-day that that would blow the ceiling to Kingdom come, and so it would. I repeat that. It would do it.
My hon. friend said to-night before the recess, "Ah, the Minister of Finance has borrowed nearly a billion dollars; he has created

nearly a billion dollars of additional medium of exchange; yet he has been able to hold his ceding." I have not borrowed a billion dollars from the Bank of Canada. I have borrowed less than $200,000,000 from the Bank of Canada during the past year. A part of that is not dangerous borrowing, for a reason which I dealt with in my budget speech. But I do not take back a word of all I said1 as to the effect of borrowing a billion or twelve hundred millions from the Bank of Canada under our present law and regulations. There would be so much medium of exchange in circulation in this country that it would be wholly impossible for us to retain our controls.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: That is all in potential.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not understand what that means. But do not let hon. members think the preservation of controls is easy. Do not let hon. gentlemen suppose that putting a price ceiling or a wage ceding is the end of it. If the economic forces which are being exerted in the country are powerful enough under that price ceiling, that price ceiling cannot possibly hold. Hon. gentlemen may think that by very heavy taxation we can draw the purchasing power back into the treasury ; that what we do not get back by taxation we can get back by borrowing, and that to the extent that taxation and borrowing do not do the job, the imposition of controls including rationing will do it. I say to the committee that the whole lot will not do it if you increase the volume of our purchasing power in the country too much. If you get a situation where, figuratively speaking, everyone goes around with his pockets full of money, the goods wdl be cleared right out of the stores.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: That is a straw man.
Mr. ILSLEY; That would, figuratively, be the case, if you issued a bdlion or twelve hundred million dollars borrowed from the Bank of Canada and let the present banking laws take their course.
On one other occasion I told my hon. friend that I did not want anyone within the sound of my voice at that time to say that the words I used when Maclean's magazine interviewed me meant that borrowing from the chartered banks was as inflationary as borrowing from the Bank of Canada. My hon. friend knows that I never intended them as such, because I solemnly assured him of that. My views are found, I think, most conveniently in my reply to my hon. friend last year, when I made it clear that there is no comparison between the inflationary effect of borrowing from the chartered banks and1 borrowing from the Bank of

Supply-Finance
Canada, and we think the additional interest which is payable is a reasonable price to pay for avoiding the terrible effects of inflation.
My hon. friend comes back and says, "Well, change the law or the regulations; make it so that the banks cannot proceed on a ten per cent or a five per cent cash reserve basis but," as I understood it, on a 100 per cent reserve basis; that they must retain a reserve up to and equal to the amount of -their deposit liabilities.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: That would be right and just.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We are facing the issue squarely. If they got leave to extend it by ten or twenty times, we would have that much more inflation; we would have Simon-pure 100 per cent inflation. But some say, do not allow them to expand credit in that way. It was suggested by the hon. member for Rosthern when he was in the house, and I believe it has been suggested by one or more members of the Social Credit party. Imagine the situation where the banks had to retain 100 per cent cash to cover deposit liabilities! If they did that-


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Cash or Bank of Canada credits.


James Lorimer Ilsley: When I say "cash", I mean Bank of Canada notes or Bank of Canada deposits. I use the word "cash" in that sense and in no other. Now, if we impose upon them, by law, necessity for a 100 per cent cash ratio, -they cannot make money out of loans.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: That is the way they claim they make their money.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know what they claim. I am not speaking on behalf of the banks. The banks in years past have been wrong, a good many of them, in the claims they have put forward. I do not say that the banks are always right by any means, but I do say that they could not carry on business. How could they?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Read their annual statements. For years they made sixteen per cent profit.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Please do not interrupt too much. The inevitable effect of insisting upon a 100 per cent cash ratio is, of course, that the payment of interest on savings deposits would disappear overnight and a service charge on current deposits, a substantial one, would have to be imposed. In other words, you would be levying, by this regulation, an indirect tax, and one not in proportion to ability to pay, upon the savings depositors
and current account depositors, or on borrowers from banks, or on the shareholders of the banks, or on all three.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The depositor should pay interest to the bank, not the bank to the depositor. He should pay a service charge.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No doubt you would have a big service charge if you did that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put it on.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Supply-Finance

service to the government at cost. For some reason or another my hon. friend would stop us from doing that. He would take that away from the banks; he would not give them the business, and he would put it in the Bank of Canada and do it in that way. I do not know why. He talks about the great increase in the annual interest charge, an unbearable burden which the people cannot pay. We have budgeted this year for $5,500,000,000. What was the total interest item on that total? It was $214,459,300.63.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: What will it be in the postwar period?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That depends on how we
handle the situation in the post-war period. If we keep our national income up-


Walter Frederick Kuhl: 


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, if. If we keep it up, I do not say up to the present level, but if we keep it anywhere near the present level, we shall be able readily to service our debt even if we have two or three more victory loans. Nothing is lost to the country, it must be borne in mind, when you borrow money within Canada, because what is the liability of one set of Canadians is the asset of another set. It is only when you borrow money abroad that such borrowing becomes a real burden to the country as a whole; and while I do not want to see our internal debt go up faster than I can help; while I do not think it is a good thing to have a large internal debt, nevertheless for any member of this house to say that we cannot stand it; that it will crush us; that it is a burden beyond the capacity of the people, that is a mistake. It is not a burden on the people of the country but on the taxpayers of the country for the benefit of Canadians who hold the securities, and when the holders of those securities die, a part of that money goes to pay succession duties, and so on. It is not a thing that is crushing the country.
I do not know whether I have covered the situation. The hon. gentleman asked, who was it that said that we could not borrow more money from the people? I cannot say who advised that. We borrow everything we can, and his suggestion that the head of the national war finance committee, who was president of the Bank of Montreal, advised not to borrow money from the people so that we would have to borrow from the chartered banks, is wholly unfounded. Mr. Spinney has done his very best while chairman of the national war finance committee to see that the maximum amount possible was borrowed from the people.

We have had appeal after appeal and campaign after campaign. We have done everything we could think of. We have advertised and enlisted the voluntary support of perhaps 20,000 or 25,000 Canadians. We have put on great victory loan campaigns. You cannot put one on every month. Perhaps my hon. friend would ask why we do not have them more often.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Oh, no.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That would be the only way we could get any more. I say to him that we could not get a dollar more than we got in any one of our campaigns; we could' not get a dollar more than we got through our continuous war savings certificate campaign, or by our sale of non-interest bearing bonds, which are not going over very well. I say that myself. Nobody had to advise me about that; I know it. I have lived through it, day after day, week after week, month after month. We have done everything we could to get the people of this country to save their money and to lend it to us. They have done very well; but after they got the bonds or the certificates some people sold their bonds or cashed their certificates. There are certain unsatisfactory features of the situation, but I do not know of a better system than the present one. I repeat the passage which was quoted from one of my budget speeches, that we found it impossible to get as much money as we required from the personal savings of the people. We were driven to the banks, and) as between the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks we went to the chartered banks, in order to avoid inflation. We got them to lend us money on deposit certificates at cost, as nearly as we could estimate cost, and at the very time they were doing that they reduced their dividends and by all indications were not making abnormal or undue profits. Listening to some of the remarks that have been made here to-night, I should have thought they lent credit and got back cash; that they were making 100 per cent on the transaction.


John Power Howden: I should like to follow up that question. To my very humble intelligence-which is probably due to my ancestry -the thing that bothers me is that we do borrow credit and that in the end we repay that loan with actual wealth.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What wealth?


John Power Howden: Actual cash, if you like; that is what I mean. We borrow credit from these people, and all the time we are building up the capital debt of our country. They

Supply-Finance
lend us credit; they do not actually lend us money, to carry on the business of the country, but eventually that loan has to be paid back in actual cash.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; you can take in cheques, or something like that.


John Power Howden: Can you pay them back with cheques? Do you not require something behind your cheques?


James Lorimer Ilsley: A bank account.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: All bank borrowings are repayable in legal tender cash; it is a contract under the law, as the minister well knows.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; it is a contract, but actual legal tender is not taken back.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: When a depression comes along that is exactly what happens; the people are forced to convert their assets into cash. In the depression of 1929 that was the thing that brought about the appalling condition of bankruptcy, because of these liquid credits. People had invested largely in margin stocks; then they were called upon to convert those stocks into cash, and they had to get legal tender. I remember going to my own banker; he telephoned and said, "I want this security loan called." I said, "I suppose that goes for every one of your clients in this bank?" and his reply was that it did. I suppose every bank in Canada is doing the same thing. That applies not only to people like myself, who have not been gambling in the market, but to people who have been buying on margin. As a banker the minister knows that if this is the order that has gone out from the banks in Canada, and probably from the banks in the United States, to all people who have stocks as security, they must go on the market to convert those stocks into cash, and you know that will collapse the market in Canada and the United States. The very principle raised by the hon. member for St. Boniface, that they lend credit and are repaid in legal tender cash, is one of the tragic and badly misused powers enjoyed by the banking monopoly, and as yet the people have no protection or security against it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The point really is a new one to me, and I shall look into it to see whether I think there is really anything in it. The points brought up by the hon. member for Parry Sound are old; they have been discussed time after time. I cannot make my position much clearer than I have made it. Three or four times I have given the
72537-342i
reasons why we are taking our present course, and I believe that course to be in the best interests of the country.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: May I mention just three matters for the minister to ponder during the recess, apropos of his explanation. He says that all this debt we are creating, and the interest we pay, is held in Canada so that it is a case of one Canadian paying another. Let me tell him that in the last victory loan there were 2,400,000 subscribers, individuals and others. There are in Canada 11,500,000 people, and of course one must make allowances for children; so that there are to-day 9,100,000 people in Canada who do not own a victory bond of any kind.
Let me give the minister one other point. He says that the chartered banks restricted their profits, and I want to give him this figure. There are 51,000 shareholders in the ten chartered banks of Canada; that information comes from the statement of the association of bankers. This means that four per cent of the people of Canada own bank shares and ninety-six per cent of the people of Canada have not a share of bank stock.


John Horne Blackmore: But they are paying the taxes.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Yes; they are paying the taxes and giving the bankers the profit under the monopolistic system.
One more point and I am through. The minister says, you might just as well go on and let them do this-the British North America Act provides otherwise, but we surrendered that right-because if you take it away from them, we shall have to pay for the banks servicing us. For instance, a grocer then would have to pay so much a cheque, and so on. They are charging that now. I know a little grocery store in a country town that is paying the bank $10 a month to carry its current account.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is better than paying the bank $100 a month.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: It would not have to pay the bank $100 a month.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps not, but it would have to pay a great deal more than $10.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I say it would not have to pay nearly as much, and let me tell the minister why. The minister knows that the service the banks give is for the big corpora-tons, for big businesses, which have thousands of cheques go through in a day. That is the type of business that is using eighty-five per cent of the banking service of Canada. The working man in the factory and the farmer on
Supply-Finance

the farm may have little savings accounts, but they do not go near them more than two or three times a year. If they paid five cents every time they went there and deposited or withdrew money it might cost him fifty or seventy-five cents a year. People of that kind constitute eighty per cent of the population of Canada; they are the poor people, the taxpayers. This bugaboo about servicing the people does not mean a thing; the banks service big business.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend says it will just be soaking big business; so why worry.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Oh, no, I do not.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is the argument.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: No, not at all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then what did my hon. friend mean when he argued that as long as the service charge landed on big business it was not a thing we should worry about?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: What I meant was this. When a man takes a trip to Vancouver he expects to pay his way. A man who can afford to take that trip expects to pay the railway fare, the pullman fare, and all that sort of thing; but how many of the working men of this province are able to take a trip to Vancouver? Let the people who get the service pay for what they get; that is my principle, instead of giving the banks a monopoly which the minister has not yet attempted to justify or explain. The power to create money was given to the dominion under the British North America Act, but we gave it away to a bunch of individuals who represent four per cent of the people. I do not think the minister ever heard me offer to injure big business; I never preach that sort of doctrine. I had to tell him who use the banks; that is all. I only mean it in that sense, and in no other. I am telling him, however, on whom the burden falls. It falls on the little taxpayer paying eight per cent sales tax and now, since he is earning a little money, paying income tax. He is not using these services, but he is largely paying for them. My point is that those who use the services should pay for them in a reasonable and proper way.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I wish to say that there are
4,000,000 savings accounts in the banks of Canada, and I will not countenance, if I can help it, the wiping out of the interest, even though it is li per cent, I believe, on those savings accounts; I would not wipe out the interest of those 4,000,000 savings depositors, as my hon. friend is advocating to-night.
[Mr. Slaght.J


Arthur Graeme Slaght: No, not at all; let me say this, that I would not wipe out savings accounts. That is the last thing in the world I would do. That is another bugaboo which will not hold water. Let me tell the minister that the banks-


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was referring only to the interest on the savings deposits.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Of course they get interest on them. The banks pay li per cent. But what rate do they lend it at? They lend it at 6i and 7 per cent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And to us at three-quarters of 1 per cent.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: They do not lend you their savings at all. They lend you a bookkeeping entry, an entry in a book. You get a piece of credit, but it does not represent one dollar, in any way, of the savings.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That does not matter-and my hon. friend is getting hot about this question. The interest that they pay out is a charge, a cost, against their doing business.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Of course it is.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend says that we do not get the savings. He says that we borrow money from the bank. He points out that we deposit money in the bank, and that they have that money; that then we borrow money from the bank and pay it out, and that, it goes back into the bank. And they pay out 1J per cent when it does go back. Therefore that three-quarters of 1 per cent is a proper counter-charge or off-setting item against it. I admit that there are current accounts that are not handled in that way. However, my hon. friend's argument comes to this that he would substitute the new system of 100 per cent cash ratio, and this simply means that you would have large service charges, and you would have no savings bank interest whatsoever. There is no doubt about that. Everyone, I believe, who has given the matter any thought knows that would be the result. I do not know what would be accomplished by it. The hon. member said the service charge would be paid by big business. If the service charge were paid by big business, the taxpayers-the government-would suffer very considerably to the extent that they are liable for excess profits tax. And that still farther would impair the revenue position.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This discussion has gone on for some time. Could we now consider the item?


John Horne Blackmore: We have only started. Before we leave this matter there are two or

Supply-Finance
three questions I wish to ask the minister. We have been at work on the problem for seven years now, and I should like to ask him some questions. I cannot see why he should not allow me to do so. Frequently in the last three years he has done that.
* Mr. ILSLEY: I beg the hon. member's pardon?


John Horne Blackmore: Why does the minister not allow me to ask him questions while he is making one of his fine speeches?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It upsets the sequence.


John Horne Blackmore: There are two facts
the minister has overlooked. He has assumed that if $100 comes out of the Bank of Canada and goes into the Bank of Montreal so that the Bank of Montreal can lend ten times that $100, or $1,000, then immediately and automatically the Bank of Montreal will lend it. There is no justification for assuming that at all. First of all, how will the banks expand? Supposing the Bank of Montreal gets $100 as the Bank of Canada issues it, the Bank of Montreal simply cannot expand that $100 to $1,000 unless it can lend, can it? It must lend?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Or buy securities.


John Horne Blackmore: It must lend.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Or, as I say, buy securities.


John Horne Blackmore: It amounts to the
same thing if it buys securities; all right. _ If it buys securities, the money is not getting into the hands of the ordinary citizen that the hon. member for Parry Sound spoke about. It is going into the hands of pretty big business, in all probability. It is altogether likely that it will not get out into common circulation at all, and that is a vital point to consider. The only way in the world in which the Bank of Montreal can expand that $100 into $1,000 into ordinary circulation is by lending money. And if it cannot get borrowers, it cannot lend the money.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Or by buying securities.
Why does my hon. friend leave that out?


John Horne Blackmore: We will come to that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does it hurt his argument,
and is it for that reason that he leaves it out?


John Horne Blackmore: No, not at all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, then, put it in.


John Horne Blackmore: But the government
must realize, the Department of Finance must realize, surely, that the difficulty as far as securities were concerned, would lie in the controlling of securities. There are measures
which can be adopted with respect to securities, measures which would control the security situation. But the general assumption is that all that is necessary is to take a billion dollars or a hundred million dollars out of the Bank of Canada, and that automatically it expands ten or fifteen times. The Hon. Charles Dunning used to say that, when he was in the house, in replying to the hon. member for Rosthern. That is absolute nonsense.
The minister says the banks would be buying securities. I grant they might unless controlled. The only other way in which they can expand is either by lending to produce goods such as sheep or shoes, or by lending probably to a wholesale or other organization which distributes. Those are the only three ways I can recall.
Now, if the government can control lending to buy securities, then all it has to be concerned about is the control of lending for production or distribution. Once that is recognized, it throws a whole lot of light on the situation. Does it not? If the Bank of Montreal or the other chartered banks wish to lend money to producers to-day, to whom would they lend? They would not lend unless people came in to borrow. Who would come in to borrow? Who has not now money enough, and would need to borrow? May I ask if there is any farmer in this country who would come in to borrow who is not now borrowing? Is there any merchant who would come in to borrow who is not now borrowing -or any wholesaler? If there is, then we must draw the conclusion, that the banks are restricting loans to those who want loans for distribution and production, something which I think the minister would not concede.
I have had bankers tell me time and again in the last three or four years that they now lend money freely to any accredited borrower. Then, how in the world would they lend any more money if they had a billion dollars worth of Bank of Canada money in their tills? It does not follow that just as soon as Bank of Canada money is issued, there is an extension of credit-except by loans. If there is anything wrong with that reasoning, will the minister explain it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to draw the attention of the minister to a matter I wish he would look into. I believe it comes under this item, because I notice that under it there are certain expenses for the treasury board. It is a treasury board decision to which at this time I should like to call the attention of the minister. My information is in sessional paper 225D, which includes, first of all, a copy of
Supply-Finance

P.C.6702 of August 26, 1941. This order in council sets out a regulation or provision concerning the payment of cost of living bonus to employees of the public service. Clause No. 18 in this order in council gives to the treasury board the power to make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the order in council to cover any matters that have not been covered by the order in council. Under that authority the treasury board1 on October 23, 1941, passed minute No. T-212473-B, the pertinent part of which is as follows:
In the case of employees paid on the basis of prevailing rates, where there have been increases in prevailing rates since August 1, 1939, bonus shall be payable on the basis of present total compensation, but there shall be deducted from the amount of the bonus, the amount of the increases in prevailing rate authorized for the class since August 1, 1939.
The reason why I made some further investigation of this matter and eventually secured this material was the fact that I took up with the Minister of National Defence for Air the case of a group of employees at No. 7 equipment depot of the Royal Canadian Air Force in Winnipeg who went through the experience of being awarded a cost of living bonus and then having a portion, if not all of it, taken away on this basis. It was some considerable time before we could find out just why it had been done. First, it was thought it was the Department of National Defence for Air that was responsible, and then it was thought it was the Department of Labour. For a long time we did not know who was responsible. I took the matter up in the house with the Minister of National Defence for Air and he could not believe that this had taken place, but in the course of time it was run down.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The effect is to charge against the cost of living bonus any wage increase after August, 1939.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So far as I can find out, that does not apply to employees in the public service other than those on prevailing rates.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The other employees have not had their rates increased.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The rates applicable to these different groups are in different amounts. In many instances the prevailing rates, particularly in the case of the employees to whom I refer, day labourers, were adjusted by provincial law in Manitoba. Some time later that law was changed and the bonus was literally taken away from them. It has the effect of regarding the prevailing rate or the minimum rate as a fair rate.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know that this is the way to leave it, but I shall look into the matter. That is probably all the hon. gentleman wants me to do, but I cannot just let it go at that. The whole scheme of the cost of living bonus for the civil servant was to give him what he was getting in August, 1939, plus a cost of living bonus since then. Some civil servants have had their rates of pay changed, and in order to pay them on a comparable basis with the other civil servants, you have to charge against the cost of living bonus the increase in wage rates that has taken place after August, 1939.


Stanley Howard Knowles: These people are not civil servants; that is, they are not classified under the civil service commission.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is different. The hon. gentleman said we were not doing that with the rest of the civil servants.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry if I got off on the wrong track. These are employees of the public service, but they are paid prevailing rates; they are not within civil service classifications. Their situation is really more comparable with that of industrial workers. In the case of industrial workers there have been cases where the original wage rate has been adjusted and then a cost of living bonus applied after that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But the cost of living bonus may not have been the full cost of living bonus; it would be a cost of living bonus paid after the adjustment of the wage rate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is possible for industrial workers outside the public service to make application to the regional war labour boards to have a matter like this considered, but these people are neither one nor the other; they are not civil service employees nor are they people outside the public service. They are prevented by this minute of the treasury board from getting any consideration or adjustment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Were the wage rates raised after November 15, 1941?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I cannot recall.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the hon. member is comparing them with industrial workers, a lot will depend on that, and if he is comparing them with civil servants, they are being treated just the same as civil servants. The order in council deals with the whole public service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall not take the time to press it further. I would appreciate it if the minister would look into it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Finance
5413.
Old age pensions (including pensions to the blind) -
51. Old age pensions, including pensions to the blind, administration, $42,505.
Gerald Grattan McGeer: I do not want to take up the time of the committee unduly, but this is a matter with respect to which I have done a good deal of work this session. I had hoped that during this session parliament would have moved to extend to old age pensioners in Canada something of the same measure of consideration that has been extended to many other classes of people, none of whom are more deserving of the attention of parliament and of the ministry than are the old age pensioners. This government has assumed an enormous war burden, but it has not been lacking in its appreciation and fulfilment of its domestic duties during this period of war crisis. The government has increased the pay of the soldier; it has improved everything required by the soldier in the way of clothing, food and shelter; it has extended a measure of consideration to the soldier's dependents, and I think in this regard we as Canadians can proudly say that we are caring for our armed forces and their dependents as well as any nation in the world. We have taken care of the wage-earner by means of bonuses and coiv-trolling the cost of living, and in numerous other ways others have been taken care of. But we have neglected to recognize the old age pensioner as a class that is worthy of just as much attention as we have extended to others.
This year the matter came up by way of a question to the minister to ascertain whether or not the cost of living bonus could not be extended to the old age pensioner, and I must confess that I was deeply concerned with the reply that the minister gave, because I believe that in all of the social reforms that are facing us to-day, success in dealing with them is largely a matter of attitude. The attitude of the minister to the old age pensioner seemed1 to me to be a repudiation of well established Liberal policy, and following that statement which was made in the house on April 1, I wrote to each of the provincial premiers throughout Canada the following letter:
On April 2 last I wrote to each of our provincial Prime Ministers enclosing a copy of Hansard covering the debates in the House of Commons of April 1st last, and drew attention to certain statements made by the Minister of Finance which I felt were of vital interest to all provincial governments.
In view of the replies received, copies of which I enclose, may I again draw your attention to the position taken by the Minister of Finance which I think may be fairly summarized as follows:
(1)	The responsibility for old age pensions is primarily of provincial jurisdiction;
(2)	The amount paid to old age pensioners is inadequate;
(3)	The dominion government will not contribute any portion of any increase in the amount payable;	_
(4)	The provincial governments are now in a better position to meet the cost of old age pensions than is the dominion government;
(5)	The dominion government will give consideration to a request made by substantially all of the provinces for a reconsideration of the maximum limit in the Old Age Pensions Act (see Hansard, April 1, 1943, pages 1789 to 1793 inclusive).
I at once challenged the position taken by the minister because I believed that the settled policy of the Liberal party and our government is as follows:
(1)	The British North America Act should be amended so that:
(a)	The principle of the old age pensions which is sound, would become the exclusive obligation of the federal parliament;
(b)	All old age pensions should be administered under one national policy;
(c)	All costs, administrative and otherwise, should be borne by the federal government.
These conclusions I believe correctly summarize the old age pension policy enunciated by the Eight Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, now Prime Minister, when he was describing the policy of his government which passed the present Old Age Pensions Act in 1927, despite the fact that the act of 1926 had been disallowed by the Senate.	_
I enclose herewith a copy of the records in Hansard containing the relevant remarks of Mr. King to which I have referred.
Until the Hon. Mr. Ilsley's statement of last November, and repeated in the house April 1st-
And repeated substantially I think here again to-day:
-I have never known of any change in the policy defined by Mr. King.
In view of the attitude now taken by the Minister of Finance, the provincial governments must act if old age pensions are to be changed from a provincial to a national responsibility.
What is needed at the moment is a request by the provincial governments that:
(1)	The British North America Act be amended to nationalize old age pensions;
(2)	The age limit be reduced;
(3)	The maximum payable be raised;
(4)	Many of the arbitrary restrictions now in the act and the regulations be repealed;
(5)	The policy adopted for old age pensioners should be extended to include pensions to the blind and mothers' allowances;
(6)	The proportion paid by the federal government for pensions and administration should, pending the amendment to the constitution, be increased to ninety-nine per cent.
These requests, if acceded to, would put the policy as enunciated by Mr. King into effect and extend a similar measure of that favourable consideration which has been given to wage earners through the cost-of-living bonus, to soldiers and soldiers' dependents whose pay and allowances have been increased, and would raise the pension standards to what is now generally recognized as reasonable and just.
Supply-Finance

I can assure you that if the plan proposed is proceeded with, or some other action taken, that it will find very generous support in the House of Commons and I know that there are a great many members like myself who are anxious and willing to place our services at your disposal.
I have always understood that the policy defined by Mr. King would be put into effect as soon as the provincial governments would agree to the necessary amendment to the constitution.
At the same time I wrote to the Prime Minister under date of June 15:
My dear Mr. King,
I have always believed your policy on old age pensions to be based upon the following assumptions:
(1)	The principle of old age pensions is sound;
(2)	The act passed in the House of Commons and vetoed in the Senate in 1926 and enacted in 1927 would have the approval of public opinion which in turn *would bring all provincial governments to accept its terms and eventually agree to the amendment required to make old age pensions a national institution when,
(a)	old age pensions would be administered and paid by the federal government;
(b)	all old age pensioners in Canada would receive equal and adequate consideration.
The bitter opposition to your policy came from those who believed:
(1)	The cost would be too great;
(2)	The system should be contributory;
(3)	The responsibility was provincial and not federal;
(4)	The principle was unsound and socialistic and against public interest.
No doubt you will recall the attitude of the provinces in 1924 and 1925. British Columbia at that time was the only province asking that old age pensions be established. All of the provinces, including British Columbia, refused at that time to agree to bear any share in the liability, and Quebec definitely repudiated the principle.
Notwithstanding the all-out opposition, the adverse attitude of the provinces and the veto of the senate, repudiated by popular vote in 1926, the Old Age Pension Act become a federal law under your leadership in 1927.
British Columbia came in the same year. Manitoba and Saskatchewan followed in 1928. Alberta and Ontario came in and the act was applied to the Northwest Territories in 1929. Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island joined in 1933, and in 1936 Quebec and New Brunswick made the proposition unanimous.
Public opinion to-day not only endorses the principle of old age pensions but goes far beyond and now demands a sweeping programme of social service reform.
Time, in less than 20 years, has made the vindication of your forward leadership in the field of social service reform a matter of Canadian history.
You will notice in the correspondence a quotation from your remarks in the House of Commons on June 2, 1931. May I also refer you to: Hansard, July 20, 1931, page 3947; Hansard, July 28, 1931, page 4230. In these addresses you again took the lead by declaring that the constitution should be amended to nationalize old age pensions.

I put that on the record because I believe it is a fair interpretation of the Liberal policy as defined over the years and enunciated by the Prime Minister, in contrast with the attitude taken by the Minister of Finance today. Again the Minister of Finance tells us: I cannot afford it. That is equivalent to saying what was said by the Tories and senators who vetoed the bill-it would cost too much. The minister admits that the amount is inadequate, but again he says: It is a matter of provincial and not federal jurisdiction.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Where did I say we could not afford it?


Gerald Grattan McGeer: The minister did not say that in so many words, but what he did say was this:
I cannot see why, in a state of affairs where all the provinces have surpluses, and some of them enormous surpluses, the provinces should not undertake this, which is primarily their responsibility, not ours, instead of calling on us, with our huge deficits, running up to two and three thousand million dollars a year. Certainly we are budgeting for a deficit of $2,750,000,000 while all the provinces, as I have said before, are in heavy surplus. . . .
I know there is great interest in this matter, and I know it is a very great problem; but do hon. members think that when we are in the middle of a great war it is in the interests of the war effort for the government to pour out money and more money and still more money which will be spent on goods and services? . . .
We recognize the problem here. I am not going to say the present level of old age pensions is a satisfactory one. But why grind at the dominion government all the time, with its terrific burdens, and with its deficit of two or three billions? Why drive us, or make it almost impossible for us to carry on at all?
That, I take it, is just another way of saying that it is beyond the financial power of the dominion government-which is the equivalent of saying it costs too much. Now I want to deal with that for a moment. We are able to finance the production of an enormous war programme. At the same time we are able to finance, and did last year, the production of a thousand million dollars worth of goods and services which we handed out as a gift to Britain. That was no gift to Britain, in my humble opinion; it was simply a contribution of war energy which we had available and which should have been put where it was sent. But this year we are able to finance another thousand million dollars and hand it over as mutual aid to our allies. Every Canadian is proud to endorse that attitude. But a nation which can produce a thousand million dollars' worth of goods and services in

Supply-Finance
two successive years cannot be heard to say in the same breath, "we cannot take care of our old age pensioners."
Look at your cost of living bonuses. They are not applied on a basis of necessity. It does not matter what the wage rate is, the cost of living bonus goes with it, and millions, yes, hundreds of millions of dollars directly and indirectly have been paid out as cost of living bonuses. A nation which can do that cannot be heard to say that they cannot take care of their old age pensioners. It does not add up to common sense.
On the question of whether or not we should treat the old age pension as a provincial and not a federal responsibility, that attitude has been repudiated by Liberalism ever since 1908. Technically old age pensions may come within a strict interpretation of subsections 7 and 13 of section 92 of the British North America Act. But I, speaking as a lawyer, could never believe that anybody had any right in an old age pension in 1867 in any colony, or had any property interest in it. There was no such thing in existence in 1867, either in reality or in the minds of the fathers of confederation, when the term "property and civil rights" was written into our statute. Subsection 7, which deals with charity and hospitals and asylums and eleemosynary institutions, is not in my opinion broad enough to include an institution such as old age pensions, which entirely reverses the attitude toward people of old age. We did away with the poorhouse; we did away with charity, and we established a federal act under which people took a contribution from the state not as a matter of charity, not as a matter of gift, but as a matter of right under the letter of the law. But we have accepted it as provincial.
Let me refer to a little bit of history, and I will not take very long. In 1908 Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved the first resolution in the House of Commons of Canada to investigate the subject of old age pensions. The Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux was Minister of Labour, and that year he appointed Mr. Blue, dominion statistician, Professor Shortt and Mr. Mackenzie King to prepare some evidence which would be valuable. As a matter of fact, old age pensions disappeared with the defeat of the Liberal administration in 1911, but it was a tremendously active subject in England during those years, and it appeared in "Industry and Humanity," written by the present Prime Minister and published in 1918. I have found that book one which every minister of finance should read. I just want to give one quotation from it. He points out that debt binds health as it binds freedomand it is in this attitude of the minister who tells us that we can finance with ease, if we can keep up our national income, an enormous increase in our debt and who at the same time tells us the granting of a reasonable allowance to our old age pensioners is going to cripple our war effort.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not say that.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: You did not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Well, just a minute. You sometimes do not realize what you do say. Here is what you said:
But why grind at the dominion government all the time, with its terrific burdens, and with its deficit of two or three billion? Why drive us, or make it almost impossible for us to carry on at all?
We were not dealing with anything but old age pensions when you made that statement.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think we were dealing with other things.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Oh, no, you were not.


James Lorimer Ilsley: At any rate I did not use the words, "cripple our war effort."


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Well, I apologize. I will simply give you the words you did say, which I think are stronger than that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, you did that.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Why drive us, or make it impossible for us to carry on at all.
We were driving you then to give the old age pensioners a decent living subsistence allowance, which they were not given.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think I was talking about
the general attitude of wanting the dominion government to do everything in time of war.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Maybe you were.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I meant to, anyway.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: At any rate, the minister
was emphasizing the danger which was coming over the land if he was called upon to meet this old age pension liability.
That was the start of it. In 1919 the Liberal convention met, and we passed as part of our platform the old age pension policy. In 1921 the province of British Columbia requested the government to establish old age pensions. In 1922 J. E. Fontaine, the member for Hull, moved)
that, in the opinion of this house the dominion government should consider the advisability of devising ways and means for the establishment of a system of old age pensions in Canada.
Supply-Finance

The matter was investigated in 1924 and
1925,	and in 1926 we introduced the bill. In introducing that resolution, J. E, Fontaine, Liberal member for Hull, said:
I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to raise a political question out of this resolution; I am fully confident that hon. members of this house, whether they sit on your right or on your left, will consider it on its merit, but I hope I shall be permitted to say that it is an essentially Liberal idea and that it would be proper for the Liberal party to carry it out. We on this side of the house should consider that wish expressed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1916 and embodied in a resolution at the great convention of the Liberal party in 1919. . . .
Now, take what happened. That bill was passed. The very arguments used the other evening by the Minister of Finance, that it will cost too much; that it should be contributory; that it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, were the arguments used by the Tory opposition and the senators who by a large majority vetoed that bill which was presented to the electors in the election of
1926,	along with the great constitutional issue of whether or not the Prime Minister's advice must be taken by the governor general, and the electors of Canada were told that if the Liberals were elected that bill would be passed, and that if the senate dared to veto it again, the senate would be reformed.
What happened? The Liberals were returned. One of the first things they did was to introduce that bill. The bill was passed unanimously and accepted by the senate, and when one of the hon. members rose in his place and asked the then Minister of Labour, the Hon. Peter Heenan, if he was aware that the bill had passed the senate, his reply was, "Yes; it has not only passed the senate, but it has reformed the senate."
It was then that we took the responsibility as Liberals of making old age pensions a federal responsibility. What was the attitude of the Conservative party on that occasion? It will be found in Hansard of February 15,
1927,	as reported at page 331. The Hon. Mr. Guthrie was speaking. He said:
I am speaking at this moment in order to make our position absolutely clear upon this question. The position of the Conservative party in this house in regard to old age pensions as proposed in this measure is this. We prefer a federal scheme. We prefer a scheme which will apply equally to every corner of Canada. This bill is limited to those persons who are in destitution and who have reached the age of seventy years. Apply the proposal to the Dominion of Canada equally and let the dominion treasury bear the expense.
That was the attitude of the Conservative party, and that attitude, I must state, was followed out later on by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). On April 18, 1928,

the Prime Minister at a banquet of the' National Federation of Liberal Women of Canada in Ottawa said:
Following the sequence which I adopted in referring to British legislation, let me now refer briefly to social legislation in Canada. The establishment of a federal Department of Labour, with the subsequent enactment of antisweating legislation, the prevention of industrial disputes by conciliation and investigation, the establishment of a system of government annuities, the provision made for the gradual extension throughout the dominion of a system of old age pensions, all these are examples in the realm of industry of the successful application of the principle of the future under Liberal administration which have served to bring to the working people of our land a wider measure of security against the hazards of industrial life. In the system of old age pensions inaugurated within the past year or two there is recognition, if such there ever was, of a community obligation to those who have borne the burden and heat of the day. Old age pensions are a part of the new Liberalism which seeks to secure the individual, in his advancing years, against the hazards of industrial life which takes from the masses of the people much of their energy and strength and leave them too often when the days of earning power are diminishing, with _ little in the way of security or protection in old age.
That was not the only time we declared old age pensions to be a Liberal policy and a federal Liberal responsibility. Speaking in the House of Commons on June 2, 1931, as recorded in Hansard at page 2260, the present Prime Minister made this statement:
The Liberal administration fought for many years for an old age pension act, and care I think was taken to make it clear that an amendment to the British North America Act would be required before this federal government would have power ito administer an old age pension scheme. It was recognized that an amendment to the British North America Act would take some time, and for that reason the government of the day adopted the method of agreeing to give these grants in aid to the provinces on condition that they would carry out a scheme framed by the federal government which would be similar in all the provinces.
An hon. Member: A vicious principle.
Mr. Mackenzie King: The principle, from a financial point of view, was unsound. I am quite prepared to concede that. But I will go a step further and say that, in my opinion, this parliament ought to remedy the unsoundness of the principle, not by discontinuing to vote money for old age pensions, but by assuming the entire obligation, one hundred per cent. This government should take over the whole scheme and itself pay out the money. That is the position that should be taken; that is the proper way to remedy what there is of unsoundness in the principle.
A little later on, on July 20, 1931, as recorded at page 3947 of Hansard, the present Prime Minister made this statement:
Should a contributory system be under discussion there may be differences of view with regard to it, and the government may be faced

Supply-Finance
with the possibility of having to carry on the original scheme increasing to 100 per cent the amount that is going to the provinces, or take over the entire administration itself. I would therefore suggest that the Prime Minister institute steps immediately to clear the way for the possibility of the federal government itself at the earliest possible moment administering the old age pension scheme, so that if parliament is asked to make any larger contribution out of the federal treasury it will be sure that it will have the right to administer the moneys in its own hands, and that no exception can be taken to its administering the scheme in its entirety. Indeed it should secure this right where the amount of the federal contribution exceeds 50 per cent as will be the case when the bill based on this resolution is enacted.
The bill was passed, and the amount of the contribution is now 75 per cent. Again, on July 28, 1931, as recorded at page 4230 of Hansard, the present Prime Minister said:
My remarks were all intended to convey the hope that the government would move as rapidly as possible towards the administration of the scheme in its entirety in order completely to relieve the provinces of that responsibility. . . .
. . . The government of the day had been advised by the Department of .Justice as to its authority and rights and powers in the matter, and as a result of the advice given the government reached the necessary conclusion that unless it were to be made a contributory scheme, which at the time we were not prepared to consider, the federal government could not inaugurate an old age pension scheme in any other way than by grants to the provinces. That was the reason why the government of the day made the grant of 50 per cent; it did so with a view to bringing about throughout Canada a uniform system of old age pensions and also with a view to giving time to remove any constitutional impediment to the dominion taking over the entire scheme. It was felt that the fact that all the provinces would be prepared to accept an old age pension scheme on the lines laid down to secure uniformity would of itself be the strongest evidence that it was desirable to have such a scheme on a national scale, administered federally.
What has happened? Since that time every province in the dominion has come in. In the letters I have received from the premier of British Columbia, he has endorsed the increasing of the amount to $30 a month and has endorsed the proposal for reducing the age limit to sixty-five for men and sixty for women. The province of Quebec, which condemned the principle of old age pensions as unsound, has now accepted that principle as sound, and the premier of that province, according to- his statements appearing in the press in the reports of the Quebec legislature, asked the government to consider reducing the age limit to sixty-five years. In Nova Scotia, one of the provinces that condemned the principle as unsound in 1925, they have now agreed that the ceiling should be lifted to $30 a month. The Prime Minister, with his remarkable ability to look into the future, saw that once
the principle of old age pensions was established as a sound one, public opinion would force the provincial governments to bring it into being. They have followed that course, and to-day throughout this dominion 185,000 aged Canadians in a condition of dire poverty are getting the benefit of a meagre $20 a month. Has the time not come for us as a parliament to continue that work, to go forward with an amendment to the constitution, as the Prime Minister suggested, to bring about the nationalization of the institution and establish a scheme of old age pensions under which every beneficiary throughout the dominion will receive the same quantum of benefit?
I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the difference between our attitude toward old age pensions and that of Australia. I have the greatest sympathy for the Minister of Finance in the problems he is facing, and I have no hesitation in repeating what I have said before, that I do not think we have ever had a minister more devoted or more alive to his responsibilities. With the system under which he is operating I do not think there has been another minister who performed his duties as well as they have been performed by the present minister. Probably he is the last orthodox Minister of Finance we shall ever have in Canada, but it is altogether probable that long before he has ended his days of useful service he will see the light and become a practical administrator not of sound money but of sane national finance.
Now the minister tells us that it would be a terrible thing if we brought the old age pension up to $30 a month, because probably we would get an ihcreasing cycle of rising prices that would spiral into an inflationary St. Vitus dance. Whoever heard of inflation coming from the expenditures of old age pensioners? Yet that is what we were told here the other night. They are fighting this war in Australia, from positions more dangerous than our own, and they are putting everything they have into it just as we are. Does anyone suggest that their old age pension scheme has injured their war effort or caused them to suffer from inflation? But Canadians are so far behind Australians that it should be an inspiration to us to move onward. The population of Canada is 11,566,000. The population of Australia is 7,000,000, so that we have 64 per cent more population than they have. The number of old age pensioners in Canada, taking the figure for 1942, is 185,000; in Australia it is
275,000.	They have invalid pensioners numbering 60,000; we have none in Canada. Pensioners in Canada total 185,000, and in Australia, 336,000, so that they have 150,000
Supply-Finance

more old age pension beneficiaries, though we have 60 per cent more population. The total amount paid in pensions in Australia is $93,580,000; in Canada for this year it will be roughly $30,000,000 from the federal government, which bears three-quarters of the cost, which would bring our total up to $40,500,000. If we were paying in proportion to our population the same amount as Australia is paying, we would pay out $146,000,000 a year. Yet we tremble about inflation and about our financial position in the war when we think of going not nearly as far as Australia has gone. Our age limit for both men and women is seventy; in Australia it is sixty-five for men and sixty for women. The average pension paid throughout the dominion ranges from 61 cents a day in British Columbia down to about 38 cents a day in Prince Edward Island. Does any man in this house believe that an old age pensioner can get along in the cities of Canada on $20 a month? Yet this parliament has frozen that amount by an act which was passed in 1927. It is this parliament that fixed the age limit at seventy years; it is this parliament that has put on the ceiling of $20 a month, and it is the duty of this parliament to reduce that age limit and to lift that ceiling. I for one feel more disappointed over going home without doing that much for the old age pensioners than in connection with anything else that has ever happened in this house.
I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to another reason why these pensions should be federalized, something that was foreseen by the Prime Minister when he brought in this measure. I refer to the disparity as between the provinces in the amounts paid. Is there any Canadian who speaks of national unity who does not believe that every old age pensioner, whether he be in British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, or Prince Edward Island, should receive the same amount? Yet here is how it works out on a monthly basis, according to the figures I was able to secure from the pensions branch of the Department of Finance. The average monthly pension is as follows:
British Columbia	
$19	02Alberta	
18	63Saskatchewan	
17	17Manitoba	
18	70Ontario	
18	66Quebec	
16	20New Brunswick	
14	89Nova Scotia	
15	06Prince Edward Island	
11	57
Of course, if you want to build a nation on disunity, leave things such as old age pensions under provincial jurisdiction; leave 
this sort of disparity throughout the land as evidence that impartial justice is not the goal of federal government.
There is one other feature on which I want to say just a word.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. The hon. member has now spoken for forty minutes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed to proceed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Thank you; after all, I have not taken up very much time this year.
I wanted to say to hon. members that we are entirely wrong in our attitude when we think we cannot finance old age pensions. I recall standing in my place in this house and pleading with the government to put people to work. We needed roads; we needed a lot of things. We were told we could not find the money, and that we had to tighten our belts. We were told we had to balance the budget and that we had to keep our credit good. We had to borrow where the accumulated savings of the world were. I said at that time that if war ever comes 6ne of the things we shall find out is that we shall have no difficulty in finding unlimited amounts of money to carry on the destructive enterprise of war. Will anybody say that a nation which can find billions upon billions-which we have found-with ease would have any difficulty in finding enough money to pay the old age pensioners a reasonable living allowance? It does not add up to common sense.
But remember this, that when you give an old age pensioner a living allowance he spends it. He puts it to work. He buys his food and his shelter. He provides employment for the primary producer, who produces the eggs and bacon, butter, bread, vegetables and other things that he needs, as the bare necessities df life. That money circulates throughout the community, and it probably adds up to twenty times the volume of business that the actual old age pension itself amounted to.
When we come to deal with the values of that type of investment it seems to me that we should be pretty well on the way with it now, because when we come to put back to work all the men we have in war industry, all the women we have in war industry, and all those who will be retiring from the fighting forces, we are going to find that one of the real social problems is that of eliminating producers and at the same time continuing them as consumers. That is one reason why the age limit should be reduced, and the amount of pension increased.

Supply-Finance
Can that be done? Is that possible within the limits of the financial power we have demonstrated that we possess? Thi3 is one thing which concerns me when I think of the Department of Finance and the old age pensioners. If to-day we cannot take care of the war needs of the old age pensioners, how are we to take care of the reconstruction programme that will be just as difficult and just as hard to manage as has been the war problem through which we have passed? If that is to be the attitude toward the recovery and reconstruction programme, then my fear is that we have lost the peace before we have signed the armistice. And it must then be the duty of this parliament to change the attitude of the Department of Finance.
Let me say, in conclusion, that for too long have men who think in terms of money had control of the bridge of the ship of state. The time has come when the statesmen, the engineers, the architects, the sociologists, the men who plan the life of the community shall be the captains on the bridge of that ship of state, and shall give their orders to the Department of Finance to provide the fuel.
I am not speaking to-night because I have any hope that this parliament will do anything about this matter. But I do know that provincial premiers from one end of Canada to the other are coming here. They are organizing now to come here, and among the problems they will discuss will be the problem of old age pensions. It is my hope that at the coming session of parliament, as a result of this conference, Canada will be able to receive from this government and from parliament, as a part of a new social security programme, an old age pension which will place us in the forefront of the nations of the world in respect of the care and consideration we are going to give to those who have reached the eventide of life in a condition of need, and a place where they need the help of the state.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief, because I am as anxious as anyone that we should conclude at the earliest possible moment. The hon. member made a strong argument for a constitutional amendment- and that was the most of what he said. He referred to the attitude and statements of the Prime Minister through the years, and he cited a number of speeches the Prime Minister had made to the public and to parliament. As I followed those speeches, it appeared to me that they were all consistent with the view that there should be a constitutional amendment placing this subject within the jurisdiction of
the federal parliament. I wish to say that I, myself, am in favour of old age pensions being within the jurisdiction of the dominion parliament; and I look forward to the day when there will be in force in Canada a system of contributory old age pensions, along the lines recommended by the Beveridge report, or something of that kind, and administered on a nation-wide scale by this parliament.
When my hon. friend attacks either the Minister of Finance or the Department of Finance, or both, for their unsocial attitude, he is very wide of the mark, because I am merely taking the jurisdictional position as I find it. I never have made any argument against the dominion parliament's procuring the jurisdiction. I have simply acknowledged a jurisdictional fact, and that is that, as matters stand to-day, this is primarily the responsibility of the provinces. That is what I said, and that is all I said.
I have said that I could not understand why, that being the case, the provinces should not assume that responsibility. That was what I said in my speech in November of 1941. Nevertheless I did say in that speech that if all or substantially all of the provinces would make representations in favour of an amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act by raising the maximum pension, consideration would be given to those representations. They have been making such representations, one by one, ever since.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: They have all made them now.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I said that this morning.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Why have they not got
results?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The representations of Quebec were made on July 12, and1 those of Prince Edward Island have just been made. I thought I was justified, and the government thought it was quite justified in standing on the position it took in 1941, particularly as many of the provinces have been paying supplementary allowances. I include in that statement the province of British Columbia, which has been paying $25 instead of $20. And that applies to Alberta as well.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: And Saskatchewan and
Manitoba agreed to give five, and they paid only twenty-five per cent of it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, I am not going to carry on an argument on the question as to whether or not there should be an amendment to the constitution. That is a different matter. The speech the hon. gentleman made to-night
Supply-Finance

is one which he evidently had prepared for some other occasion. While it was a very good speech, it did not apply to the present situation. It takes no account whatever of the announcement I made this morning. By the announcement I made this morning I went just as far as I am justified in going on the basis of general provincial consent. While this is a matter of provincial responsibility, I am only going on the basis of general provincial consent. At least I think that should be the policy of the government, and it has been the policy to date.
With regard, to the assumption of the cost by the government, I may have said on some other occasion that the people were driving at us from every hand and from all sides to assume projects in time of war. This afternoon I just happened to come in when the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) was saying, "What is a dollar from every member of the populaton; what is $11,000,000 to help these poor soldier settlers?" Then the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard comes along and, while he does not estimate the amount per person, he tells us that on the basis of Australia it would cost $146,000,000. Nearly every member of this house has the same argument to advance about some project or another.


John Horne Blackmore: We have the men and materials.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We have neither the men nor the materials for unlimited expenditures. We cannot do that-I will use the word-without crippling our war effort. "We cannot meet all the demands made by members of this house for expenditures running from $10,000,000 to $125,000,000 without crippling our war effort. The use of men and materials would cripple our war effort completely. It may be that I may have said something on some previous occasion about being ground at and driven at from all sides for money from the federal treasury. I dare say I did, because sometimes I have to speak extemporaneously. I do not prepare a speech for four or five months; I have just to say what is in my mind. I may have showed a little impatience about the demands that are made on the treasury for money.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: You would not say that you could not take care of old age pensions without crippling us, would you?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think I would say that about any one of these things, but when you multiply it by a hundred, I would say that. That is the trouble. The Prime Minister and the government of 1926 to 1930 proceeded, hot on the assumption that this was

a matter primarily of dominion responsibility, as the hon. gentleman seems to argue, but on the assumption that it was not. That is the reason why they made grants in aid to the provinces, leaving the administrative machinery in the hands of the provinces. These pensions are not paid to old age pensioners in Canada by the dominion government; they are paid by the provincial government, and the dominion government makes grants in aid to enable them to do so. The proposal is to increase these grants in aid under our present constitution.
I do not think there is anything unreasonable or uneconomical or obsolete about the view that, when the provinces have changed their position from a combined deficit of perhaps $20,000,000 before the war to a combined surplus of from $60,000,000 to $70,000,000 today, while we have changed our position from a balance before the war to a deficit of over two billion dollars today, the people who have the primary responsibility should take the thing in hand. Nevertheless I made the statement in November, 1941, that if the provinces would come forward, we would give consideration to their representations. We have carried that out to the letter and just as soon as it could be carried out unless we were to take the initiative and go after the provinces. I did not think we should take the initiative, and I declined to do it because theirs is the primary responsibility. That is all I have to say.


Mr. ESLING:: A condition has arisen in
connection with the administration of the act which was never anticipated. I refer particularly to the provision which restricts the earnings of a pensioner to $125 a year, to bring him up to a total of $365. Anything he may earn in excess of this amount is deducted from his pension by the province. Never in the history of Canada has there been such a need for labour, and many of these old age pensioners could do light work such as gardening and so forth. They are anxious to do it and their services would be most acceptable. I know of one case in my own community where a man had earned $25 a month for a year, or a total of $300. When the inspector came around and discovered this, his pension was reduced from $20 a month to $14 a month for fifty months until he had repaid the $300 he had earned.


John Horne Blackmore: Shame!


William Kemble Esling: Surely this situation could be taken care of administratively.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I know the situation to which the hon. gentleman refers.

Supply-Finance


Angus MacInnis: I would apologize for rising at this late hour when, we hope to adjourn had it not been for the appeasing attitude the government has adopted with regard to the speeches already delivered on old age pensions. I do not see any reason why I should hold) my hand, or, should I say, hold my tongue, at this moment. First, I wish to draw a little bit of history to the attention of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) which, in his delving, he failed to note. He gave the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a great deal of credit for the present Old Age Pensions Act. If one does not have to live on $20 a month, I suppose one would be ready to give credit for the act. The fact that the amount of the old age pension, $20 a month, is as small as it is, and that the age at which a person is eligible is set at seventy years, seems to me to be proof positive that whoever put the Old Age Pensions Act on the statute books didi so unwillingly. Because it was done unwillingly, as little as possible -was given. I have often wondered how they came to the conclusion that the eligible age should be seventy years; at least I wondered before I came to parliament. After I came here and found how fluently the Prime Minister could quote scripture, I wondered no longer. I think it is the ninetieth psalm that says that the age of man is three score years and ten. That is the age when a man about comes to the end of his tether. When the Prime Minister was trying to urge his cabinet and supporters to accept old age pensions I can hear him saying "We will make the eligible age seventy years; any one who is alive at seventy will not live much longer on $20 a month, so that it will not cost us very much." That is a conclusion that I have come to. The two people who were responsible for forcing old age pensions on this parliament were J. S. Woodsworth and A. A. Heaps. The reason why there has been no amendment since that time to reduce the eligible age or increase the amount is that the governments in power have always had in every parliament a huge majority, so that the government did not have to grant concessions to remain in power. Let us be quite frank and clear about how these things happen. The people of Canada for the last seventeen years could have had far better government had they had the good sense not to give the government in power such large majorities as they did.
I know that the minister made a statement this morning informing the house that the old age pension is to be increased. I imagine that all that can be said about that is that it is
better than nothing. I cannot agree that the responsibility is a provincial one. I know that under the British North America Act, it is; but I cannot agree that it is a provincial responsibility, because every step in regard to old) age pensions has been instituted1 by the federal government; and1 if the federal government had not taken those steps, there would be no Old Age Pensions Act on the statute books of any province in the dominion. Remember that the Old Age Pensions Act is a federal statute. It decides the age and it decides the amount. The federal government is paying seventy-five per cent of the cost. Surely the logic of events has made the old age pensions a national responsibility, and not a provincial responsibility.
This matter was discussed in the social security committee, and I understood that we would have an opportunity to discuss old age pensions on the report of that committee. As a matter of fact, I was promised on two occasions that that would1 be the case. But we have not been given the opportunity.
I agree with some of the things that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has said. Some of those things I think should be made a little clearer. I listened to the discussion on money this afternoon, about as cockeyed a discussion as I ever heard. The fact of the matter is not whether we are borrowing credit or borrowing money. The fact is that we are borrowing goods-aluminum, nickel, timber and so forth. It is in these goods that we shall have to pay back, and it is because those to whom we would pay back those goods cannot accept them that our economy, I think, will break down.


John Horne Blackmore: You cannot do it
without money.


Angus MacInnis: If you produce enough you can distribute it, if you have brains enough.


John Horne Blackmore: Not without money.


Angus MacInnis: You can make your own money and call it anything you like.
I think the old age pension should be increased to at least $365 a year. The eligible age should be reduced from seventy to sixty-five for men and to sixty for women. I also think that where there is a reduction in the pension on account of the amount of the pensioner's other income, that reduction should be on a sliding scale, so that his other income should be at least double the pension before the pension would disappear. A table with
Supply-Finance

respect to that was placed before the social security committee by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.
I should like to draw attention to an investigation made by the commissioner of public welfare in the city of Toronto into old age pensions. After the most careful study the cemmissioner came to the conclusion that the pension for a person living as part of a family should be increased by approximately S3.50 a month and for a person living alone by $9.25 a month. I want the committee to note what the pension will buy in the essentials of life. These purchases have been carefully worked out. For a person living as one of a family, food is computed at $9.27 a month, and for a person living alone, at $10.40 a month; clothing for women is computed at $1.92 and for men at $2.53 a month; shelter, including heat and services, is computed for a person living with a family at $8 a month, and for a person living alone at $12 a month. Incidentals are computed at $4.33 a month for a person living with a family and for a person living alone. There is very little for anything except the bare necessities of life, and a man cannot live on the bare necessities of life. He has to have those bare necessities to live at all, but on the present amount of the old age pension he is not living; he is just existing. I am sorry indeed that the government has not seen fit to increase the old age pension to an amount that would give the pensioner at least one dollar for every day in the year.


Alan Webster Neill: I assure the minister that my remarks will be as extemporaneous as his own, if that has any merit. My notes are here, but in very scattered form.
I do not believe the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard could have introduced a more popular subject in the country or introduced it at a more unpopular time and place. I do not blame him for that. He had difficulties which were not of his own making.
I am not going to say anything to-night with respect to the argument for increasing old age pensions, because it has been repeated so often by so many people in the house and the hour is so late. Everyone knows my sentiments and they are almost unanimous, so that I shall not enlarge on the reasons to-night why we should give a greater measure of support generally to aged people along these lines.
I wish to deal for a moment with the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East. He said he was going to delve into history.


Angus MacInnis: No; I said that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard had delved into history.


Alan Webster Neill: Oh, did he? Well, I hope the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard was more successful in his delving into history than was the hon. member for Vancouver East, because that hon. member's recollection of history is entirely different from mine, and I happened to have been there. He was not in the house for some years, four at least after the Old Age Pensions Act was passed, and I was at the initiation of it-"in the beginning", like when we started from initial things and built up the universe. My recollection of it is that there were four members of the house elected on a more or less independent ticket. There was Mr. Woodsworth, who at that time called himself a labour man. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have gone through the country and are going through the country to-night, and will continue to do it, in years to come, taking the whole credit to their party for having passed the old age pension, or, if not passing it, being the means of passing it, but they were not in existence until seven years after it was passed. Where, then, does the glory fall on their shoulders?
Mr. Woodsworth was elected as, I think he called himself, a member of the Manitoba labour party. Mr. Heaps, who was also a member at that time, was a labour representative of some sort, and Mr. Heenan, of Ontario, represented independent labour or something of that kind, and I myself had been elected as an independent. The four of us got together. The government had a very small majority; we thought we would play politics, as is the manner of people when they want something, and we approached the government and asked what the chances would be of passing old age pension legislation. We also applied, by the way, to the then leader of the opposition, the Hon. Arthur Meighen, who turned us down flat. But we had more favourable support and encouragement from the government of the day, and we discussed the pros and cons, and whether we would give the Liberals support on a vote of want of confidence, for instance, at the first session if they passed old age pensions. I have no hesitation at all in saying-and Mr. Heaps would support me on this if he were here-that the man we had the difficulty with was Mr. Woodsworth himself. Mr. Woodsworth, we all know, has gone, and God forbid I should say a word against him. I admired him very much. He was an idealist; he lived in the clouds, beautiful clouds, the product of a beautiful imaginaton, but he was not practical. The attitude he took was this: we will have no part or lot with the sons of- Belial. We will stay on the side-lines, and if the government chooses to bring down an old age pension bill and we like the look of it

Supply-Finance
and all that sort of thing, we will vote for it, but not otherwise. He was for making no bargain of any kind. Heaps was an English Jew, and Jews are generally practical people; the Scotch have the same characteristic, and the Jew and the Scot saw that this attitude was not going to get us very far. We had trouble in persuading Mr. Woodsworth to come down from these golden clouds, to emerge from the beautiful and idealistic condition he lived in and make a practical deal to get something for something. I am not ashamed of it; I do not regret from that day to this the action I took. I think we might not have got the bill yet had we not taken advantage of the political situation, when the government was in a parlous condition as regards its majority. I repeat that I am not ashamed of that; the deal was of no personal advantage to ourselves. I think the government which gave us old age pensions had no reason to regret it afterwards, either, because it was very well received when we went to the country later on. But I assure the committee-and Mr. Heenan, who was the other independent, would bear me out, as well as Mr. Heaps-that Mr. Woodsworth's attitude was that he would simply stand on the side-lines and, if he liked the look of the legislation, perhaps he would vote for it; perhaps he would not. But that is not practical politics. This is the inside history of that affair.
I would never have mentioned that but for my hon. friend claiming the whole credit for the two gentlemen he mentioned, and I am glad the opportunity has come, because I am fed up with this " holier than thou," this sanctimonious air of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, who claim all the credit for everything under heaven and above the earth, and say that they did it, if it was good, but if it was bad, that the wicked Tories or the worse Grits did it. They had nothing whatever to do with it, because the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party did not come into being until 1932 or 1933, and did not run as such until 1935, and the Old Age Pensions Act was passed in 1926, nine years before.
I am surprised at the unusual methods adopted in this case of bringing in this important legislation in the last hours of the session, not introduced even by legislation, by a bill which we would have had an opportunity to study, but by a statement, one might almost call it a verbal statement, of the Minister of Finance. I went upstairs to try to get the record of what he said, so that I might appreciate the fullness of what he dad say, but I could not get it. I shall have to wait until
Monday morning before I can see the record of what he really did say. I was not clear from casually listening to it, just what it was, but 1 am going to identify what I gathered, and he will no doubt correct me if I am wrong.
I understand that he is going to introduce this legislation by order in council, and he is going to raise the potential old age pension to $25 a month. The dominion will continue to contribute seventy-five per cent and the provinces twenty-five per cent and whatever further sum the provinces may choose to give. That will make the dominion government contribution S3.75 a month more than it is now. Of course that is a small sum expressed in that form, though it may take a large sum when it is multiplied by all the old age pension people. I am not clear; it is not because I was not attentive enough, but I could not find out when this thing was going to be effective, nor could I understand where the funds will come from. You can wave your hand and pass an order in council, but if the expenditure is going to run into large sums I do not know where the money is coming from. Would the minister be good enough to tell me that when I sit down. I am sorry that nothing was said as far as I could judge about lowering the age limit. I think any hon. member will realize that the one reform is just as necessary as the other.
A man who has worked manually at hard work, when he is over sixty-five is not fit to earn in the only way he knows, by hard manual labour. With the prospect of the war ending and a possibly lessened demand for labour, the money spent in this manner would be better expended than in some form of relief. I hope the minister will be good enough to tell us whether he has any idea of making a reduction in the qualifying age. The other question I should like him to answer is, when will this be inaugurated? We are going home; we are going to tell the people what will be good tidings in many and many a home. It is a step in the right direction, but when will it begin?


James Lorimer Ilsley: In the statement which I
made I said that supplementary agreements would have to be made with the provinces and that they would be made as soon as practicable, but that it would take a few weeks to work that out. That is the nearest I can come to it. Sometimes it takes a little time in dealing with the provinces, but the only way we can go about it is by supplementary agreements with the provinces. The money
Supply-Finance

will come from the war appropriation, because this action is to be taken under the War Measures Act.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister says that it will be taken under the War Measures Act. Is there any possibility such as that when the War Measures Act disappears, this increase will be taken off again?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It would, unless legislative
action is taken at that time or in the meantime. I said in the statement that even if we had time to take legislative action at the end of this session, probably it would not be desirable to make any permanent amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act while this matter of old age pensions is under study by the special House of Commons committee on social security. I do not know what will be worked out about old age pensions or social security.


Alan Webster Neill: The report of the committee is before the house.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, but it is not adopted. There are suggestions for consideration and so on. There is much more work to be done on that, and there is the question of constitutional amendment, whether one is to take place or not, and the financial arrangements as between the dominion and the provinces. There is a temporary arrangement now between the dominion and the provinces which it may be desirable to continue if we are to take on certain responsibilities, although the present one is strictly temporary.


Gordon Graydon: May I try to set an
example at this late hour by refraining from speaking at any length on a matter of this kind, even in spite of the fact that there are so many branches of political thought that are so anxious to adopt this rather important baby known as the old age pension idea. I listened with not a little amusement to those who were attempting to claim fatherhood for the movement. My hon. friend to my right has disposed, at least in his own mind, of any suggestion that any of my predecessors in office had anything to do with it, although I must confess I am unable to agree with that. I was hoping that the Prime Minister would rise at once and contradict him, because I know that the Prime Minister would not agree with that for a moment.
There are some interesting aspects of this proposed legislation coming in as it did only in the dying days of the session but on the very day on which we hope the session will die, and that fact may have more significance than may appear on the surface.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not die, but
adjourn.


Gordon Graydon: According to the explanation the Prime Minister gives of the terms "British empire" and "British commonwealth of nations", these also may be regarded as interchangeable expressions. That is the situation with regard to adjournments, unless the Prime Minister is suggesting that we are going to have a lengthy session when we convene again, which I do not think he intends. Apart from these technicalities the government really cannot advance seriously the idea that this legislation has had the attention it should have received, because if it was good legislation on the last day of the session, it should have been good legislation on the first day. Anticipating what the minister will try to say in reply, may I say that either the provinces or the dominion were in default in the discharge of their duties in that they did not call for some conference at an earlier stage to discuss this matter and have it threshed out and decided.
The minister took the position, I believe, that he would wait until the provinces wrote to him indicating what they intended to do. He was not going to take the initiative. There may have been perfectly good reasons from the point of view of saving some money for the dominion government in his taking that attitude, but certainly from the point of view of really grasping the problem and coming to grips with it, I suggest that somebody was to blame for having left the matter until this last day of the session. It seems to me that the dominion government was the proper authority to call that conference, and I suggest that some blame must attach to them because they did not take the initiative with respect to it.
As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni said, however, we are glad to have any step in a right direction; but if I may so suggest on behalf of our party, there are two steps in connection with this matter that still have to be taken.
I am not at all satisfied with the amount or with the age under the present system. I do not think they are satisfactory to the people of Canada. We should have had a reduction in the age limit of old age pensioners. I suggest that the government must also, in view of the situation that faces old age pensioners from the point of view of the cost of living, take into consideration something more in regard to the amount which thus far has been mentioned. In some of these matters the government has moved more quickly than in this, after the famous convention at Winnipeg.

Supply-Finance
In this case they were a little more tardy; it took them longer to see the light. On December 11, as the Prime Minister will recall, because he watched the convention with more than usual interest, a platform was adopted calling for retirement insurance; and the Minister of Finance, who is not always amenable to new ideas, said a few weeks ago in the house- he repeated it to-night-that he had come to the position where he favours this kind of thing as well.
While the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard talked about the Minister of Finance not being able to move in the right direction, may I say to him that there is still some hope for the minister, from what he said to-night; and although I cannot agree that he has moved far enough, at least he is moving in the direction where public opinion and the best thought in Canada is moving, namely, in line with the platform to which I have referred.
In one of the sections of this platform on old age pensions the age is reduced until such time as the retirement insurance scheme becomes fully operative. I say to the government that while they were somewhat longer in this case than they were in innumerable others, in connection with which they have adopted our platform, it is encouraging and refreshing to the people of Canada that a once great party like the government party in this country is at last seeing the light, even though it takes a convention of another party to give them that courage and initiative. However, I do not wish to detract from the credit they will normally obtain for that. I was rather expecting that the Prime Minister would rise and give his usual answer covering all matters of this kind. I wondered why he did not rise when the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was discussing the fatherhood of the movement; I wondered why he did not go back to 1911 or 1917 and say, "If you look carefully you will find it in my book called 'Industry and Humanity'." However, that is one of the things for which he will have to give credit elsewhere.
I say to the minister that this is not the right way to bring in such legislation. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni so well said, when the war is over and the War Measures Act is no longer operative in Canada, by the minister's own admission this old age pension increase actually drops out of sight. We should have had at this session legislation dealing with this matter, and I protest at this time against the laxity of the government's policy which left this matter to be discussed within a few minutes of the time when the session of parliament closes.


Thomas Reid: There are two matters to which I wish to call the attention of the minister in connection with the regulations affecting old age pensioners, and even at this late hour I must take a moment or two to place those matters before him and to ask for consideration of them. First of all, like the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, I was sorry indeed that the discussion did not come up earlier in the session. I am of the opinion that if it had come up earlier in the session, more than fifty per cent of the members of the house would have participated in the discussion. While the statement of the Minister of Finance this afternoon does not go as far as many members from British Columbia and other provinces would have liked, still I wish to say that in my opinion the old age pensioners throughout Canada will be appreciative of that announcement. I should like also to compliment the minister upon the statement he made in reply to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. Rightly or wrongly there is a feeling throughout the country that the minister is definitely against increasing the old age pension and lowering the age limit, and I was delighted to hear him refute that this evening.
Before mentioning the regulations with which I wish to deal, I should like to say that there are hon. members from other provinces who, sometimes, in the corridors and elsewhere, make scathing remarks about the time we occupy in talking about old age pensions. They cannot understand why hon. members from some provinces should advocate a minimum of $1 a day. I am not going to make any disparaging remarks about provinces that pay as little as $11 a month, but I want to tell those hon. members that their attitude reminds me, as a trade unionist, of the artisans who consistently refused to join a trade union. After the unions had battled for higher wages and better hours, however, they were perfectly willing to take advantage of the results the trades unions had received. I believe the fight that has been put up by some provinces, particularly British Columbia, in regard to old age pensions is bringing results in now, and I am sure the other provinces will be only too glad to take advantage of the struggle that has been waged through the years.
One matter I want to take up with the minister has to do with the regulations laid down by the dominion, and the other has to do with the interpretation of those regulations by the Department of Finance, which administers the old age pensions. At the beginning of the war the regulations provided that the pension authorities were required to consider assigned
Supply-Finance

pay as income, even if there were no dependent's allowance. After many protests the dominion government permitted the pension authorities to take into account the amount of assigned pay which was returned to the soldier, if credited to him. Later, further amendments were made to provide that in all cases where dependent's allowance had not been awarded, the board was authorized to disregard any pay allotted or assigned by a member of the forces. Cases have been brought to my attention, however, of men in receipt of old age pensions whose wives are in receipt of assigned pay and dependent's allowance, and in which both those amounts were added and calculated as income. If assigned pay is not to be considered as income, why should it be credited if, in addition, the old lady gets dependent's allowance. I ask the minister to look into this matter, because, if the principle is right in one case, it should be followed right through, though I am frank to say that I should like to see both assigned pay and dependent's allowance disregarded when the wife is in receipt of it while her husband is in receipt of the old age pension.
The other matter has to do with the interpretation of the regulations by the Department of Finance, and I am going to cite one case which I am sure illustrates a great many others. I refer to the case of a man in receipt of old age pension who dies on the fifteenth of the month. In the case that has been drawn to my attention the widow went to collect the cheque and was told that since her husband had died on the fifteenth there was no cheque for her. This is looked upon as a callous act, and some have gone so far as to say that those administering the act were really robbing the old age pensioners Here is a woman who was carrying on in the early part of the month, her husband dies on the fifteenth, and, thinking there is a cheque coming to her for half a month, she goes to collect it, only to find that the finance department and the old age pension board at Ottawa have ruled that she has no cheque coming. Even at this stage of the session I have no apology to offer for bringing these matters to the attention of the minister, because I believe they should be looked into and remedied.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Certainly I shall look into the matter the hon. member has mentioned.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was surprised to listen to some of the arguments advanced from both sides of the house this evening. First we listened to the Liberals trying to take all the credit for bringing in the Old Age Pensions Act. Then the Cooperative
tMr. Graydon.]
Commonwealth Federation came along, claiming they were responsible for it. Then, lo and behold, the Conservatives came along and said they were really responsible for it. I never saw so many hon. members vieing with each other for the credit for giving so little. I think the amount we give our old age pensioners is a shame, and I make no apology for that statement. The best test to determine whether or not these old people are getting a sufficient income would be for some of us to try to live on that amount. Could we live on $20 a month? And mind you, not all old age pensioners receive that amount. As has been pointed out already, it varies from province to province; and while the pension may be $20 in one province, that does not mean that all the old age pensioners even in that province receive that amount.
I am very much disappointed1 because this legislation has been brought down at this late date, because I believe it is one of the most important and humane measures that could be introduced. To bring it in at this stage of the session is almost an insult to the intelligence of the members of this house. I think we might well have stayed over another few days and given this matter more discussion. As the hon. member for New Westminster has pointed out, if that had' been done I believe every hon. member would have insisted that the pension be increased.
The minister has made a statement as to what is going to be done in regard to old age pensions. He has said that it will be made possible for the provinces to increase the amount paid by $5 a month, with the dominion contributing seventy-five per cent of the cost and the provinces twenty-five per cent. When the social security committee was discussing this matter it recommended that the amount should be increased. The government has given consideration to that recommendation and has made it possible for an increase to be brought about. The committee brought in another, equally important recommendation however, that the age limit be reduced. That has not been done. As a member of that committee I was firmly convinced that the government would lower the age limit, and I am extremely disappointed because that has not been done. The recommendation was contained in an interim report of the committee, and I thought that report dealt with the minimum requirements. No amount was set; that was left to the discretion of the government, though, of course, we trusted that it would not be too small. The reduction of the age limit also was left to the discretion of the government, and I

Supply-Finance
expected that some reduction would be made, which would have assisted a great deal. Since that was an interim report, I believed it would assist these old people at least to a degree until we were able to return here, and complete our investigation, and make more definite and detailed recommendations to the government. I feel that the social security committee has been let down in that regard.


Mr. MITCHELL:: But the old people have not been let down.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes; they have definitely been let down. You might say that they have been given $5 a month more, and that the dominion is contributing its portion. But the fact is that they were expecting more than that. I know the Minister of Labour does not consider $25 a month is sufficient for these old people to live on. I believe he would be the last man to say that it is. I think I know him well enough for that. It is going to help, of course, but there are many elderly people in this country who cannot possibly get along on the amount they are receiving-and they are under the age of seventy. I have heard some hon. members discussing this matter, and saying that the age should be sixty-five years. I believe the experience of most hon. members is that the people who are in need of old age pensions are not people who during their lives have lived in comparative luxury, and have a potential span of life of probably eighty-five or ninety years. They are not the people who require this form of assistance. The people who require it are the ones who have worked hard during their lives and who, for some reason or another, have not been able to accumulate sufficient income to maintain them in their old age. When such people reach the age of seventy, they have long since passed the time when they can earn sufficient income to maintain themselves. When they reach the age of sixty they have reached an age when they are no longer capable of earning sufficient income to maintain a decent standard of living.
What will $20 or $25 a month buy? Well, one could not buy a suit of clothes with that amount of money. And if he is going to rent any kind of decent house, it would cost much more than that. One cannot get a room in Ottawa for less than $20 or $25 a month, and certainly one cannot get a room in Ottawa where he can do his own light housekeeping, or where these old people would be permitted to do their light housekeeping, for that amount of money.
When we look at this matter in a reasonable and sensible way we cannot possibly conceive
of members of the House of Commons permitting this legislation to stand as it is. I think $1 a day is an insignificant amount, and the pension should be at least that much. I would also say that the age should be reduced to sixty years.
I should like to mention a few things said by the minister. I shall make my remarks as brief as possible, because the time is getting late-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Edward Johnston: I hear some hon. .members saying, "hear, hear". They will remember I am not averse to holding up the committee in discussing an important matter like this. Hon. members on the other side of the house have had a large share of the debate this evening. I have my notes right in front of me, and I do not wish to be aggravated to the point where I shall have to go on to say what I had had in mind I would say.
This is really an important question. A while ago the minister spoke about the constitutional aspect. He said that he was acting within the constitution, and that he could go only so far as the legislation and the constitution permitted him to go. But I would remind him that recently we made an appeal to the British government to amend the British North America Act so that we might do certain things with respect to elections. In a matter such as this the government might very well have included a request for the necessary permission to amend the British North America Act in a way which would permit us to take over complete, national control of old age pensions.
Hon. members may bring up all the constitutional difficulties they like. They may say, "Whatever we should have done we did not do." But there is nothing which would have prevented the minister at this time lowering the age limit, and reducing it from seventy to sixty. He could have done that quite nicely by order in council. He could have made it possible to increase the old age pension from $20 to $30 a month, and that would be little enough, without any amendment to the constitution.
But the most important point touched upon to-night in connection with old age pension is this: Where is the money to come from? I was surprised and amazed when the hon. member for Vancouver East said that the arguments in support of the old age pension, as far as the money problem was concerned, were all cockeyed. It may be so to him, but the fact is it is a most serious problem. That is the problem which the Minister of Finance has to face.
Supply-Finance


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not wish to interrupt on behalf of the hon. member for Vancouver East, but I must point out that when he spoke he was referring to this discussion about borrowing from the bank-whether one borrowed credit or cash, or paid back credit or cash. He was not referring to old age pensions.


Charles Edward Johnston: He was referring to the arguments of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard and the hon. member for Parry Sound. The argument of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard was based entirely upon this old age pension scheme. He was asking the minister where he could get this money from. The minister's contention was that it would be too expensive, and that monetary questions entered into it. I do not believe we are going to settle many of our economic problems until we come down to the basic question:	Where are we to get
the money from? I did not intend to branch out to that argument, because it has been well debated to-night. We Social Creditors have been advocating it for many years.
The minister also pointed out that the provinces should have come forward more readily than they did. If I recall correctly, the province of Alberta was ready a long time before the dominion was.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And I did not say that, either. I am sorry to have to correct the hon. member, but I did not say that the provinces should have come forward before they did.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister said that the dominion could not take any steps until the provinces had asked the permission of the dominion government, or had asked for assistance from it. I believe that is correct, is it not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is somewhere near right; but that is certainly not what the hon. member said before.


Charles Edward Johnston: He said
that the provincial governments would have to make representations to the dominion government, and that when they have done that, legislation would be brought down to enable them to go ahead. I believe, in effect, that is exactly what the Minister of Finance said.
Alberta was one of the first to come ahead, and do that very thing. In fact, after arrangements had been made with the dominion government, they were the first to increase the amount by $5.
There is one other important problem I would mention to the committee, one which is connected with the old age pensions, and 
that is pensions for the blind. Great as is the need of old age pensioners, there is a class of people, namely the blind, who need a great deal of assistance, and need it possibly more than the ordinary old age pensioners. I say that because, if there is a class of people more helpless than another, it is the blind pensioner. It is true that they get $20 a month, the same as the old age pensioner, and that they receive that amount at the age of forty, rather than at seventy. But a person who is blind is almost helpless, and should receive a pension regardless of age. The age should be reduced at least to the point recommended by the institute, namely twenty-one years. These blind people who are receiving the pension may, by means of a little special training given them by charitable organizations, increase their earnings by $200 a year. Their pension amounts to $240, and with that additional $200 they are brought up to $440, if single. The unfortunate thing, however, is that if they earn one dollar more than that amount, it is deducted from their pension until they have reached the sum of $200, and then they are cut off pension entirely. That should not be. If these people are diligent enough, and goodness knows they are not going to earn very much, to go out and earn a few extra dollars, that should not be deducted from their blind pension. Every consideration should be given to these people. I shall not keep the committee any longer with a detailed discussion of old age pensions or the treatment of the blind, but there is a great deal more that can be said. I shall leave it at that until the question comes up again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are one or two things I should like to say to the minister. First of all, I should like to support the two statements that have been made many times to-night, both of which are true and, in my view, not inconsistent. On the one hand, there will be gratitude on the part of many people for this slight increase in the amount of the old age pension, but on the other hand there will be disappointment that the amount was not made $30 a month, the pensionable age lowered and certain changes made in the regulations. One point I should like to draw to the attention of the minister is in connection with the possible additional $5 which he announced this morning. Will the ceiling of $365 apply to that $5?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The $365 remains.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I understood the minister to say that some pensioners would not receive the whole amount in view of the application of

Supply-Finance
the ceiling. I understand that in some provinces, like British Columbia and Alberta, where supplemental allowances are being paid, the ceiling does not apply.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not regarded as income.


Stanley Howard Knowles: According to the terms of an amendment made to the act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: By reason of an order in
council amending the regulations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. We do not know what a province such as British Columbia may do under the new provisions. They may continue to pay the supplemental allowance of $5, or they may allow this $5 to take its place. Supposing British Columbia drops the $5 it is now paying and takes this $5 instead, a pensioner who is at present drawing the additional $5 because the ceiling does not apply, will lose some of his income under the dominion arrangement. It is now possible for a pensioner in British Columbia to be drawing $25 a month and have $125 income additional.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But if British Columbia
adopts the present legislation and pays the pensioner his $25 on the basis of the announcement made by the minister this morning, the person who has $125 other income because the ceiling would then apply would not Le allowed to draw the full $25; he would draw only $20 a month, and in that way would be $60 a year worse off than he is at the present time. That is a hypothetical case, but it is a possible case.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think that is correct, yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am asking that when
the regulations are drawn up the minister will watch this kind of thing.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not anticipate that
British Columbia will drop this $5 additional.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I certainly hope not, and I hope Manitoba will not drop its $1.25, but I trust the minister will watch this kind of thing. I should like now to refer to another matter. At the present time a pensioner who draws his pension from Manitoba but happens to be living in British Columbia does not get the supplemental $1.25 from Manitoba, because he is not living there, or the supplemental $5 from British Columbia, because he is not a British Columbia pensioner. Vice versa, the British Columbia pensioner living in Manitoba would get neither the $125 nor the $5. I realize that this is a matter of arrangement between the two provinces, but it also suggests what the hon. member for
Vancouver-Burrard was arguing, that it is desirable that there should be a federal policy with respect to the whole matter of old age pensions.
Since the order in council referred to this morning will involve dealing with the Old Age Pensions Act and the regulations, I urge the minister to give consideration, even at this time, to the regulation that requires twenty years' continuous residence in Canada. I have in mind one case of a man who came to this country from England in 1907 and has lived here the whole time except for four years which he spent in England. In 1926 he went to England for a holiday, but circumstances of health made it necessary for him to stay there longer than he had intended to. The result is that the date of his coming back to Canada is the date taken into consideration by the authorities, and he is not entitled to a pension although he is seventy-three years of age and has resided more than twenty years in the country and has lived his entire life either in England or Canada. This is a matter of regulation under the dominion act, and I should hope the minister would give attention to these matters when the order in council is being drawn up shortly as is intended.
I hope that consideration will also be given to deductions made from the $20 and to the liens which are placed on the properties. To many people this is a source of irritation and in many cases has actually deterred people from applying for something which is their right. I hope the minister will give attention to these matters and that in the not too far distant future we shall see a higher rate of pension and a lower pensionable age.


Mr. MUTCH:: For a considerable part of this session I have refrained from reiterating that which I have said before about the present standing of these pensions. On account of the pronouncement made this morning, I am concerned momentarily with the matter of age. It has been recognized by industry generally and by the government itself that sixty-five years is the nominal age of retirement. There is a hiatus between sixty-five and seventy years which falls less heavily upon some than on others. Since the minister is reopening the question and is probably going to deal with these matters by orders in council, I urge even at this late date that he gives some consideration to this aspect of the matter.
It is passing strange that any discussion of this question of old age pensions seems to turn into a political discussion, when to my mind it is the one subject that should not be political. On account of the general recognition
Supply Bill

throughout Canada of the desirability of old age pensions, we perhaps all want to feel that we have some responsibility for the fact that we have something in the way of old age pensions. That may be the explanation, but there is something invidious to my mind about a discussion of this kind resolving itself into a question of paternity and who should take the credit or who should take the blame. There are many of us at the present time who feel that no one should fall over backwards in an effort to claim credit for this act. I am fully aware that for me to continue the discussion to-night might have the effect of hurting the cause I favour, but I would not let this opportunity pass, now or in any other session, without raising my voice for a more generous old age pension and primarily for a lowering of the pensionable age.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to express a word of thanks to hon. members for abbreviating their speeches. I think it might be a convenience to them to know that after the remaining items are passed it will take about half an hour to put the supply bill through its three stages and have it brought back here. It is part of my duty to inform the deputy of his excellency of the time we expect him to give assent to bills, and I am going to take the liberty of saying that I hope he will be here at a quarter past ten o'clock. If it is necessary to postpone it beyond that hour, of course it will have to be done, but I thought that as many members leave at eleven o'clock tonight, this word of notice might not be unwelcome.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.



THE ROYAL ASSENT


Thomas Vien: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following message:
Ottawa, July 24, 1943.
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Sir Lyman P. Duff, K.C.M.G., acting as the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber on the twenty-fourth day of July at 10.15 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
P. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
R iort of the joint standing committee on the library of parliament-Mr. Speaker.


[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. Bradette in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, I desire to move the following resolution covering the amounts dealt with a few moments ago in committee of supply:
Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1944, the sums of $161,231,995.62 and $43,633,933.82 respectively be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 140, for granting to his majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1944.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Grote Stirling: I suppose the minister will assure us that this bill is in the ordinary customary form.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; I give that assurance now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the house suspend its sittings until summoned by Black Rod to attend His Excellency in the Senate chamber.
He said: I think it may be well to remind the house that there should be hon. members present after the assent to the bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At 9.50 p.m. the sitting was suspended until summoned by Black Rod.
[Stage Direction]
The Royal Assent

[Stage Direction]
The house resum^ at 10.20 pun.

[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 house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name royal assent to the following bills:
An Act for the relief of Sheila Joan Milligan Hodgson.
An Act for the relief of John Elliott Cockerline.
An Act for the relief of James William McDonald.
An Act for the relief of William James Chafe.
An Act for the relief of Nettye Steinberg Litner.
An Act for the relief of Mollie Jaslow Mitnick.
An Act for the relief .of Eleanore Jeanne Lonn Yanofsky.
An Act for the relief of Ada Lahn Corber.
An Act for the relief of Bessie McKenzie Balfour Whiteley Willard.
An Act for the relief of Marion Catherine Bremner.
An Act for the relief of Feodor Karpenko.
An Act for the relief of Dorothy Platt Vaz.
An Act for the relief of Marion Ellen Topp Dore.
An Act for the relief of Celia Lazarowitz Cohen.
An Act for the relief of Frederick Hubert Fairbanks.
An Act for the relief of Maude May Frances Adlam Clare.
An Act for the relief of Gladys Mae Bond Jarvis.
An Act for the relief of Max Shulman.
An Act for the relief of Walter Pestun, otherwise known as Walter Preston.
An Act for the relief of Sonia Litvack Shalinsky.
An Act for the relief of Evelyn Margaret Cooke Phippard.
An Act for the relief of Muriel Anna Chapman Longmore.
An Act for the relief of Joseph Fernand St. Louis.
An Act for the relief of Alexander Morgan.
An Act for the relief of Norma Mady Albert Chamandy.
An Act for the relief of Gerald Clarkin.
An Act for the relief of Edith Rose Smith Gendron.
An Act for the relief of Alice Bernadette Choiniere Horner.
An Act for the relief of Eva Pear] Gilbert.
An Act for the relief of Emma Cowsill Hill.
An Act for the relief of David Joseph Kennedy.
An Act for the relief of Leopold Boucher.
An Act for the relief of Beatrice Ashwell Dyson.	.
An Act for the relief of Freda Sybil Nisbet Baldwin.	.
An Act for the relief of Sam Hadis.
An Act for the relief of Carmen Hilda Olesker Gold.
An Act for the relief of Leo Rene Dore.
An Act for the relief of Mary Sophia Viora St. Pierre Malhiot, otherwise known as Mary Sophia Viora St. Pierre Mayotte.
An Act for the relief of Violet Victoria Green A'Uclair.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Laurette Jobin
Lalumiere.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Elizabeth Gunn
Sparling.
An Act for the relief of Bella Lerner Efros.
An Act for the relief of Kathleen Ena Ball Royer.
An Act for the relief of Margaret Heddriek Lieth Gauld.
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Alexandra Ida Robb Lewis.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Joseph Aloysius
Lavigueur.
An Act for the Telief of Helen Alissamon Wheeler Baker Macoun.
An Act for the relief of Adele Le Roy Fuller Hardy.
An Act for the relief of Constance Maxine Keating Noseworthy.
An Act for the relief of Alvina Antoinette Bouchard Winterson.
An Act for the relief of Bernice Evelyn Berman Sholomenko.
An Act for the relief of Marjorie Florence Gray Lever.
An Act for .the relief of Robert Gordon Shaw.
An Act for the relief of Uuno Ojalammi.
An Act for the relief of Marie Beatrice Arsenault Theriault.
An Act for the relief of Margaret Varga Csabi.
An Act for the relief of Frances Helen Shand Howell.
An Act for the relief of Charles Cardin.
An Act for the relief of Gladys Irene Harrison Mathers.
An Act for the relief of Eileen Grace Shearer Taylor.
An Act for the relief of Maitland Richardson Silvester.
An Act for the relief of Agnes May Jack Jackson.
An Act for the Telief of Marie Fernande Broca Taisne.
An Act for the relief of' Samuel William Simon.
An Act for the relief of Vera Venning Prestt.
An Act for the relief of Katherine Scott Thacher.
An Act for the relief of Elias Shapiro.
An Act for the relief of Fannie Rubin Segal.
An Act for the relief of Doris Mae Sangster Webster.
An Act for the relief of Charles Joseph Wilfrid Rousseau.
An Act for the relief of Jean Sylvia Murley.
An Act for the relief of Gertrude Mantho Hore.
An Act for the relief of Claire MacLaren Hunter Barlow.
An Act for the relief of Mary Constance Helena Keys Bates.
An Act for the relief of Margaret Anne Richards Johnstone.
[Stage Direction]
The Royal Assent
[Stage Direction]
An Act for the relief of John Whitehead Casement.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Elaine Alice
McCormick Desrosiers.
An Act for the relief of Marion Mathilda Heversage Jost Hooper.
An Act for the relief of Phyllis Beatrice Barnett Woodham.
An Act for the relief of Ethel Wendman Lebenstein.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	John Preble
Macintosh.
An Act for the relief of Sonia Libenstein Kolber.	.
An Act for the relief of Gilberte Piche
An Act for the relief of Irene Maud Pardellian Wright.
An Act for the relief of May Gertrude Bussell McCarthy.
An Act for the relief of Geraldine Charlotte Wrangel.	.
An Act for the relief of Anne Marie Garon

[Stage Direction]
An Act for the relief of Theodore Panos.
An Act for the relief of Glendon Malcolm Bobert MacCallum.
An Act for the relief of Pierre Henri Honore
Pare.
An Act for the relief of Beatrice Belodubrof-sky Schiller.
An Act for the relief of Leo Guay.
An Act to incorporate Montreal Shriners' Hospital Foundation.
An Act to incorporate Canadian Alliance Insurance Company.	_
An Act respecting The Canada North-West Land Company Limited.
An Act to incorporate the Ukrainian Fraternal Society of Canada.
An Act to incorporate The Felician Sisters of Winnipeg.
An Act to incorporate Bethel Full Gospel Assembly.
An Act to amend The Federal District Commission Act, 1927.
An Act respecting the appointment of Auditors for National Bailways.
The British Columbia Indian Beserves Mineral Besources Act.	_
An Act to amend the Department of National Bevenue Act.
An Act respecting a certain Tax Convention and Protocol between Canada and the United States of America, signed at Washington, in the United States of America, on the 4th day of March, 1942.
An Act to Confirm the Transfer of certain Lands to Ontario and Quebec.
An Act to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
An Act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures made and capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Bailways System during the calendar year 1943. and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Bailway Company.
An Act to repeal the Japanese Treaty Act, 1913.
An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code.
An Act to facilitate Compromises and Arrangements between insolvent Farmers and their Creditors.
An Act to amend The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940.

An Act to establish a National Council for the purpose of promoting Physical Fitness.
An Act for granting to His Majesty aid for National Defence and Security.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1944.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m. until Wednesday, January 26, 1944, at three o'clock in the afternoon.
Wednesday, January 26, 1944.