1947-03-31

UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the report on the second part of the first session of the general assembly of the united nations which was held in New York from October 23 to December 15 last year. Copies of the report are being circulated to all members of the house. The present copies of the report are in English; a French edition is in preparation.
Though the report is formally a report on the New \rork meeting of the assembly, it is in fact more than that. The discussions of some issues in New York were part of a process of study and discussion which had gone

United Nations
on in various bodies of the united nations since the end of the first part of the first session of the assembly in London. The report therefore covers many of the developments in the united nations during the whole period from the close of the London meeting on February 14, 1946 until the close of the New York meeting on December 15, 1946. This is indicated in the title of the report, which is "The United Nations, 1946".
The report is the third in the series of reports which the Department of External Affairs has issued on the united nations. The first report was on the San Francisco conference and the second report on the London meeting of the assembly. Together, those three reports describe the progress of the united nations and Canada's participation in it from the opening of the San Francisco conference to the end of 1946.
In many ways, this report is a departure from ordinary practice. It is not merely that it is more extensive but it is more explanatory and more outspoken.
Frankness is, I think, appropriate in a report of the united nations from the government of Canada to the parliament and people of Canada. The charter of the united nations begins with the words "We, the peoples of the United Nations". The charter thus recognizes a very direct relation between the united nations and the individual citizen of the member states. It is, therefore, fitting that the Canadian government should give to the citizens of Canada a full account of its steward' ship in respect of the united nations.
The report contains not only a summary of the discussions and decisions of the assembly but also the text of the more important resolutions adopted by the assembly. It tells how Canada voted on about forty of the more important or the more controversial issues and gives the reasons why the Canadian representatives voted as they did. It also gives the text of the more important speeches made by Canadian representatives at the plenary meetings of the assembly and in the committees.
The report is a lengthy document and perhaps the members of the house w'ould allow me to draw attention to some of the sections which might be of particular interest.
The preface to the report explains the structure of the united nations and of the various bodies linked to it. We thought that this might be useful because the structure is somewhat complex.
This is followed by a general survey of the work which the assembly was able to accom-83166-119j
plish in New York. Perhaps I might mention some of the conclusions set forth in that survey.
More was accomplished in New York than could reasonably have been expected when the assembly opened. The assembly demonstrated that, when it had delicate political questions to deal with, it would usually deal with them with moderation and restraint. Usually, not always. It would be too much to expect of any deliberative body, when it is dealing with questions which arouse deep feelings, that it should always act with moderation and restraint. Appeals to passion and prejudice were made, for example, in the debates on the Spanish question and on the treatment of Indians in South Africa. These appeals were not confined to the advocates of any particular resolution.
Under present conditions issues like the Spanish and South African issues cannot be properly settled in a deliberative body such as the assembly by counting heads. Unfortunately this truth was not always recognized in the discussion of these issues but it was recognized in the discussions on disarmament. What appears to be the most important accomplishment of the assembly in New York was the unanimous adoption of the resolution on disarmament, and this unanimity was made possible only by the joint and sustained efforts of many delegations to reconcile the separate proposals which each had advanced. These efforts were based on a common recognition of the fact that, if an assembly resolution on disarmament was to have practical results, it had to be concurred in by all the heavily armed powers and by the great majority of all the other powers.
One encouraging feature of the assembly was that in voting on important questions there were few hard and fast blocs of states. To demonstrate this, we have included in the report an appendix showing how each of the 54 members of the united nations voted on ten significant issues. This table is worthy, I think, of careful study.
The general survey of the work of the assembly is supplemented by a somewhat similar survey of the work of the economic and social council. The structure of organized intergovernmental cooperation on economic and social questions is more complex today than before the war. In addition to the economic and social organs of the united nations itself there are at present seven, and there may soon be twelve, international organizations which are specialized and functional and to which large areas of international collaboration have been entrusted. It is hoped that this great
United Nations
[Stage Direction]
series of organizations will provide for comprehensive and varied attack on those economic and social problems to the solution of which international collaboration can contribute. The range and complexity of the system, however, carry with them certain dangers. The report sets forth some of these dangers as we see them and some of the ways in which they might be minimized.
One of the dangers is that, because of the increasing number of international meetings and their increasing length, governments may find it difficult to send adequate delegations to all the meetings. It was for this reason that the Canadian government had included in the agenda of the assembly in New York an item entitled "measures to economize the time of the general assembly". Our views on this question, to which we attach considerable importance, are set forth fully in the report.
The general survey is followed by sections dealing with each of the main issues which arose in New York. These are grouped under six heads-political, economic and social, trusteeship, administrative and budgetary, legal, and other questions.
I shall not attempt to list these questions. I would, however, like to draw the special attention of the members of the house to the section on disarmament.
We feel that Canada was able to make a valuable contribution to the discussions in New York. On this question and in order that the record may speak for itself, we have included in the appendix to the report the text of the final disarmament resolution together with the various preceding drafts including the Canadian proposals. We have also included the speeches given by Canadian representatives in explanation of the Canadian proposals. It seems clear that, had the assembly adopted a disarmament resolution wrhich contained the imperfections and ambiguities present in the original proposals, the debates, which would have been precipitated in the security council and the atomic energy commission on the precise meaning of the words of the resolution and exactly what the assembly had recommended the security council and the atomic energy commission to do, would have been long, harassing, and probably sterile.
As members of the house who have attended international conferences know, a great deal of the most useful work of a delegation does not appear on the surface of events. Perhaps the proportion that rises above the surface is very much the same as the proportion of an iceberg which is above the surface of the water.
As an indication of this, we have thought it wise to include in the report the text of the

"working paper" on disarmament which was prepared in the Canadian delegation over three weeks before we formally submitted to the assembly our resolution on disarmament. We have also printed for the first time the memorandum on sanctions and the veto which the Canadian delegation to the atomic energy commission circulated to the commission on December 19.
Questions have been raised about Canada's attitude on the various issues which have arisen in the united nations concerning relations with the present regime in Spain. I think that hon. members will find that these questions are fully dealt with in the report. There is, for example, a statement of the position which Canada took on each of fourteen votes on the Spanish question.
In the hope that it might be of assistance to the special committee of both houses which is to be set up to study the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms, we have included in the report the statement of essential human rights which was drawn up [DOT]by a committee appointed by the American Law Institute, the resolution of the assembly referring that statement to the commission on human rights, and the resolution of the economic and social council establishing the human rights commission.
During this session of parliament, the house may be asked to consider various questions relating to refugees and international relief. There are sections in the report dealing with these questions which might provide useful background material for the members.
The same applies to the sections in the report on the budget of the united nations and on the scale of contributions to those budgets.
The Canadian delegation to the assembly in New York .contained members not only from the government side but also from the Progressive Conservative and C.C.F. parties. I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to express on behalf of the government our appreciation of the contribution which was made to the work of the delegation in New York by the leader of the opposition in this house and the leader of the opposition in the Senate and by the leader in this house of the C.C.F. party. We worked together as a team in New York. We discussed fully and frankly at daily meetings the problems with which the delegation was confronted.
This policy of sending to the general assembly of the united nations a delegation representing all the major political parties of Canada is an experiment. Under our system of government, the government of the day must accept full responsibility for every action of a delegation at an international conference.

United Nations
That responsibility must be ours and we do not ask the opposition parties to share it. We do feel, however, that it is of immense value to the people of Canada .to have leading members of the opposition parties participate at the united nations assembly in the discussions which lead up to decisions on the attitude which the Canadian delegation should take.
Pending the time when we may be able to have a discussion in this house of Canada's relations with the united nations, it might be appropriate to have this report considered by the standing committee on external affairs and, if I have the unanimous consent of the house, I should be glad to move that the report now tabled be referred to that committee.	.
Mr. CHURCH:: The UNO is nothing but a tower of Babel. We should send missionaries over there instead of politicians.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the
members of the house will welcome the receipt of this report from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). I rise to make one observation and to ask one question. The observation I wish to make is as a member of the Canadian delegation to the general assembly of the united nations which met in New York last fall. As a member of that delegation I wish to pay tribute to the man who was honoured in having been chosen as chairman of the delegation. We found not only the chairman of the delegation but the technical advisers well prepared for the heavy task which they had to perform. We found the minister always courteous and thorough and one in whom we could take pride as chairman of the delegation of which we were all members. While I am speaking of the chairman of the delegation I want my words to apply equally to all of the members, including the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar who sits to my left.
After glancing at the report which has been tabled, and from what the minister has said, I take it that it is not a report of the general assembly of the united nations but rather a report of the Department of External Affairs on what took place at that gathering.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is correct; it is a report of the part taken by the Canadian delegation in the activities of the assembly.


John Bracken: It is a report of the
Canadian delegation, or rather of the Department of External Affairs, dealing substantially
with what took place at the general assembly in New York during the months of November and December last?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Since the leader of the opposition has referred to the chairman of the delegation at New York I should like to associate myself with his remarks in that regard. Canada and the Canadian delegation were fortunate indeed in having the present Secretary of State for External Affairs as chairman of the delegation. As he said, we met every morning, and while sometimes we did not see eye to eye with him in every particular, through his ability h* was always more or less able to bring us together to present something of a united front. I think that was a great tribute, both to the chairman and to all of the members of the delegation. I should like to associate myself with the leader of the opposition in paying this brief tribute to the work of the chairman.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I be permitted to ask the minister one question? I did not hear the minister mention the work of the security council. I realize that we are not on that council yet, although I have hopes that at sonie time we shall be. That council of course has been doing important work and is the one organ of the united nations which is heavily endowed with power. I wonder why in the report there was no reference by some of our observers in the Department of External Affairs to the work of the security council, which is of tremendous interest and concern to all Canadians.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This was intended to be a report of the Department of External Affairs on the participation of the Canadian delegation in the work of the united nations and the Canadian representative on the atomic energy commission who participated in the work of the security council on the atomic energy question. He was called in under I think it is section 31 of the charter of the united nations. Our participation to that extent was covered by the report I tabled the other day on the work of the atomic energy commission.
As to the activities of the security council, the hon. member will find that they are indirectly referred to in the discussion of the matter of the voting procedure in the security council, but that is the only portion that was covered. There will be available to hon. members copies of the report of the security council. There was a report of the security council to the general assembly, which served
Veterans Guard oj Canada

as the basis for much of the work of the general assembly on this second part of the first assembly.


Gordon Graydon: Have we an observer constantly at the security council gathering?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, we have not an observer. We have not appointed a representative to be permanently at the site of the united nations, and we have no permanent observer at the security council. Though I shared with my hon. friend the disappointment we experienced when we were not elected to the security council, I must confess that had we been there we would not yet have any accomplishment to be proud of.



SEASONAL DELIVERY QUOTAS ON BASIS OF SEEDED ACREAGE

Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I wish to make a brief statement in regard to the basis of wheat deliveries in western Canada. Members of the house will recall that since August 1, 1941 wheat delivery quotas have been based upon what was known as the authorized acreage. An authorized acreage was established covering each farm unit in western Canada and delivery quotas were established on the basis of so many bushels per authorized acre. Authorized acreages were more equitable than seeded acreages whenever there was a possibility of a final limitation on producers' wheat deliveries in any crop year. Because it is not the intention of the government finally to limit wheat deliveries, it has been thought advisable on grounds of equity to use a seeded acreage basis in 1947-48.
Under the conditions which now exist the government is of the view that for the crop year 1947-48 and until further notice, any seasonal delivery quotas necessary for wheat and other grains in western Canada will be based on seeded acreage.
I am making this statement at this time in order that grain producers in the west may understand that any seasonal delivery quotas which may be established in the coming crop year will be on a seeded acreage basis for wheat and other grains.



VETERANS GUARD OF CANADA


Hon. BROOKE CLANTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, if the house will permit I should like to make a statement with respect to the veterans guard.
	.
Another stage has been reached in the demobilization of Canada's armed forces. We have already said good-bye to such fine wartime organizations as the Women's Royal Canadian Naval Service, the Canadian Women's Army Corps and the Women's Division of the Royal Canadian Air Force, better known with affectionate respect as the WREN's, the CWAC's and the W.D.'s. Now it is with feelings of pride that I call the attention of this house to the work of that splendid body of men, the veterans guard of Canada, due for disbandment today.
The veterans guard was authorized during the dark days of May 1940 to give the veterans of the war of 1914-1918 their chance to serve in the defence of the home front. They stood on guard for Canada in the front line trenches of 1914-1918 and in the second world war they stood on guard for Canada on the frontiers of their native land.
Amongst the tasks which their country asked them to undertake during the recent war was the protection of many lonely but important places on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and many vital and vulnerable points in Canada where sabotage or any form of enemy attack might have been a national calamity. These men, too, willingly undertook one of the most wearing, tiring and thankless of all tasks with the firm discipline which they themselves had learned as Canadian soldiers, and, with the tact and humanity which they had learned as Canadian citizens, they guarded the enemy prisoners of war and escorted them back to Europe when the war was over.
In October 1941 the first members of the corps proceeded overseas for duty at Canadian military headquarters, in London, and other companies soon followed. A special detachment was sent to Newfoundland early in 1942 and companies were sent to the West Indies and British Guiana.
In the ranks of the veterans guard were men who had gallantly led their comrades into successful action in the great war of 1914-1918. Their ranks were decorated with the ribbons of two Victoria Crosses, 65 Military Crosses and bars, more than 75 Distinguished Conduct Medals and over 300 Military Medals.
At the peak strength in August 1945, nearly
9,000	veterans were serving in the veterans guard. Some of these men spent ten of the last thirty years serving their country in two world wars. Those thirty years should under happier circumstances have been the happiest and most productive of their lives, dedicated to peaceful tasks and the joys of family union. The fact that ten out of thirty years should have been spent in this way is a challenge

Veterans Guard of Canada
not only to us but to the whole world of men to work with each other and with all nations, in order that such devotion and unselfish service can hereafter be dedicated, not to the harassing duties of war but to the advancement of national, international and human welfare.
On behalf of the Canadian people, I extend to the Veterans Guard of Canada heartfelt thanks for a good job well done, and a grateful farewell.
With regard to the demobilization of the remaining men in the three services who enlisted for the duration of the war or for interim service, a relatively small number are being retained, with their consent, until the end of September of this year to assist in putting the armed forces on a post-war basis. As this phase is completed, the men so serving will be progressively reduced and all will be out of uniform by September 30, 1947. This is the date by which every man who joined up for the duration of the war will have returned to civilian employment or enlisted in the post-war active forces.
This termination date will be marked by appropriate ceremonies, particularly to recognize the part played by Canada's reserve forces in our total war effort and to emphasize the great part that the naval reserve divisions, the Canadian army reserve force and the air force auxiliary squadrons can, and we trust, will, play in the post-war forces which should the need arise again will be available to serve our country. Every fit young man too young to serve in war should join one of Canada's citizen services. The reserve forces are proceeding with their organization and their essential place in Canada's national life in peace and war calls for strong support in every community.


Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add just one word, if I may, to the remarks which have been made by the Minister of National Defence, because I had a large number of these old soldiers serving under me.
In the minister's statement three words stood out. The first was thanks, the second was farewell, and the third was challenge. Thanks and farewell are not enough for these old soldiers who have given up so much of their time to the service of this country. The challenge-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Randolph Pearkes: -is to this government fo provide some sort of employment for these old soldiers and to make some sort of provision for them so that they may be
reestablished in civilian life. Under the present regulations they are trying to get certain benefits-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I think all members
of the house, regardless of party, would like to associate themselves-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I thought the hon.
gentleman had resumed his seat.


George Randolph Pearkes: I had not, I wish to
point out-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I have allowed
the hon. member to make a few remarks but I would point out to him that it is not permissible for him to make a statement or start a debate.


Gordon Graydon: Surely he has the same
right as the minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: Oh, yes. He has just
the same right and perhaps more.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: A
shadow minister?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am not playing politics-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Randolph Pearkes: -I am merely speaking up for some men who served under me-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Randolph Pearkes: -and I have the right to do so. I want to say one more word regarding some old soldiers who have received notice that they are to be discharged ou the first of April of this year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. member to be brief. He cannot make a speech. The statement made by the minister is not debatable and I would ask the hon. gentleman to be brief in his remarks.


George Randolph Pearkes: I will be very brief, sir.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I ask whether those permanent force soldiers who have done more than nineteen years' service and who hope to get a pension for twenty years of service, and have now received notice that their service will terminate on the thirty-first day of March, today, can also receive the thanks of the minister for the services that they have
186S
Veterans Guard oj Canada

given, and also receive the consideration which the minister is giving to assist these old soldiers of the veterans guard?


Leslie Gordon Bell: Mr. Speaker, I think that all members of the house would like to associate themselves with the thanks expressed by the minister to the men of the Veterans Guard of Canada who have served their country so well. May I say that I should also like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) and to express the hope that this country will do more for these old soldiers than merely to give them a vote of thanks.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: The members of this group, Mr. Speaker, would also like to associate themselves with the remarks made by the hon. member for Nanaimo. It can be truly said, I think, that the men who served in the first world war and the men of the veterans guard are Canada's forgotten men.


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, speaking for the apex of the Liberal party, we would like also to associate ourselves with what has been said; only we hope that we shall have the same privilege of making speeches in favour of the veterans as has been accorded to the hon. member for Nanaimo.
Mr. LESLIE A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South): Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact you have permitted a debate on this question-


James Horace King: Order. I would call the attention of hon. members for the second time to the fact that I cannot permit a debate.


Mr. MUTCH:: I shall be satisfied, Mr. Speaker, if you will afford me the same facilities as have been accorded to other members.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Why don't hon. members over there yell "order" now?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: In the beginning I should have been content to allow the Minister of National Defence, in what I thought were well chosen words, to pay tribute to these men for me as a supporter of the party. But I have had some opportunity to serve with the men who are being disbanded today, and as a comrade of theirs in two wars, speaking for myself and everyone on this side of the house -if we are going to do it in this way-I wish to pay my tribute and to express the hope that in view of their doubly difficult rehabili-
tation they will have not only equal but special consideration. I am sure that is the hope of this house.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. D. F. BROWN (Essex West) moved:: That the second report of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons appointed to continue and complete the examination and consideration of the Indian Act, presented to the house on Wednesday, March 26 last, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs)-: I would ask for the consent of the house to move at this time the motion of which notice is printed on page 27 of the routine proceedings and orders of the day. W'hen the house took recess some time after six -o'clock on Friday, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), who was then acting for the leader of the opposition, asked the leader of the house to indicate the programme of work for today; that was done, and it seemed to me to meet with pretty general satisfaction as being a proper programme for this day. But it so happens that that programme cannot be carried out in accordance with the standing orders of the house unless this motion printed on page 27 of the routine proceedings and orders of the day is considered at this time. There had been a motion made that government notices of motion have precedence over all other matters, but the introduction of bills, questions, notices of motions for the production of papers. But the effect of that resolution expired on Friday the 28th, and we would therefore, under normal procedure, revert to the standing orders which would be in accord with the proceedings as printed in the orders of the day.
I discussed this with several members of the house and it was suggested, amongst other things, that in making this motion at this time, the exception providing for the introduction of bills, questions and notices of motions for the production of papers should be extended and should include, from eight to nine o'clock in the evening on Tuesday and Fridays, private bills and public bills. That seemed to be a reasonable suggestion, and if I have the consent of the house to make the

Business of the House
motion at this time I should be disposed to include that exception in the motion, so that on Tuesdays and Fridays from eight to nine o'clock private bills and members' public bills might be considered-in accordance with standing orders so long as government business has precedence over other matters.
There is another feature which was pointed out to me, which I in turn discussed with my colleagues, and which we found was quite proper. I do not think any member of the house considers it to be entirely fair that private members should be deprived of the opportunity of bringing before the house matters which might not be on the routine proceedings and orders of the day. Having discussed that with my colleagues I am prepared to give the undertaking that so long as government business would have precedence under a resolution such as this, the government would as the first order of government business on each Monday move the house into committee of supply so that all hon. members would have at that time a full opportunity to air any grievances which they might have or to bring to the attention of the house anything not on the routine proceedings and orders of the day which they felt was of sufficient importance to engage the attention of the house at that time. I think it would be well if each Monday that is to be taken for government business, as the first order of government business there were a motion to go into committee of supply, so that every hon. member would have an opportunity to bring up at that time anything which he felt was of sufficient importance to warrant its being discussed. The intention of the government would not be to go on with the consideration of supply when the house got into committee, but rather to call two or three departments and have them opened so that they might on any appropriate occasion be dealt with in accordance with the standing orders.
If that arrangement seemed to be suitable, it might be taken as an undertaking of the government to move, on every Monday when government business would have precedence over other affairs, to go into committee of supply as the first order of business so that any question not on the order paper but about which any hon. member was concerned, could be discussed. We have now only today, tomorrow and a short day on Wednesday before taking recess and I think it was the general feeling that we should continue with the emergency legislation before the house. I would therefore request leave to move at this time:
That on Monday, March 31 instant and every sitting day thereafter until and including Monday, April 28 next, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except introduction of bills, questions and notices of motions for the production of papers, and except, from eight to nine o'clock in the evening on Tuesdays and Fridays, private and public bills; and that standing order No. 15 be suspended in relation thereto.
John Bracken: The acting leader of the government has indicated the position in which we find ourselves today as a result of the way in which our programme is printed in the routine proceedings. The procedure allows private members' business to have priority over government business. The minister has suggested that we reverse that order and put government business before private members' business. As he has indicated and as we all know, in order that the change may be made now, notice not having been given before, the arrangement must have the unanimous approval of the house.
Speaking for the official opposition, when requests of this kind have been made to us, as has been the case several times this session, we have raised no objection, and we raise no objection now. I think it only fair, however, to point out what the minister himself indicated, namely, that particularly during this session private members have been asked to make sacrifices, and there should be some recognition of the position in which they have been placed. We have no desire to take advantage of the technical position in which the government finds itself today. I do not think we should. And I do not mean to urge the government to grant any more concessions to private members than their judgment would suggest. But the minister has said that from now on the government is willing to move to go into supply each Monday. To that extent private members will be permitted to discuss questions they feel should be dealt with. I think that is a good suggestion, and I support it. It is an ill wind that blows no one good, so if the situation confronting us today is a little difficult, I believe some good may come out of it for the private members of this house.
We are agreeable to the. suggestion reversing the order of business today, provided that free discussion is permitted each Monday when the motion is made to go into supply, and provided that we are not denied the right to discuss matters mentioned in private members' resolutions, which under a narrow technical interpretation of the rules I understand might be denied us. I do not think that right should be denied. I would respectfully suggest to the minister that his proposal should not be limi-
Business of the House

ted to the period mentioned, but that he undertake that this motion be made every Monday from now until the end of the session.


Leslie Gordon Bell: May I say that we too approve the suggestion of the minister, which I understand to be that on Mondays hereafter until these motions run out private members will have the right on going into supply to state any grievances or raise any questions they regard as of urgent importance. It is an improvement on the procedure we have followed in this house up to the present, and after trying it out we might consider making it a permanent part of our rules of procedure. We also approve the proposal to devote the usual hour from eight to nine o'clock on Tuesday and Friday evenings to private and public bills. That is something we appreciate, for it does give private members an opportunity of doing things which otherwise, under the resolution we have adopted this session with regard to procedure, they might not be able to do. Therefore I support the proposal of the minister and express the hope that we may be able to facilitate the business of the day by adopting it unanimously.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): The members of this group will be prepared to support the minister's proposal. I take it that on Mondays when the government does move into committee of supply, only one or not more than two departments at the most will be called. With that understanding we will certainly give our support to the suggestion.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I shall not ask to open more than two departments unless at the time I have the consent of the house to open more. With respect to the other suggestions that have been made, during the whole session Monday is a private members' day, and if we applied this rule during the whole session it would mean that Monday would not again become a private members' day; but that we can further consider. For the present all I am asking is that while -we are taking something from the private members on Mondays, we call supply as the first order of government business so that there may be an opportunity of airing any grievance that may have arisen.


Mr. MacINNIS:: The Mondays the minister has mentioned are the Mondays until April 28, or whatever date was mentioned by the minister; it was not the Mondays until the end of the session?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Not beyond the time covered by the motion. We may have to

suggest that the motion be extended at another time, but if that were done another undertaking would be given.


John Bracken: May I ask the minister to comment on the suggestion I made with respect to the possible limitation of debate on this motion to go into supply? Are we to be denied the right to discuss matters which may be mentioned in resolutions now on the order paper, but which have not oome up for discussion? I think we should have the utmost freedom of discussion on Mondays.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not as well informed as I should be about the standing orders of the house. I was under the impression that we could not move the adjournment of the house to anticipate a discussion on something already on the order paper, but that on going into supply hon. members were not limited, and I would not like to see them limited, in anything they might feel it was proper to bring before the house at that time.


Leslie Gordon Bell: But is that not a matter for His Honour the Speaker? No member of the government can possibly commit the Speaker to something which contravenes the rules of the house. That is the way it stands, at least on the face of the rules.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: So far as I am concerned I shall be prepared to rely upon the sense of responsibility of each hon. member, at a time when there is urgent public business to be attended to, not to raise anything he does not feel is of sufficient importance to warrant taking the time of the house.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to draw the attention of the house to the fact that this discussion has been agreeable and pleasant, and the motion probably will be adopted unanimously, because the acting leadership of the house is different. We do not any more hear anyone being called "irreverentially impertinent", which was something rather tough in reply to the word "touchy." When one feels that he is the lord spiritual because he has been appointed right honourable, it cannot cause anything but trouble. The discussion today has been very agreeable, between humble men, some of whom have titles and others of whom have not, and it is rather admirable. Last year I brought the attention of the Prime Minister through Hansard-I did not do it in any other way-to the fact that it was quite i ecessary to change the acting leadership of the house, and now that it has been changed

Business oj the House
we are at peace. I hope the acting leadership will remain under another sky for a very long time.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) referred to the possibility of 'having a trial of this proposal. I do not want to take much time just now, but I should like to bring up a matter which has to do with the business of the house, and I think this is the appropriate time to do it. At the risk of being accused of having repeated something I said on Friday night I want to say that I feel keenly about this. Will the government consider making an experiment after we return from the Easter recess with a view to changing the unearthly sitting hours with which we now have to put up and arriving at something that would be more satisfactory? If we sat every sitting day of the week from one o'clock in the afternoon until seven o'clock in the evening it would give us three more hours of actual time for debate. There would be no question of reducing the hours of sitting; it would simply be a matter of trying to find a more convenient and satisfactory, and shall I say a more humane arrangement for the House of Commons. I should like the government at least to try it out; if it did not work, no great harm would be done. After the Easter recess I suggest that for the first week the government consider sitting from one o'clock until seven to see if the proposal I am making will not -work out in the interests of all concerned.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I can assure the hon. member that the government will give serious consideration to the suggestion he has * made and will endeavour to have it considered by the chairmen of the special committees set up by the house to see if it will be possible still to have time to do that part of the business of the session which has to be attended to by the select committees. The select committees might have to meet somewhat earlier than eleven o'clock if the house were to meet at one. I think that is an aspect of the matter that should receive consideration. I can assure the hon. member that if arrangements can be made which will be more conducive to the convenience of hon. members and will allow the work of the session to be accomplished, it will be a great pleasure to me personally.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I presume that the house itself will be consulted on this matter as well as the chairmen of committees?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Of course the government would not attempt to do more than to bring a motion before the house for the
determination of the house, but I think the chairmen of committees should have an opportunity to consider the work they have to do and how they might have to arrange the sittings of their committees to fit in with any new arrangement for the hours of sitting of the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: If it is adopted we will [DOT] call it the Graydon rule.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILFRID LaCROIX (Quebee-Mont-morency) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 133, to amend the criminal code (illegal organizations).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.
Mr. LaCROIX: The communist party of Canada and the Labour-Progressive party of Canada and organizations with similar objectives and advocating the use of similar means of overthrowing constituted authority as developed in Canada under our constitution are a menace to the safety of the state and should be outlawed by an adequate provision of the criminal code. The government, with the approval of parliament, thought it necessary and expedient for the safety of the state to outlaw the communist party during the war. Such organizations constitute a great threat to the safety of our national institutions in peace time and should be suppressed in like manner. With this object in view it is proposed by this bill to declare the named parties illegal organizations under the criminal code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SARTO FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemont-for Mr. Rinfret) moved the first reading of Bill No. 106 (from the senate) to incorporate Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company.
Thomas Langton Church: Are we to have no explanation? I should like to call the attention of the house to one fact about this bill. It wdll take ten years to build this railroad and the company is to be permitted to build pipe lines, carry on shipping and ocean services, operate hotels and many other things -light and power developments, air lines, etc.
Questions

It gives them the right to do almost anything in Labrador, provided that authority is first obtained from Newfoundland. It is clearly ultra vires of the dominion.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. TIMMINS:: How many married women paid income tax in 1945 in respect to salaries alone (as contrasted from those who paid income tax on investments) and what was the aggregate of the income tax so paid?


Mr. McCANN (Answer for taxation division) :: As stated in answer to an earlier similar question statistics have not been assembled in a form to answer this question but arrangements have been made to gather such statistics in the future beginning with the year 1946.


VALCARTIER ARSENAL
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	What is the personnel in charge of the arsenal at Valeartier?
2.	How many of this personnel have had overseas service?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	183. for the most part permanent government employees.
2.	Twenty.


DOMINION GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN NOVA SCOTIA-EDWIN FRASER
Mr. LOW:: 1.	Does Edwin Eraser hold a position with the federal government in Nova Scotia?
2.	If so (a) what position; (b) what remuneration does he receive; (e) on whose recommendation was he appointed, and what are his qualifications for the position?


Mr. BRIDGES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Supervisor of fisheries, district No. 2, Nova Scotia; (b) $3,000, plus war duties supplement $480 per annum; (c) Appointed by Civil Service Commission as fisheries inspector February 1, 1920 and promoted to present position by same authority July 1,1932; (d) Adaptability to fisheries administration and an intimate knowledge of requirements based on long experience.
TMr. Church.]


INDEBTEDNESS OF U.S.S.R. TO CANADA
Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	Does the amount of $8,815,680.52 owed Canada by the U.S.S.R. for advances made under section three of the War Appropriation Act, bear any interest?
2.	If so, at what rate?
3.	When will the principal be repaid?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1 and 2. After these advances had been outstanding for several months and no agreement had been reached on the terms of a long term credit to cover these and other purchases then contemplated, Canada proposed to the U.S.S.R. that the advances should bear interest at three-quarters of one per cent if paid off in cash within a relatively short time, or should bear interest at whatever rate was later agreed upon for a long term credit if they were covered by such a credit. As yet it has not been possible to secure the agreement of the government of the U.S.S.R. to the payment of interest at these proposed rates.
3.	When the U.S.S.R. requested these advances, immediately after the end of hostilities in the Far East in order to purchase food for the U.S.S.R. troops which had been fighting the Japanese, the government of the U.S.S.R. undertook to repay them either by cash or on the basis of a long term credit agreement then under negotiation. As yet it has not been possible to secure the agreement of the government of the U.S.S.R. to a definite date for the repayment of these advances.


ATOMIC ENERGY-CHALK RIVER PILOT PLANT
Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: 1.	Is the pilot plant at Chalk River being maintained for atomic research?
2.	How much money was spent to maintain this plant for each year of its operation during the war?
3.	How much has been spent on it for each year since the war?
Mr.McILRAITH:
1.	Yes.
2.	and 3. The expenditures including capital and operating on the Chalk river pilot plant have been as follows: For the fiscal year
1944- 45, $2,830,106.82; For the fiscal year
1945- 46, $14,202,466.82; For the fiscal year
1946-	47 (to 28 February 1947), $6,504,828.26.


CENSUS-PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. HAMEL:: 1.	As concerns the 1946 census in the prairie provinces, under whose authority was section 19 of the Statistics Act, chapter 190 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, which provides that the census shall be so taken as to ascertain the racial origin, religious denomination, etc., of the population, departed from?

Questions
2.	If such deviation from the act was authorized by order in council (a) what is the wording of such order in council; (b) under what authority was it passed?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Minister of Trade and Commerce.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
Note: It is the policy of the bureau of statistics to restrict the questions in the census schedules to those which supply essential information. For 1946 it did not appear to be essential that a question be asked on ethnic (racial) origin, in view of the fact that the question is asked at every decennial census.
The question on religion has not been included in a quinquennial census since 1916. It is sufficient to ask the question in the decennial census when the whole dominion is covered.


ARCHBISHOP STEPINAC
Mr. RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: 1.	Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs received any protests following the statements made recently by the Consul General of Yugoslavia, Mr. Popovitch, with reference to the Sovereign Pontiff, His Excellency Bishop Stepinac and the Roman Catholic church?
2.	Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs taken any action in the matter?
3.	If so, what action?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	Yes.
2.	I have studied with great care the representations which have been made to the government concerning the statement which Mr. Popovitch was reported to have made in an interview published in the Montreal Standard on March 1, 1947. It is clearly the right and the duty of a diplomatic or consular representative of a country to use his best efforts to explain the policies and actions of his government and to clear up misunderstandings. Since we expect our representatives abroad to do this for Canada we should be the last to deny the same right and privilege to representatives of foreign governments in Canada.
The existence of the right is one thing and the way in which the right is exercised is another thing. A foreign representative is guilty of an impropriety if, in the course of defending the actions and policies of his
1.	Name
Adams, C	
Boivin, T	
Campbell, J. M Charron, G. E..
Cole. W. H....
Cushing, G. G.. Cuthbert, J....
government, he uses language which is clearly offensive. Part of the language reported as having been used by Mr. Popovitch we would regard as clearly offensive. If such language had been used in similar circumstances by a Canadian representative abroad, we could not object if the government to which he was accredited complained. In fact, we would reprimand him ourselves for having overstepped diplomatic propriety.
I understand that at the interview Mr. Popovitch spoke in French and that his remarks were translated into English for the benefit of the representative of the Montreal Standard. It is therefore possible that the account of the interview may not have conveyed precisely what Mr. Popovitch meant.
We are making inquiries about this.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	What are the total amount of undue allowances of family allowances and the number of accounts affected ?	_2.	Of the amount shown, how much is recoverable through suspension of the family allowances account?	_3.	What part of the total undue allowances is considered recoverable by other means of repayment?4.	How much of the total undue allowances is considered uncollectable?


Mr. MARTIN:: -
As of January 31, 1947:
1.	1165,920.83; number of accounts affected, 4.644.
2.	$102,860.00.
3.	$48,826.83.
4.	$14,234.00.


&quot;LABOUR GAZETTE&quot;-CORRESPONDENTS
Mr. PROBE:: 1.	What persons received payment from the
Department of Labour and what amounts, in each of the years 1944, 1945, 1946, as correspondents supplying material for the Labour Gazette?	_
2.	How much of each correspondent's material was published in the Labour Gazette in each of the years 1944, 1945 and 1946?
3.	How much of the expenditures, if any, was cost-of-living bonus and for what reasons was bonus paid?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1944	1945	1946S 140 40	$ 140 40	$ 19 40140 40	140 40	81 9073 15	175 56	175 56	87 78175 56	175 56	165 92175 56	175 56	165 92150 00	150 00	75 00
Questions

1.	Name
Dixon, G. W	
Duffy, T	
Fulcher, E	
Gadsby, H. M_____
Gibson, T. W	
Grant, A. E	
Graves, J. C	
Hale, T	
Hale, T	
Hall, D	
Hall, F. W	
Hall, N. S	
Halladay, E. I____
Hilborn, G. V....
Hogan, M	
Hogan, W. J	
Hope, R	
Keegan, W. F_____
Kessler, C. H	
Lowe, D. P	
Mackay, J. A	
Martin, J. A	
Martin, L. R	
MeCreath, R	
McGirr, W	
McGrath, E	
McLean, T. C______
McNeil, F	
Monoghan, J. H..
Mooers, H. F	
Newsome, R. D...
O'Neill, E. B....
Phenix, G	
Plamondon, L. A,
Provencher, L....
Radford, J. M____
Sharp, J. P	
Sharpe, J. T	
Stott, A	
Symonds, R. C...
Tait, A	
Thornley, H	
Williamson, A. C.
Totals	
2.	The material furnished by correspondents is of a general nature in reference to wage trends and employment and labour organizational matters in their respective districts, and while it does not lend itself to direct publication in the Gazette in the form communicated to the department it is a fact that the reports are useful in many ways in keeping the various 
1944	1945	1946175 56	175 56	165 9293 60	133 31140 40	58 50	175 56	175 56	165 92175 56	175 56	165 92140 40	140 40	133 31140 40	70 20	175 56	131 67	43 89	' 165 92140 40	140 40	133 31175 56	175 56	165 92140 40	140 40	133 31175 56	175 56	58 52150 00	150 00	151 01140 40	140 40	70 20....	63 11175 56	175 56	165 92175 56	175 56	165 9293 60	175 56	175 56	165 92140 40	140 40	133 31140 40	140 40	58 5074 81175 56	175 56	165 92140 40	140 40	133 31175 56	175 56	165 92175 56	175 56	87 78175 56	175 56	165 92140 40	140 40	133 31175 56	175 56	165 92140 40	140 40	133 21175 56	175 56	165 9246 80	....146 30	140 40	140 40	133 31....	70 20	133 31140 40	140 40	133 31175 56	175 56	165 92175 56	175 56	165 92175 56	175 56	165 92140 40	140 40	133 31351 00	146 25	175 56	175 56	73 15$7,119 57	$6,566 67	$5,487 44Number on list	
50Number not now acting	
17Total number acting	
33*
branches informed on matters in which they are concerned and are of aid in preparing periodical data.
3.	Of the expenditures in answer to question number 1, the payment of cost-of-living bonus yearly was: 19A4-$992.07; 1945-$911.67; 1946 -$585.94. The reason for payment of cost-of-living bonus to these employees is that they

Orders for Returns
qualified therefor under the regulations laid down for payment of such increment to members of the public service.


UNITED NATIONS-PRESS OFFICER IN GREECE
Mr. JAQUES:: 1.	What is the official position of Stanley Ryan, reported as press officer, UNO, in Greece?
2.	Where was his birthplace and what was his original name?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Perhaps I might
answer this question orally. It has to do with one who is said to be an official of the united nations. We would not like to establish the precedent that the government should answer in the house questions about the personnel of the united nations. If the hon. member wishes me to do so I shall be glad to communicate with the secretary general of the united nations and secure the information and pass it on to him. I should not like to have it made part of the records of the house because although we are one of the united nations we do not think we should be required to answer in the house questions about the administration of that body.


Leslie Gordon Bell: May I ask of what
interest it is to anyone where this man was bom or what his original name was? That is something that should not be taken up with the secretary general of the united nations.


Mr. JAQUES:: Will the minister tell the house if this man is employed by the dominion government?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This man is not in the employ of the Canadian government.


Gordon Graydon: The minister's statement of the position with respect to questions on the united nations organization may be correct; I have not given it any consideration, but as no doubt from now on a number of questions on vital matters will be asked about the organization the government should consider seriously how far they can go in giving information.


James Horace King: Order.


Gordon Graydon: Surely a member can
stand up and ask a civil question.


James Horace King: No debate is permitted on questions.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, if you are going to take the position that every member is to be put in a strait-jacket I am going to protest, and I do not mind telling Your Honour that I will.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FAIR:: 1.	During the period January 1, 1941 to March 1, 1947, what quantities of wheat were supplied to Canadian distillers?
2.	At what price per bushel was this wheat sold?
3.	Did the Canadian government contribute to the purchase price by way of subsidy?
4.	If so, what was the amount of such contribution?
5.	For what reason was the contribution made ?


INCOME TAX-FARMERS
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	During each of the fiscal years 1939-40 to 1945-46, how many farmers were assessed for income tax in each province?
2.	How many filed returns in each province each year during the above period?
3.	What is the amount (a) levied; (b) collected in each province in each year during the period above?


ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	Wbat materials, and what quantities of each material, capable of being used as foodstuffs were allocated dr used by (a) distilleries; (b) breweries; (c) wineries, during the year 1939 and each subsequent year as far as the figures are available?
2.	How far were the wartime regulations, passed on December 16. 1942, effective in accomplishing their ostensible purpose of reducing the amount of alcoholic beverages consumed iu Canada as regards spirits, beer and wine?


PUBLIC BUILDINGS-POST OFFICES
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	How many new post office buildings have been built by the government since January 1,
1945?
2.	Where have they been built?
3.	What was the cost of each?
4.	What was the gross revenue of each such post office at the date when replacement construction was commenced?


MEDICAL SERVICES-INDIANS AND ESKIMOS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What has been done by the government since the discussion last session on health estimates to provide relief measures in medicine and hospitalization services and medical assistance to Indians, Eskimos and those in outlying districts of Canada, either federally or with the assistance of the provinces, or municipalities?
2.	What moneys have been spent on this work
since then?	_
3.	Did any deputation of clergy or medical men or others wait on the cabinet herein recently and what was the reply given to them, if any, by the government?
1S76
Inquiries of the Ministry


CANADIAN OVERSEAS FIRE FIGHTERS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has anything been done since last session to give a volunteer medal to the Canadian [DOT]overseas fire fighters?
2.	Have any other measures of equality of status been given to them in the same manner as those who served in the forces in the late war?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. FAIR:: For a copy of the instructions issued to assessors of farm income tax each fiscal year 1939-40 to 1945-46.



DAUPHIN, MAN., LANDING FIELDS

Mr. ZAPLITNY:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other communications exchanged between the Department of Reconstruction and persons or organizations since January 1, 1946, 111 connection with No. 10 S.F.T.S. and/or the reliei landing fields at Dauphin, Manitoba.



SHORTAGES IN RURAL AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
^ Mr. H. O. WHITE (Middlesex East): Mr. Speaker, in view of the serious shortage of nails in rural areas, will the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply assure the house that farmers will be able to get sufficient nails to repair and maintain their buildings?
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am not in charge of the distribution of nails in this country. Certain priorities have been set up for housing requirements and those entitled to priorities will receive guarantees of supplies. I do not know that I can go beyond that. My hon. friend is a great advocate of private enterprise, and I can assure him that private enterprise is in charge of the distribution of nails.


Mi. STEPHENSON:: If I may ask a supplementary question, an advertisement appeared in the Toronto Evening Telegram of March 22 indicating that nails could be bought, but only in carload lots, delivery to be made in from one to three weeks. Will the minister explain how that advertisement appeared?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not see the advertisement. How would I know how the advertisement appeared? Perhaps my hon. friend can explain.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Our hardware stores are without nails and here is an advertisement offering them in carload lots.


Mr. FRASER:: On March 4 the minister told me that no nails had been exported from Canada. The export order went into effect February 2, 1946, but it was not fully carried out because permits had been issued before that date good for six months and many hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of Canadian nails were exported last year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What is the question?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I would like to know why it is that Canadians who want nails have to buy them from the United States, nails made by Canadian firms here in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has made a statement of fact. I hope he can prove it; I think he should. I say it could not possibly happen.


Mr. CASE:: The minister mentioned priorities for housing. What about nails that are required for public schools? Is there any priority for them?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The only priorities I know of are certain priorities for veterans' housing, and military establishments such as hospitals and occupational centres.



CANADA-U.S. BORDER WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED STATES CUSTOMS PATROL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Is the Minister of National Revenue aware that today the customs patrol at the Canada-United States border has been withdrawn by the LTiited States government? What complications are apt to arise involving the minister's department, and what steps are being taken to counteract them?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, we do not think that from our standpoint any complications will ensue. Our patrols will continue to operate as usual. We have never depended upon the United States for enforcement of our laws. I think it is perhaps a matter that is none of our business.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, a Canadian Press dispatch today reports officials of the wartime prices and trade board as having said that the granting of a thirty per cent general increase in rail-

Inquiries oj the Ministry
way freight rates asked for by the railways would blow the lid off prices altogether. I shall not refer to the pros or cons of the railway rates case, but on a question of privilege, it seems that in the House of Commons we are denied the right to discuss railway rates, while in a bureaucratic assembly outside of this house they are allowed to talk all they like about it. Some move ought to be made by the minister to make sure that whatever privilege is given to them should at least be given to hon. members of this house.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I have not seen the item in question, and of course I cannot control the newspapers. I do not know whether an official of the wartime prices and trade board made the statement which is attributed to him. If he made the statement it is no doubt an improper one for him to make; but I question whether any senior official of the board made the statement or would be quoted as making it.

PRESS REPORTS OF SLAUGHTER OF BREEDING STOCK On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, who is not in his seat at the moment. Perhaps he will take notice of it and answer as soon as he gets back. With respect to a Canadian Press news item of March 29, which states that thirty-one sows, nine with pig, were killed in two days at one processing plant in Winnipeg, is the government taking any steps to stop this wholesale slaughter of breeding stock? Unless something is done at once, our commitments to Britain will prove even more of a dismal failure.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: On February 24 an answer was given to a question of mine by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. I shall read only part of the question:
Do all national defence motor vehicles carry provincial licence plates?
To that part of the question the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence answered as follows:
All wheeled motor vehicles carry provincial licence plates.
The answer is partly correct; they carry provincial licence plates, but the parliamentary assistant did not say that they were 1943 licence plates, not 1946 and 1947 plates.


Brooke Claxton: I think I ought to correct my hon. friend. At the time his question was asked it was ruled not in order; therefore I do not see why it should be permitted now.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What does the minister
mean by saying it was not ruled in order?


Brooke Claxton: The question was not
put at that time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The answer I have read
was given to a question that I put on the order paper. That was the answer I received.


Brooke Claxton: I am sorry; I thought
the question was as he had put it at a previous time when the question was not allowed. The situation is this. In all provinces except Ontario motor vehicles of the Department of National Defence carry licence plates of the current year; but in Ontario, at the request of the Ontario motor vehicle authorities, made in a letter dated December, 1943, we kept the 1943 plates in order to save the government of Ontario the expense of replacing plates from year to year.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Further in regard to that, a check of twelve motor vehicles last Tuesday showed that three of them did not carry licence plates at all.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): The Postmaster General is not in the house at the moment; perhaps I can put this question in the hope that he will be able to answer it tomorrow. Will the government now give consideration to reducing the present high postal rates on food parcels going to the United Kingdom?


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 105, respecting compensation for government employees.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
1878	COMMONS
Compensation for Government Employees
On section 2-Definitions.
Mr. MacNICOL:: I wish to say a word or two on this section. I realize that in the main the compensation boards of the provinces, particularly Ontario, with which I am best acquainted, do give first-class satisfaction. If a man's leg or arm is cut off or his eye is out or he is otherwise disabled and that disablement is quite easily seen, he is taken care of without any difficulty. But many men are injured and have industrial diseases which are difficult to observe. I do not wish to say anything that would in any way reflect on the medical boards of the compensation boards, but I am not satisfied with all that they do. For instance I know of the case of a man who had worked in a foundry for eighteen years. Knowing, or at least I used to know, all about foundry practice-and I have not forgotten all of it-I am convinced that he could not work steadily in a foundry for eighteen years unless he were fit. This particular man had the misfortune to bump his knee into some obstruction, a truck, or a wheelbarrow or some other such obstruction which is all too frequently in the way of people working in factories.
As I said, he had been working in the foundry for eighteen years. Because of that accident he was knocked out. He received compensation for some length of time; I have forgotten how long, but that is neither here nor there. The compensation board had their medical men examine him, and they declared that the reason he could not work was that his heart was affected and that he had an arthritic condition which caused his leg and knee to swell, thereby making it impossible for him to work. He is in bad shape. I believe he is on the road to his grave. In my judgment his condition is an industrial disease. How can it be proved that it is not? He was healthy for eighteen years; made his living for that length of time and all of a sudden he bumps into a truck or some other obstruction. On being examined some time after- I do not know how long after-the medical board stated that he had an arthritic condition as well as a heart condition. If he has, who is to prove that it is not the result of his accident? He could not possibly work steadily for eighteen years in the foundry business unless he had been 100 per cent healthy.
A moulder uses his knees all the time. He must be strong and healthy or he could, not stand the smoke, soot and dust of a foundry. The particular man to whom I have referred has been discharged by the board. In my opinion he is suffering, from an industrial disease. When the medical board states that a man who is now unfit to work because of an
[Mr. Chevrier.l
injury received while at work has no more claim for compensation, I do not agree with them. I believe, as I tried to say the other night, that workmen who now have no appeal, should be given that right.
I believe there is provision for appeal in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Elsewhere there is no appeal from the medical decision of the board. The medical staff of the compensation board are not, in my opinion, to be put in the same class as the family doctor, who does his utmost for his patients, and is sympathetic at all times, whereas a member of a medical board under the compensation law is a government employee and does not need to care a fig whether he satisfies the workmen or not. As a result, I am sorry to say, in my opinion, too often the workman does not receive what he is entitled to. I have known quite a number of men who afterwards died from the injury or disease they contracted while working in a factory. All I wish to say is that if the act does not allow any appeal-I believe it does in certain provinces-


Mr. CHEVRIER:: The three provinces.


John Ritchie MacNicol: -I would urge upon the minister that provision be made in the bill for any government employee or anyone working for any branch of the government, whether in a factory or elsewhere, who has the misfortune to be injured or to contract an industrial disease, to have the right to appeal. I think the act should apply to such people so that the workmen will have the benefit of appeal in all the provinces and not only in three. If it is right in three provinces it is right in all. I am concerned about this because I have seen such regrettable things. I do not find fault with the board. In the great majority of cases they give satisfaction. They do excellent work and, after men recover from accidents, try to provide jobs for them. There is much that I could say complimentary to the compensation boards. As I said before, years ago I was one of those who strongly advocated the system because my association with large numbers of working men was such as to suggest to me the necessity for something of the kind, and I was happy later on to see provincial governments passing compensation laws. In the operation of the law, however, I have not been 100 per cent satisfied. Am I asking too much when I suggest that the same treatment should be meted out to all working men throughout Canada as is given those in the three provinces mentioned?

Compensation for Government Employees


Lionel Chevrier: I was going to say
to my hon. friend that if there is appeal in the three provinces I mentioned-Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Yukon and northwest territories-it is because of provincial law. The point which he makes is the same one he raised the other evening when we were discussing this question. The Government Employees Compensation Act has proceeded on the basis of utilizing the services of provincial boards, and my hon. friend raised a point the other day when he said, "I hope the minister will not set up a whole new department". That is exactly what we do not want to do, but if we are to have an appeal court, then we must set up a whole new department.
As I understand compensation, it is a matter of property and civil rights to be dealt with by the provinces under the British North America Act. Not so, however, as regards government employees, and we in the Department of Transport have always proceeded on the basis that, while we had jurisdiction under the British North America Act, we should not undertake to set up a separate and different administration but rather should use the experience of the provincial boards which have existed. We have done that in Ontario and Quebec and in all the other provinces and have got along fairly satisfactorily.
In Ontario there is no appeal from the decision of the compensation board, and I presume the same position obtains in the province of Quebec. If we were to set up our own machinery in Ottawa, and proceeded to deal with these cases in the manner in which the boards deal with them across the provinces, then we would be doing exactly what my hon. friend the other evening did not want us to do when he expressed the fear that this would mean the establishment of a whole new department. I fear I have to tell him that, so long as we use the media which are at our disposal in the form of the provincial boards, we shall have to deal with the law as it exists in those provinces.
In the three provinces where there is an appeal court the decision of the officer or the board is subject to appeal, and in the other ' provinces, where there is no appeal court, unfortunately there is nothing under this act that we can do apart from what I have said, namely, setting up separate machinery, which would be costly.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I appreciate what the department is up against and I am not in favour of setting up a whole new board. I
know a lady' who worked in a munitions factory during the war. I presume that would be a government plant?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: She had the misfortune, while operating a shell machine, to drop a shell on her foot, which was crushed badly, so that it was impossible for her to stand on that foot for more than a moment or two at any time. The board were very kind from the beginning. They gave her compensation for what they would call the usual length of time, but the fact is that she was unceremoniously discharged. Her own doctors were strong in their protestations. They said that she should receive compensation indefinitely because her leg was almost useless. If that happened in a government plant today, what would be the status of such a person under this bill?


Lionel Chevrier: AVhat province?


John Ritchie MacNicol: What province?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think there would be any difference in the disposition of the case-it -was under the order in council- provided that it was an accident. If the disability were an industrial disease, there is provision for that in- this bill, which is not covered in some of the provinces.


John Ritchie MacNicol: All I can hope for is that some members of the legislatures in Ontario and the other provinces that have workmen's compensation acts, *where there do not exist the facilities that are provided in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Yukon, will stand up in their assemblies and appeal for equal treatment for all workmen. I have seen too many workmen in my time who, in my judgment, were unceremoniously discharged when they should have been kept under the care of the compensation board.


Mr. ISNOR:: I was pleased the other evening when the resolution covering this bill was introduced by the Minister of Transport, and on that occasion I asked him whether it would be retroactive and would take into account cases which were then under consideration by the department. The minister was good enough to advise me that such was the case.
It is not often that I bring up any individual case on the floor of the house, because I have found, that the officials of the various departments are generally quite cooperative and I get results without having to appeal from the floor. But after reading section 2 of the bill dealing with employees, and the definition of "employee," "compensation" and "industrial disease", all covered in section 2, I am uneer-
1SS0	COMMONS
Compensation for Government Employees
tain whether the provision is as broad as I had hoped it would be. Taking, first, paragraph
(b)	it seems that compensation will be dealt with along the lines provided in the province in which the accident occurs or in which the industrial disease is contracted.
Another point I would mention is the question of wage. It applies to an employee who is paid a direct wage or salary. I am going to ask the minister to explain later whether that direct wage will cover an hourly wage to a temporary or casual employee.
In order to bring this individual case to the attention of the minister in the hope that it will receive more consideration and more direct attention I must go back over correspondence which began in June, 1945. I will give the details as briefly as possible. The case received the. support and attention of the Canadian Legion, Halifax branch, and many letters have been written by individuals in connection with it. I have had it before the Department of National Defence for Naval Services, as well as the Department of Transport on more than one occasion. I refer to the case of Murray Leonard Bowser, naval civilian employee, who was first employed in Halifax as time and material recorder. He entered the employ of the government on November 9, 1942. After serving in Halifax, he was transferred to Quebec in February, 1943, and I wish the minister to make a note of that. He remained there until he was brought home sick in January, 1944.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt the hon. member to ask if this man was a member of the Royal Canadian Navy?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: No, he was not a member of the Royal Canadian Navy. I will enlarge on that. He received his call-up on February, 1942, if I remember rightly and, finding that he was in category "E", he felt he would like like to enter some type of war work. He applied to H.M.C. dockyard, Halifax, where he was taken on as a civilian employee, as I stated, and engaged as time and material recorder. During the time he served in Quebec, while working on shipbuilding materials, he broke out with some type of skin disease; and several doctors claimed that the basic cause came from the work in which he was engaged.
Bowser has been confined to either hospital or his home since January, 1944, and during that time has been in a pretty serious condition. He is covered with sores from his feet to his head. He is unable to lie in bed without suffering great pain. His mother, who is a widow, has exhausted all her means and impaired her own health in caring for her son.

I hesitate to go into such details, but I know the minister will bear with me; I feel the case is so important, of such a serious and distressing type that I must go into details to a certain extent.
When Bowser was first employed he was to serve for the duration of the war and in any part of the world where his services might be required. While in Quebec he was admitted to hospital, but a few days later released, the doctors advising him that his disease would clear up in a few days. Remember, that was in 1942 and he is still suffering. Since then his condition has grown steadily worse. Today I am informed he has become totally blind and requires to be bandaged from feet to head.
As I stated, I have had his case repeatedly before the Department of National Defence; there was correspondence from September 7, 1945; a reply was received on October 9 of the same year. The Canadian Legion had the case before the deputy minister for naval services since June 22, 1945. The department is not willing to accept responsibility, and that is why I am pleased that this bill was introduced, because I thought this was likely a bill covering this special case, one that did not seem to come within the scope of the province of Quebec workmen's compensation act. By the way, the workmen's compensation commission of the province of Quebec would not accept any responsibility in this case, and that is why Bowser paid his own expenses, or rather his family were obliged to pay his expenses and transportation charges back to Halifax so that he could receive proper treatment there. What I want to know, if the minister will be good enough to tell me, is this. Will this bill cover a case of this type; and what will be the procedure to be followed to bring about the results desired, namely, a recognition of the liability of the government to deal with a case of this kind?
Bowser's illness, as stated, started in Quebec while he was on duty. He was transferred home at his own expense. His doctor bills, board and hospital charges have cost his aunt and mother something like $3,000. His mother is a widow, is not in good health and can ill afford to meet this heavy burden. The Quebec workmen's compensation commission rule that this disease is a form of eczema,' and eczema is not covered under the workmen's compensation act. I am questioning the minister whether it is covered in the term or interpretation mentioned in section 2 (b).
My late colleague, Mr. W. C. Macdonald, had the case reopened in October just prior to his passing to the great beyond, but a settlement had not been made up to the time
MARCH 31, 1947	1S81
Compensation jor Government Employees
of his death. Since then, the Department of National Defence for Naval Services has placed it before the Department of Transport.
1	think the date of that was November 4, 1946. I am giving the minister all the information possible in order that he may follow this case through, and I am hoping that he will find some way whereby justice may be accorded to this young man and to his widowed mother.
I think I have placed the details of this case before the minister as briefly as I could, while at the same time giving fairly full coverage so that the minister may trace it. I would appreciate it if, on the information placed before him, the minister would advise me whether he considers the act as framed today is sufficiently wide and broad to cover a case such as this?


Lionel Chevrier: I am grateful to the hon. member for having gone into such detail in connection with the case of Mr. Bowser, which is apparently rather serious and to some extent unusual. The first question asked by the hon. gentleman was whether a person who is in receipt of a direct wage or salary, although a casual or temporary employee, is covered by this act. The answer to that question is, yes.
The next question asked was whether this particular case is covered by the bill or, in the alternative, whether this bill will afford any assistance to this particular individual. All I can say to the hon. member for Halifax is that this act makes use of the services of provincial boards. There are one or two questions which arise in connection with the case he has mentioned. The first is whether the accident, if it was one, or the disease, if it was a disease, happened or was contracted in the province of Nova Scotia or the province of Quebec. The second is whether the province of Nova Scotia or the province of Quebec pays compensation in connection with industrial disease, if it was a disease. I am informed that in Quebec compensation is paid for certain industrial diseases, but the hon. gentleman says this is a form of eczema which is not covered by the workmen's compensation board of Quebec.
I am afraid I would have to say to the hon. gentleman that we would be bound by the law of the province of Quebec, under section
2	and also under section 3. However I want to make sure such is the case, and I shall be glad to ask my officers-in fact I ask them now -to investigate this case to ascertain whether some assistance cannot be rendered this young man.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I thank the minister for his reply. If he should find that the Quebec compensation act does not cover a case of this kind I suggest that he is duty bound so tc broaden the. regulations and definitions that in future such cases will be covered, and I think such provision should be made retroactive to cover the case now under consideration. It is a national responsibility, as the hon. member for Vancouver North points out.


Thomas Langton Church: The object of the bill, as set out in the explanatory note, is to bring the act up to date. I should like to say a word with respect to the definitions. In the first place, this bill does not revise very much, as it should, the Government Employees' Compensation Act, which is chapter 30 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, as amended. There, has been a great war since that time, and these definitions are not nearly broad enough. Under this measure a man has to go to the workmen's compensation board, and follow through the whole procedure. Many of these men are among the lower paid government employees. If a man has a serious accident he may find that he is not covered by the. workmen's compensation board act of Ontario; if he dies his family may be put out on the street. Many of these men have given long service. Some were with the old Grand Trunk which was taken over by the Canadian National. During the last war many of these employees were working night and day on trains going to and from Halifax. Some contracted diseases; many were overworked. They were not paid any war bonus. So I should like to see this statute broadened to include Canadian National railway employees of this class, -who should be given some recognition for the fact that they often worked in demobilization eighteen hours a day. Many -were injured; many contracted diseases, throat trouble, lung trouble, and so on, which could be definitely traced to their long hours of toil by night and. by day, in all kinds of weather, both during the war and during demobilization. I do hope the government will consider these railway men, because they should be given some consideration.
In regard to the other features of the legislation, I believe the time has come when some appeal should be provided. As hon. members know, the workmen's compensation legislation is administered by a board, whose proceedings are very largely in private, with no one appearing for the applicant.


The CHAIRMAN:: I believe this discussion would be more appropriate under a subsequent section.
1882	COMMONS
Compensation for Government Employees


Thomas Langton Church: I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but I am trying to harmonize it with the definitions given on page 7 of the bill. I believe those who come under the workmen's compensation act should have some court of appeal to which they might apply. I do hope the act will be broadened to include war workers, not only on the railways but in the other branches of government service.


Lionel Chevrier: As far as the employees of the Canadian National Railways are concerned they are covered by the provinces and not under this legislation.


Mr. BLAIR:: I should like to ask some questions by way of an explanation of this bill. I understand that the regulations are different in the various provinces, some of which recognize industrial diseases while others do not. I should like the minister to say how he is going to equalize this situation. In one province a man who contracts an industrial disease is paid compensation; in another province he is not. As far as the compensation board is concerned, how does the minister intend to regulate the difference paid men in different provinces while off duty because of injuries? The point is that, as this legislation reads, compensation is payable under the compensation board of the province in which the accident happened or the disease is contracted, and I think we should have something broader. I believe something further should be in this legislation to take care of these men. I have had to deal with compensation board cases from other provinces, and I know there is a marked difference in the regulations as between one province and another. It would not seem fair that if a man contracted in one province a disease which was not recognized by the compensation board in that province, he should receive payment in another province.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman
raises two questions. In the first place, he refers to the equalization of payments for industrial disease in the various provinces. It is a fact that the law operative under this bill is that which exists in the province where the industrial disease was contracted, but my information is that the compensation for industrial diseases in the various provinces is pretty much the same, that there is not a great deal of difference in the amounts paid. I am also informed that the acts of Ontario and Quebec, where there are perhaps more of these industrial diseases than anywhere else in Canada, do not differ greatly with respect to not only the number of industrial diseases recognized but also the kind of industrial diseases for which compensation may be [The Chairman.]
claimed. To equalize the situation, as my hon. friend suggests, would mean setting up a separate administration, which would be a costly matter. I agree with the hon. gentleman that this might be the best thing, but if the Department of Transport were to do so the cost would be increased tremendously. As it is now, we are able to look after our employees in a manner which thus far has proven satisfactory, and the costs have not been too high because we have been able to use the administration already established in the various provinces. We deal with the administration. To equalize it would be a costly matter and I do not think I would be prepared to recommend it.


William Gourlay Blair: As I understood the case
presented by the hon. member for Halifax, there was something wrong that was not allowed in the one province as compared with another.


Lionel Chevrier: The case referred to
by the hon. member for Halifax arose through the movement of a person residing in Nova Scotia to the province of Quebec. If I understood him aright, he stated the disease was a form of eczema and that is not allowed under the Quebec compensation act. It has been the practice of the Department of Transport to accept the rulings of the provincial boards. It is true that we could widen the scope and say that eczema should be included a? an industrial disease, but in order for it to have effect it would have to be enacted by all provinces.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Paragraph (e) of section 2 defines "minister" as meaning the Minister of Transport. Could the minister explain why that definition is confined to the one minister? Then, under section 12 the minister, meaning the Minister of Transport, may require any company, corporation, commission, board or agency to make contributions out of their payrolls. This act is not restricted to the Department of Transport, although the main intention may be to bring in the employees of that department.


Lionel Chevrier: Many years ago it was
decided that the Department of Transport should be entrusted with the administration of this act for and on behalf of all other departments. Section 12 simply means that the minister may make regulations in so far as other departments are concerned as to how their employees should apply for compensation in the case of injury, death, industrial disease or otherwise.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Section 12 refers to companies, corporations, boards and so on. The

Compensation for Government Employees
Canadair company, which is out now, was set up by the government as a privately owned management company which was to act as an agency of the crown. Would a company of that kind be covered?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know just
what the position of Canadair is.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It acted as agents of the
crown for the production of transport aircraft.


Lionel Chevrier: The charter setting up
a company such as the Canadair company could contain a section stating that it be covered. I do not know what the circumstances were in connection with that company, but all that such a company would have to do would be to ask that it be covered and it could be done by order in council. In that way no one would be left out.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Has the minister a list
of corporations and crown companies that are covered?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not it here.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is there a definite list?


Lionel Chevrier: There would not be a
list.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Should there not be one
because of the position we are in at the present time with these different companies?


Lionel Chevrier: None of the employees
of crown corporations, companies, et cetera as mentioned in that subsection will suffer in any way. If they are not covered bj* the act of incorporation, they can be covered by this section.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I understand that the employees of the Canadian National Railways are checked, either annually or semi-annually, as to their physical condition. Is any provision made to have other government employees checked in a like manner?


Lionel Chevrier: This act does not cover the employees of the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. PROBE:: In supporting the argument he was making a few moments ago, the Minister of Transport said that the workmen's compensation acts in the various provinces did not vary substantially. My impression does not bear out all that the minister said.


Lionel Chevrier: I think you will find
that they do not.


John Oliver Probe: Will the minister be good enough to put on the record the compensation laws of the various provinces of Canada in support of his statement?


Lionel Chevrier: I can do that if my hon. friend insists but it would be a lengthy document. I presume what he would like me to put on the record is the position in Saskatchewan. If that is what it is, I shall be delighted to do so.


John Oliver Probe: I was not referring to that specifically, but I believe there is a fairly wide discrepancy.


Lionel Chevrier: With reference to temporary and permanent disability as well as benefits paid to widows and children, I think it can safely be said that the compensation payable is substantially the same in all the provinces. I am sure that the bill which we are bringing in contains greater benefits than any of them. Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan provide for advantages which are pretty much alike. There are some things done in Ontario which are not done in Saskatchewan, and vice versa. I presume my hon. friend is interested chiefly in the payments. In Saskatchewan, seventy-five per cent of the earnings of an employee are paid, whereas in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and the other provinces the percentage is 66f. In Saskatchewan the minimum compensation is $15 a week or the full wages if they are less than $15 a week, and in Quebec the minimum compensation is identical. In Saskatchewan the maximum compensation is based on a maximum salary of $2,500 a year, and this obtains also in Ontario and British Columbia. The maximum compensation in the other provinces is based on a maximum of $2,000.


John Oliver Probe: That is not in a form that can readily be put on the record?


Lionel Chevrier: No; it would be most inconvenient to do that. As I said a moment ago, there are some things that are done in the various provinces which are not done in Saskatchewan, but taking it all in all, the acts are substantially the same.


John Oliver Probe: That seventy-five per cent figure has been amended recently. I presume the minister is aware of that?


George Randolph Pearkes: The government, including the Department of Transport, have entered into an agreement with the corps of commissionaires to supply guards for the various government buildings, and I believe the government deals with an organization known as the corps of commissionaires. Will the members of the corps of commissionaires when employed by the corps of commissionaires in guarding government property come under the provisions of this act?
1884	COMMONS
Compensation jor Government Employees


Lionel Chevrier: No, for the reason they are not employees within the meaning of the word in section 2. I understand that they enter into a contract with one of the departments to do the work of guarding certain public buildings, and the interpretation of the Department of Justice is that they are contractors and not employees, so that they would not be covered.


George Randolph Pearkes: According to a return which was tabled in answer to a question I asked a few days ago in connection with this matter, several departments are employing these men and dealing with the Department of Justice to which the minister referred. The return submitted by the commissioner of the Royal .Canadian Mounted Police shows that the members of the corps will be covered by the dominion unemployment insurance regulations, whereas the replies I got from other departments indicated that they would not be, because they were hired through the organization rather than direct.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman said unemployment insurance?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: We are dealing with compensation.


George Randolph Pearkes: Will they be covered by this act as well?


Lionel Chevrier: No, for the reason given a moment ago.


Mr. FULTON:: If the Canadian National Railways employees are not covered by this bill, would the minister say whether he proposes to bring them under it and whether the arrangements now covering them are as generous as the terms of this bill?


Lionel Chevrier: They are covered by the acts of the provinces. The answer to the last question is that they would be given the same treatment as if they came under this act because we are governed by the compensation regulations in the various provinces.


Mr. LOCKHART:: A man worked for the Department of Transport for a few years and paid five per cent annually into the retirement or superannuation fund, and then he was injured and retired from the government service but he was not allowed to withdraw the five per cent he had paid in. Would he be covered by this act? He received hospitalization and is no longer an employee of the government. He is asking for the return of the five per cent he paid into the retirement

fund, but through some regulation passed in a certain year he has not been able to get it. Is he entitled to anything under this bill?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Mr.   MacN AUGHT@: The minister in reply to the hon. member for Kamloops said that Canadian National Railways employees were covered by the compensation acts of the provinces. In my province we have no compensation act. What provision is made for the employees there?


John Oliver Probe: You should have an act put through your legislature.


Mr.   MacN AUGHT@: I drafted one some years ago but it never got through.


Lionel Chevrier: In Prince Edward Island there is no compensation act. What is done in that case is that the compensation act of New Brunswick applies.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Compensation and persons eligible.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I understood the minister to say that the railway employees are not covered by this act. Then what is the meaning of these words in line 24 on:
Provided that the benefits of this act shall apply to an employee of the government railways who is caused personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment or is disabled . . .
And so forth.


Lionel Chevrier: This act applies to the employees of the government railways but not to the employees of the Canadian National Railways.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Canadian National Railways employees are niot included with the government railways employees in this bill?


Lionel Chevrier: No. The difference is this. There are some railways the title of which is still in the crown. For instance, the Prince Edward Island railways, the old Intercolonial railway, the National Transcontinental railway are knowm as the government railways and their employees are covered by this act. But the employees of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are covered by the various provincial acts.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does that mean that the employees of the Canadian National Railways running west on the main line from Winnipeg are covered?


Lionel Chevrier: They are all covered whether they are Canadian National Railways

Compensation for Government Employees
or government railway employees. The Canadian government railways employees are covered by this act, but the Canadian National Railways employees are not. The Canadian National Railways pay their own compensation under the various provincial acts. If my hon. friend were to look at the workmen's compensation act of Ontario he would find that in schedule 2 of the act provision is made for the railway companies paying their own compensation individually.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister said that the Canadian National Railways employees are not covered by this act but that the government railway employees are. Do they receive an annual check-up to see whether, they are in good physical health?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; there is a physical examination of railway employees, but I do not know how often it is made.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Does the minister not think it would be wise to have all the government employees checked once or twice a year to make sure they are in good health?


Lionel Chevrier: There is a difference between health insurance and compensation. This deals with compensation, the other with health and sickness.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know this is compensation, but if a man is not in good health he is more likely to have an accident. That is what I am getting at.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think it follows.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Would the minister elucidate one point arising out of an answer he gave a moment ago, pointing out that government railways is a phrase of different significance from Canadian National Railways. I appreciate that. When we get the annual report of the Canadian National Railways am I correct in assuming that it includes the operators of the old Intercolonial?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does that mean that the railway employees of the old Intercolonial have a different system of compensation from those who work on the old Canadian Northern, which became the Canadian National, or is the difference purely technical?


Lionel Chevrier: It is purely technical. The rate of compensation and the amount paid are the same in both cases, the only difference being that the Canadian National Railways, by virtue of an entrusting order, operates the Canadian government railways.
8:5166-120


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In other words, the distinction is, so to speak, purely a history of the railways. It has no significance in respect of the actual operating conditions or the conditions of this compensation.


Lionel Chevrier: It has no effect with reference to the amount of compensation, if that is what my hon. friend means. In other words if an employee of the Canadian government railways was entitled to compensation he would not get less than an employee of the Canadian National Railways.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Unfortunately he gets it under a different scheme, which is a matter of inconvenience to the operators.


Lionel Chevrier: It has worked out satisfactorily over the years.


Mr. McIVOR:: I do not know whether this is the proper place to ask the question or not. Take a man who has served with a company for many years and is within two or three months of his pension time. If he leaves he does not get any pension. I know of one example of a conductor who served thirty-two years with the Canadian National and was not eligible for pension. It is true that the officials of the Canadian National gave him consideration, but it was not the same as a pension. At the moment, quite a number of Canadian National Railways employees are planning to do away with the railway pension and put it on a national basis in order that every man would contribute to a pension scheme from his earnings, so that in his old age he would get something or, if he passes on first, his wife would have something. Has this bill anything to do with that?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


William Gourlay Blair: Following up the questions of the hon. member for Peterborough West, may I say that I have been a railway surgeon for quite a few years. He suggested that there should be an examination. There is among employees on the railway one bone of contention which has to do with the question of hernias. I understand that the Canadian Pacific have instituted a regular check-up so that, when one of these things occurs, the compensation board have something to go on. It is a long and disabling condition. I would suggest that the minister who is speaking for the government railways institute a check-up. Even for the sake of that one injury alone it is worth while to have a check-up of the employees. The same thing would apply to

1886	COMMONS
Compensation jor Government Employees
the employees on the canals or any other employee because, as I said, it has been a bone of contention all through the years. I have had' cases where it was difficult to prove where you knew the man quite well, but when you came to make up the forms you could not say that this man did not have the hernia before the accident happened. You could say that on a certain day when he was examined he was quite all right. If you could do that you would have something, and invariably the compensation board would allow it. If the workman had to come back and prove it somehow it would be exceedingly difficult. For the sake of the workmen of the Department of Transport, the group for whom the minister is speaking, I would suggest that it would be a good idea to have a yearly checkup for the sake of that one injury alone.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not able to speak for the Canadian Pacific; I do not know what the position is there, but I do know that in the Canadian National Railways there is a clinic where the employees have an annual check-up. There is the main clinic in Montreal, and I understand that there are other smaller clinics in other parts of Canada where their employees receive an annual check-up. So far as the Department of Transport is concerned, there are no facilities for annual examinations, but I should be glad to have a look at it.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I raise this point again under this section. I am thinking of the employee who receives a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. I have one case in mind and another one which has recently arisen. An employee was injured about six months ago and had to leave his employment. Is there any retroactive feature about this bill so that an employee can come under the benefits of this act?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Under circumstances
such as I have described?


Lionel Chevrier: If his case has not been disposed of, section 10, subsection 2, would authorize the department to continue proceedings and award compensation if compensation is awardable.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Compensation to employees of Prince Edward Island.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Subsection 3 reads:
An appeal shall lie from the decision of any board, officers or other authority determining the right to and the amount of compensation

payable under this section to a judge of the supreme court of judicature of Prince Edward Island . . .
That is what I had in mind. If a workman is injured in a plant in Prince Edward Island or has an industrial disease contracted in a plant in Prince Edward Island he or his estate, if he died, would have an appeal from the decision of the board which said that this man had the condition before he had his accident, which is the usual term applied when a man is turned down. He or his estate has that right in Prince Edward Island, and I should like to see the same right granted in other provinces. In Ontario there is no appeal. If a workman is injured in Ontario and another one injured in Prince Edward Island the treatment accorded to these two individuals would not be the same in each province.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to add anything more than what I have already said. There is an appeal in Prince Edward Island because there is no compensation law in that province. They follow the law of New Brunswick which grants an appeal. I presume that is why the appeal was granted. Likewise in the Northwest Territories and in Yukon, a workman injured in the Northwest Territories is subject to the law of the Yukon ordinance which provides for an appeal, and that is why there is an appeal there. The remaining provinces do not provide for appeals. In order to cover the point raised by my hon. friend there would have to be an amendment to that part of the workmen's compensation act in the province where no appeal is granted.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Can we not put it in this act so that a workman who is injured in Ontario and in New Brunswick would be treated in the same way? If a workman were injured in New Brunswick and he died from that injury his estate would have the right to appeal, but no such right is granted in Ontario.


Lionel Chevrier: That applies not only to appeals but to other matters, because there is a difference, although not a substantial one, between compensation as awarded by the various provinces.


Mr.   MacN AUGHT@: Will the minister elaborate on the necessity for the last two lines in subsection 3 which says:
But no appeal shall lie from the decision of a judge in the first instance . . .
I cannot see the necessity for that.


Lionel Chevrier: I presume that was put in there so that there would be an end to appeals. The section provides for an appeal from the

________Compensation jor Government Employees
decision of the board or the officers awarding or determining the compensation to the supreme court of judicature of Prince Edward Island whose decision shall be final. In order to have some finality, I presume it was decided not to have an additional appeal to a higher court.


Mr.   MacN AUGHT@: I think that is already provided for. It may mean that in New Brunswick probably on some occasion a judge has jurisdiction. If he has, then there is no appeal from him. Possibly there should be the same appeal from that judge as there is from the board.


Lionel Chevrier: I understand that is the case.


Jean-François Pouliot: If I may be permitted, I do not think this applies to the employees of the former Intercolonial.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it does.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for that information. May I call his attention to some cases that are not satisfactorily considered by the provident fund. For instance, there is the case of a man who, alone, had to fire the furnaces of three boilers at Riviere du Loup. There were six doors to those boilers; they were fairly wide, and naturally there was an intense heat. One man had to do that work and it affected his health considerably. He went to the provident fund for superannuation, and the answer was, "Take liver pills; they will cure you at once".
I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, that most of the doctors of the Canadian National Railways are not humane and they treat some of the employees of the C.N.R. much worse than if they were dogs. Moreover, they are infallible. Those doctors are the scum of the profession, notwithstanding anything that can be said in their favour. Let me bring to the minister's attention the case of J. C. Beaulieu, fireman at Riviere du Loup. I have received no justice in this case. I wrote to the president of the provident fund and his answer was far from satisfactory. He told me he would submit the matter to the next meeting of the board in the first days of March. That was done and still the answer was negative. I know Mr. Beaulieu very well and he has been doing the work of three men when acting as fireman.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether this is the case in which a railway worker was injured?


Jean-François Pouliot: His health was injured. Of course he did not suffer visible burns on his hands, arms or legs, but the exposure of his 83106-1201
body to the six doors of this furnace affected his system. His complexion is bad. He cannot do that work. He had no assistants. I am sorry to have to bring this case here, but I took every means I could to have a satisfactory arrangement made, and it is impossible to get a satisfactory answer from the compensation fund. There they are, and their duty seems to be to refuse to consider reasonable and justifiable requests from the men. I see my hon. friend the member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) nodding, I hope in agreement. Probably he has had some difficulty in the central region. I am not speaking of the Atlantic region.
I will tell the minister more than this. I have said it was impossible to get satisfaction from the provident fund. When I saw that, I wrote to the Quebec minister of labour and asked him to investigate the case, to send some competent man to see what could be done to improve conditions, because I did not want that man to die on duty. There are cases where men have been told that they were well when as a matter of fact they were ill. The doctor says, "You are well; you are well", and the first thing you know, the man dies on duty. He was so well that he w*as ready for heaven. This should not happen in a civilized country.
These doctors are the scum of the profession, even worse than the bureaucrats we have here. They should be fired and we should have decent men. There are many men who are competent and we should have competent doctors there.
I complain also of the Canadian National doctors in Montreal. They are awful. And in Quebec we have Delaney, who is a monstrosity. We hear something about the progress of the profession, but Delaney was put there by Borden years ago, and he is a procrastinating Tory and an ignorant doctor. He is there in charge of the men who go there and he makes the examination. There are others I could name, but I forget the names of some of them in Montreal. They are awful, and it is impossible for the railway employees to have their cases considered favourably by the doctors in charge of the provident fund in Montreal, Moncton, Levis and elsewhere. Therefore, before compensation is paid to the men, I think the provident fund should be fair to those who are entitled to their superannuation and who have paid their dues. They should get some advantage from that fund when they are in need of it.
I hope there will be provision in the bill. I know the minister is himself sympathetic to these poor fellows, who do not receive the consideration they deserve. I hope he will
1888	COMMONS
Compensation for Government Employees
arrange it so that the bill shall provide to have these men treated fairly. I want to see them treated with justice in the future.


Angus MacInnis: I do not know under what item the hon. member for Temiscouata was discussing the provident fund of the Canadian National Railways. I believe that is what he was discussing and I do not think it is covered here, but with all due regard for the hon. member, may I say this. I have no great veneration for the medical profession, but I do not think it is proper to call the doctors connected with any institution the scum of the profession. We should make such statements only when we have those men here so that they can defend themselves. Perhaps this item should be taken up in the railway committee when we are dealing with the affairs of the Canadian National.
However, the point raised by the hon. member for Temiscouata is something that everyone finds who is dealing with people who come under boards of this kind, and it arises from the fact that, after a short time, professional men dealing with so many cases come to regard not the individual-he disappears- but simply a case; and when they have a case it is not necessarily a human being but simply a, ease. The result is that the human relationship which exists between your family [DOT]doctor and a member of your family does not *exist here. We should try to get away from that sort of thing. The hon. member, however, is not quite fair-I hope he will excuse ;me for saying so-in the terms he has used. .After all, if you sit in a smoking car and hear what the general public think of members of parliament, it is not a bit flattering either.


Lionel Chevrier: May I have a word in connection with the case raised by the hon. member for Temiscouata. What the hon. member was dealing with-and I say this with respect to him.-was not a case of compensation under this act. It was a case of pension under the provident fund, which is an entirely different matter. The case of the fireman whose health was affected I have reason to believe is such as my hon. friend says it is. But this act as it is framed deals not with the health of individuals but with accident which causes injury or death or with industrial disease or with pulmonary tuberculosis as we shall see in a moment, I hope. The case my hon. friend deals with is not one which I think is covered by any of the sections of this act, as I understand it. With reference to railway employees, discussed a moment ago, I told the committee that the Canadian National employees and, I presume,

the Canadian Pacific employees were not covered by this act. The only employees covered by this act are those of the Canadian government railways. The medical men of the railways with whom the Department of Transport has to deal, have certainly been found by us to be competent in every way.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just one word to say. Of course the hon. member for Vancouver East is entitled to have his own opinion; but he is not familiar with the condition in eastern Canada, which is very bad. I would not condemn all doctors of the Canadian National Railways, but the exception confirms the rule. There may be someone who may be good, but when we have a case that we know is a worthy one, and when it is impossible to get a satisfactory answer from the learned faculty, the only thing to do is to realize that there must be a nigger in the woodpile. I will explain the point to the minister. There is, of course, a difference between a man who breaks his arm, breaks his leg or loses an eye in an accident, and a man whose health is destroyed gradually because of his work for the railway or for any other organization. But in both cases the result is the same. The only difference is that in the former case the result of the accident is seen at once, and in the latter case the health is destroyed gradually. It may take years to affect the man to the point that he is unable to continue his work satisfactorily. What I want to tell my hon. friend is that no one can argue with those doctors. Their decision is final and they never make a mistake, according to themselves. When it is established to them that they have made a mistake, they will never admit it, and the report goes out that the man is well. This I find to be wrong and unjust. It is impossible to discuss the thing with them. Even with certificates from independent doctors establishing that the man has lost his health in doing a certain kind of work under abnormal conditions, it is impossible to make them change their opinions. Against such a condition I protest strongly; and I will tell the minister that it would not be fair to these men not to incorporate in the bill provision for those who suffer gradually but who suffer more than those who happen to be the victims of an accident and may be cured of a disability.


Mr. McLURE:: Is it because Prince Edward Island has no compensation act of its own that it is attached to New Brunswick?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: In that case anyone meeting with an accident in our province would, in

________Compensation jor Government Employees
the minister's opinion, have just as square treatment as if Prince Edward Island had an act of its own?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: He would come under all the conditions provided under the act in New Brunswick ?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Mr. HAZEN:: Is there provision in this bill for an appeal in the case of an employee?


Lionel Chevrier: In New Brunswick?


Douglas King Hazen: No, in any other part of the country.


Lionel Chevrier: No. What guides the Department of Transport in the administration of this act is the provincial law. My hon. friend from Prince Edward Island rose to point out what the position is in that island. The law of the compensation board of New Brunswick applies, and, as I understand it, New Brunswick has an appeal. That being so, there would be an appeal from a decision of the board not only in Prince Edward Island but also in New Brunswick, but not in any other province save the Northwest Territories and Yukon.


Douglas King Hazen: They are the only others who do have an appeal?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: What is the meaning of the words in the second last line of subsection 3. ''but no appeal shall lie from the decision of a judge in the first instance"?


Lionel Chevrier: That means that there is not more than one appeal. There is an appeal from the judgment of the board or the officer determining the compensation; but. after that, there is no appeal.


Angus MacInnis: But if that officer should be a judge in the first instance, there is no appeal from his decision. Is that what it means?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Northwest Territories.
Mr. JAENICKE:: I read recently that the residents of the Mackenzie river region protested about having been included with the Yukon Territory in connection with representation in parliament. Have they been consulted as to whether the law of the Yukon Territory should apply with regard to the Northwest Territories rather than that of some other province?


Lionel Chevrier: No, they were not consulted. There is no law in the Northwest Territories or no ordinance governing compensation. What is done in this case is the same as is done in the case of Prince Edward Island. There is in the adjoining territory of Yukon an ordinance covering compensation ; and what this act does is to make that ordinance applicable to the Northwest Territories.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Would it not be more convenient to have the Alberta law apply rather than the law of the Yukon Territory?


Lionel Chevrier: The officers of the department thought otherwise.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Would residents of the Northwest Territories not require to go to the board of Yukon in order to make their representations? That would in my opinion be inconvenient as far as travel is concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: There is no board in Yukon. It is done by means of an officer of the department who deals with the cases and who puts into operation the tariff and the compensation as covered by Yukon ordinance.


Angus MacInnis: My understanding of the workmen's compensation act in Yukon is that it is inferior to the acts in at least some of the provinces, such as British Columbia, Ontario and perhaps the other western provinces. I think it is unfair to the residents of the Northwest Territories, when the provisions of the provincial acts do apply, that they should be put under Yukon law where the compensation law is inferior to that of some of the other provinces. I think there is a great deal of merit in what has been said by the hon. member for Kindersley. While I am not very familiar with the compensation act in Alberta, I think it is superior to the compensation law in the Yukon Territory, so that it would seem only fair that the Northwest Territories should be placed under the Alberta law or the Saskatchewan law, whichever would be most convenient.


Lionel Chevrier: If that argument were carried to its logical conclusion, then I suppose any province in which a workman was insured could say that the employee should be entitled to the benefits paid in that province which was most generous. For instance, British Columbia pays compensation for pulmonary tuberculosis, which is not done in any other province. If the argument of my hon. friend were carried to its logical conclusion, a person suffering from tuberculosis in Nova Scotia would be entitled to claim the benefits paid under the law of British Columbia. In a sense
1890	COMMONS
Compensation for Government Employees
it is perhaps unfortunate that it is not possible for the federal government to set up a separate organization. I dealt with that matter a short time ago in answer to a question raised by the hon. member for Davenuport. If we were to accept the argument of my hon. friend, however, the same point could be raised in Yukon. However, I can tell the hon. gentleman that there are very few cases in the Northwest Territories or in Yukon. I do not know the number, but I am told that over the period of a year there would be very few, and that there are still less now that the war is over.


Angus MacInnis: I do not believe the minister is using his usual good logic in this matter. Government employees in Nova Scotia would be covered by the compensation law of that province.


Lionel Chevrier: That would be the case with government employees in the Northwest Territories, also.


Angus MacInnis: But in the Northwest Territories there is no compensation law, and you are placing them under the compensation law of Yukon. I say you are putting them under an inferior compensation law when there is a superior law just as close, if not closer. I am suggesting to the minister that he reconsider this and put government employees in the Northwest Territories who come under this act under the law of Alberta or Saskatchewan, whichever may be most convenient.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: In support of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver East, I wish to say that in this case I do not believe the minister is as logical as usual. The other provinces and Yukon have compensation laws. In the case of the Northwest. Territories the government is in the position of being able to make a choice, because they have no compensation law. We are pleading with the minister to make the best possible choice for the men in the circumstances.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: In support of the hon. member for Vancouver East, I would point to the physical difficulty of getting mail into Yukon, where I presume the headquarters of the compensation board would be located. That would be very difficult, and would take a long time.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: With great respect to the minister, I do not think his argument is valid. Prince Edward Island does not have a compensation law, and you provide that the law of New Brunswick shall prevail. Why not apply some provincial law to the Northwest Territories?
[Mr. Chevrier.J


Lionel Chevrier: That is exactly why we apply the law of Yukon to the Northwest Territories.


John Ritchie MacNicol: On the question of the
Northwest Territories being associated with Yukon. I may tell the minister there are two high ranges of mountains between the Mackenzie territory and Yukon. I have flown over them, and they go as high as
9,000	feet. There is no transportation between Yukon and the Northwest Territories unless you go away down to Fort Nelson and then back up again. I think the' hon. member for Vancouver East has a point there, and it might be better to put these people under Alberta or British Columbia instead of Yukon, where it is difficult to maintain contact.


Lionel Chevrier: I think there is some
misunderstanding on the question of transportation. There is no difficulty in dealing with cases arising in the Northwest Territories because the law applicable is that of Yukon. Any accidents that may occur are dealt with by an officer of the Department of Transport in Ottawa. If hon. members will look at the act they will see a provision that, where no board exists, or court or officer or other authority to determine the amount of compensation when an accident occurs in the Northwest Territories, the compensation payable is determined by an officer of the Department of Transport in Ottawa, so that no difficulty arises in connection with the dispatch of mail, or because of geographical obstacles.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: But is it not the case that the settlement is made on the basis of the lower compensation?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right,


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Is there any reason
why the minister should not reconsider this point? I do not imagine many workers are involved; and the minister might decide that for the purposes of this act settlements will be made on the basis of the compensation paid in Alberta. Would he not consider the matter during the dinner recess?


Lionel Chevrier: I have given this point
serious consideration, and I do not believe any reconsideration during the dinner hour would change the issue. I thought the hon. member for Vancouver East was raising the point that the government pays lower compensation in the Northwest Territories, including Yukon, than it does in other provinces; and in order to give him satisfaction one would have to amend the workmen's compensation ordinance of Yukon. That

________Compensation for Government Employees
authority is administered by the commissioner of Yukon, and the suggestion would have to be considered by that department.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would there be competent medical men in the Northwest Territories well versed in industrial accidents and diseases who would be able to make a thorough report to Ottawa for the information of the officer of whom the minister spoke?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that
there are, that we get the usual reports from them when an accident occurs or a disease is contracted.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am afraid the minister's information is entirely wrong. I should say it would be out of the question that there should be medical men at Yellowknife, for instance, as competent to survey industrial accidents and diseases from that point of view as other medical men elsewhere might be.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Does the department
use the machinery of the compensation boards already established in the provinces?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then I think that gives added validity to our argument. A man in \ ukon would not have his case studied by medical men having long experience in dealing with compensation cases.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Angus MacInnis: We were discussing section 5 when the committee rose at six o'clock. It seems to me that the minister was trying to create difficulty over the point that I raised, difficulties which to me are not inherent in the statement I was making. I think all that is necessary to be done is to change the last words in the section, "Yukon Territory" and substitute therefor the province of Alberta or any other province that the minister would care to insert. If a person was seriously injured in the Northwest Territories and he was covered by this bill I imagine that the obvious thing to be done would be to fly him to Edmonton, Prince Albert or some other nearby city where the doctors and staff of the provincial board would be available.


Lionel Chevrier: The reason why accidents which might occur in the Northwest Territories were made subject to the laws and ordinance of Yukon Territory is that conditions of
employment in Yukon and the Northwest Territories are alike. The question of treatment which hasjbeen raised by my hon. friend has nothing to do with the matter of compensation. It might be that the injured person would have to be flown to Vancouver, depending upon the nature of the injuries, or he might be flown into Edmonton or some other place, but he would be subject to the laws of Yukon. I asked my officers to find out the number of accidents that had occurred in the Northwest Territories and Yukon, and I find that in the fiscal year 1944-45 there were no claims from either of those territories; in the fiscal year 1945-46 there were two claims which were settled, and thus far in this fiscal year there have been no claims. In view of the small number of claims I think we were justified in drafting the section as it has been drafted.


Angus MacInnis: I do not think the number of claims is at issue at the moment; we are dealing with a principle. The government has seen fit, and I congratulate it, to cover government employees in Yukon, but I am looking forward to the day when, under the progressive policies of my Liberal friends there will be a large population in the Northwest Territories and then most likely more accidents will occur, although we do not look forward to that result. Seeing that the government is placing the employees in each province under the compensation act of that province, I think the logical thing to do, when there are no compensation laws in a district, is not to put the employees of that district under the antiquated compensation laws of another district. I submit that the compensation laws of Yukon are certainly not good.


Lionel Chevrier: They are not antiquated.


Angus MacInnis: Maybe they are not old enough to be antiquated, but they are not satisfactory to the workers in Yukon. I had a long brief from the miners in Yukon less than a year ago and I have a fairly good idea of the laws in that district.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Disability or death from pulmonary tuberculosis contracted in government operated hospital or sanatorium.
Douglas King Hazen: It seems to me that this section is good and proper in view of the way in which the bill has been drafted, but in my humble opinion the bill has not been drafted properly'. I should like to go back and refer
1S92	COMMONS
Compensation for Government Employees_
to section 3, which provides that an employee who is caused personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment will be eligible for compensation. There is no definition in the bill of the words "injury by accident". As I read the bill, "injury by accident" by this section would mean only industrial disease. The bill does not provide that infectious disease is necessarily injury by accident. It is provided under the British workmen's compensation act-and this was decided by the courts over forty years ago- that an infectious disease not classified as an industrial disease may be an injury by accident. This bill contains no such provision, and it seems to me that the words "injury by accident" should be interpreted in the interpretation section in order that the boards which will administer these matters-there is no appeal from most of these boards-will have something to go by when it comes to interpreting those words.
We had some discussion about this matter last year when the bill to compensate merchant seamen was before the house. I do not want to go through all that again and I have not looked up the English cases since, but it does seem to me that there should be an interpretation of the words "injury by accident" which would be wide enough to include infectious diseases which are not classified as industrial diseases. It has been held in English cases for over forty years that the words "infectious diseases" come within the meaning of the act. I think we are not doing justice to the employees and workmen whom this bill is intended to protect unless we have a definition of that kind and unless we go so far as to provide in the act that infectious diseases in some cases at least are industrial diseases.


Lionel Chevrier: I remember the discussion we had of this question on a previous occasion when it was raised by the hon. member for St. John-Albert. He states that there should be a definition of "injury by accident". It goes back to the discussion we had this afternoon and the other evening. If we are to accept the decisions of the provincial boards of what is an accident and what is an industrial disease we have no alternative but to do as we are doing here. If we do not do that; if we were to set up a new and entirely separate body, as was suggested this afternoon, I presume that we could cover cases such as those to which my hon. friend has referred. But in order to save a great deal of expense we have decided to use the machineiy already set up in the provinces, and in doing that we do not define what the diseases are. We
simply define what an accident is and leave it to the provinces to say whether an infectious disease is an industrial disease within the meaning of the act. I think that is the proper procedure to adopt; at least it is what I have been informed should be done.


Douglas King Hazen: The only point I wish to make is this. As the act is worded, some employees at least who should get the benefit of the act will not benefit by it. They may suffer an infectious disease owing to and in the course of their employment. Nevertheless the interpretation that has been put upon the words "injury by accident" by the boards in many provinces is not wide enough to cover them. It is not what I consider the just inter* pretation that has been given to these words by the British courts. The boards have limited the meaning of these words, and the consequence is that some men who will come under this act will be deprived of the benefits which they should receive under it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Section 8, from line 34, reads:
. . . where an employee is disabled or his death caused by pulmonary tuberculosis due to the nature of his employment and contracted within twelve months previous to the date of disablement while employed in a hospital or sanatorium operated by the government of Canada wherein tuberculosis patients are treated . [DOT] [DOT]
That is all very well for employees who contract tuberculosis in hospitals, but tuberculosis also occurs in plants and in other places. It may occur in some of the many plants which the government are now operating. I have known many men in my time, as I am sure the hon. member for Huron-Perth has too, -with his wide experience in foundry machine-shop practice, who contracted tuberculosis perhaps through working in a damp part of the plant. The dampness and dust sometimes bring on tuberculosis, but it is impossible to get the boards to agree that the tuberculosis which these men contract is a result of their employment. I have known a number of them myself who contracted tuberculosis, as the family physician would certify. I have the highest regard for the family physician. His heart is with his patients. I agree to a large extent with what the hon. member for Temiscouata said in words much better than I could use in reference to medical boards set up by governments and doctors w-orking on government staffs. Obviously the family practitioner would be much more sympathetic to his patient than a government doctor would be because, as the hon. member for Temiscouata wisely said, he would have a personal interest in the patient,

Compensation for Government Employees
whereas a government doctor does not need to care particularly because he has an assured position anyway.
I want to be sure that section 8 covers those workmen who contract tuberculosis in a government institution outside a hospital, because they can contract tuberculosis working in a plant, and I can assure the minister that it is next to impossible to prove before any compensation board that the tuberculosis was contracted during the course of their employment. It is not much use trying. I have tried several times on behalf of men who, I firmly believe, contracted tuberculosis during the course of their employment in a plant, but it was a sheer waste of time to try to convince the board that that was the case.
I should like to feel that this bill would cover the government's own workmen working in its own institutions other than hospitals. Take, for instance, the work the government is constructing on Snare river north of Yellowknife. Men there may fall into the water and contract tuberculosis through exposure. Those men should be protected by compensation just as much as the employees who contract tuberculosis through working in a sanatorium. I am interested in this matter because of a long association -with working men. I commend the government for what it is doing for the working man in this bill. The bill is wide and even goes outside Canada to protect government employees, and the minister deserves credit for that, but I should like to see it wide enough to cover the case of a workman, no matter where he may be, who contracts tuberculosis while working in any government plant, and if he dies his estate should have the right to compensation.


Lionel Chevrier: The object of this section was to protect any government employee who might contract tuberculosis in a hospital through contact with patients. It was thought advisable to cover cases of that kind. The hon. gentleman asks if the bill covers employees who have contracted pulmonary tuberculosis in the course of their employment in government plants. The answ'er is no, unless they are covered by provincial legislation. The experience thus far has been that there have been no claims, at least that have come to my attention, of employees contracting tuberculosis in government plants. For that reason it was felt that this section would cover the situation.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: What about, hospitals?
Mr. MaeNICOL: In some cases it is impossible to get them past the compensation boards because they have made their decision;
they have taken their stand against the man and are determined not to let him get compensation. Once the compensation board have given their decision they think it is like the laws of the Medes and Persians; their decision cannot be changed. In New Brunswick they have the right to appeal to the judge. I would take a chance before a judge because he would not be interested except in giving justice. He would call all kinds of medical men to give evidence and advice. Once a compensation board have come to a decision that tuberculosis is not caused in a plant, they will not change their decision and that is why nothing has come to the minister's attention in that regard.


Lionel Chevrier: In answer to the hon. member for Lake Centre, there has been one case.


William Gourlay Blair: The minister has taken a step in the right direction in introducing this legislation, but I doubt whether it goes far enough. It all gets back to the question on which I spoke this afternoon. Employees in a tuberculosis sanitarium will have to be examined before they go in. It should be necessary that they be X-rayed before they are taken on employment by the government.
That brings up another question. Some times before the disease is noticed these people live with their families, and after they are admitted to the sanitarium as a patient we find that several of the children are infected. The children then have to be dealt with according to the legislation for tuberculosis in that province.
Would the minister consider putting in a section which woiild make it necessary for these people to be tested before they are employed in tuberculosis sanitaria and also something for the protection of the families of these men who might be infected afterwards?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that the regulations will cover periodical examinations, not only examinations of these employees before they enter the hospitals and when they are discharged but also periodically while they are there.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That brings up the question I asked earlier this afternoon. Why not have all the employees checked at least once a year?


Lionel Chevrier: That would be a matter for the provinces.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I do not know; they are all employed by the government.

1894	COMMONS
Compensation jor Government Employees


Lionel Chevrier: No. This legislation uses the services and the administrative offices of the workmen's compensation boards in the various provinces, in so far as section 8 is concerned, because section 8 introduces a new principle and extends the principle of compensation to cover tuberculosis as an industrial disease. For that reason regulations have to be authorized under this section. That is why I gave the answer I did to the hon. member for Lanark.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Here we have a bill to pay compensation after something has happened; but we have the national health department spending millions of dollars. Surely they should step into something of this kind and give examinations at once to the men and women, and at least once a year. It is preventive.


John George Diefenbaker: Section 8 endeavours to achieve a laudable object with which I am in agreement, but I am afraid that the wording of this section will defeat the intention of the draftsman. The section reads:
The governor in council may make regulations prescribing conditions under which compensation shall be payable, the amount of compensation payable and the manner in which compensation shall be determined . . .
Why the words:	"prescribing conditions
under which compensation shall be payable?" This leaves wide power to the governor in council. As a matter of fact it does not provide for payment to persons who are disabled or suffer death through pulmonary tuberculosis contracted while employed in a hospital or sanitarium. It leaves power to the governor in council to prescribe the conditions under which compensation shall be payable. I think these words are unnecessary. The minister should reconsider the redrafting of the section to provide, first, that compensation shall be payable under these circumstances to each and every employee who is disabled or whose death is caused by pulmonary tuberculosis while employed in the hospital or sanitarium; then, second, that the power to make regulations shall be available. This is simply a permissive section. Ic in no way provides that compensation shall be paid.
It provides further that the governor in council shall make reservations prescribing conditions under which compensation shall be payable. That is a peculiar term. I do not know what it means. Possibly there may be some explanation as to its meaning, but in any event it does not first create the absolute right of the individual who incurs this disease to compensation; it provides only that the governor in council may make regu-
IMr. Fraser.]
lations providing for the payment. I suggest reconsideration and redrafting that part of the section. As a matter of fact, as I look over the act-and I have looked over the workmen's compensation acts of the various provinces-I know of no case in which such a section has been provided. It merely creates a permissive condition; it does not obligate the government to compensate an individual suffering from this disease; it merely provides that the governor in council may prescribe the conditions. The governor in council might say, you have to work there for a certain length of time; if you did not have an examination when you first went in you are not entitled to compensation. All kinds of possibilities are there.
As I said a moment ago, I suggest that the section should be reworded to provide that an employee who is disabled or whose death is caused by pulmonary tuberculosis because of the nature of his employment, and contracted within twelve months prior to the date of disablement, while employed in a hospital or in a sanatorium operated by the government of Canada, and so on, shall be entitled to compensation within the meaning of this act.
Then subsection 2 would provide power to the governor in council to make the necessary regulations as to the amount of compensation payable and the manner in which such compensation shall be determined.


Lionel Chevrier: I say to the hon. gentleman that there was a clear intention when this section was set up. The intention was to cover something which is not already covered bv certain of the provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the intention
is clearly set out in the section as it reads, namely, that the governor in council may make regulations prescribing conditions under which compensation shall be payable. There is therefore the intention in the section that regulations should be made under which compensation shall be payable.


John George Diefenbaker: Regulations prescribing conditions.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall deal with the
other point afterward. My understanding of the section is that it sets out the intention, which is to pay compensation under the circumstances set out in the section.
Then my hon. friend says that the governor in council may make regulations prescribing conditions. There are no conditions under which employees suffering from tuberculosis

Compensation for Government Employees
may claim compensation, save in one province I know of. That being so, someone has to set out the nature of the conditions under which compensation shall be determined, whether it shall be under the law of the province of British Columbia or under conditions such as may appertain in another province. The Department of Justice, who have looked at the section feel that it answers the purpose and that it means exactly what it was intended to mean, namely, that the compensation for these cases shall be payable. To add weight to what I have said, I would ask the hon. member to look at the last words of the section: "and compensation shall be payable in accordance with such regulations." There is therefore a repetition not only of the intention but of the enacting power to pay compensation in that case.


John George Diefenbaker: But suppose regulations are not made; then there is no compensation payable, none whatever, to those suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis contracted while working in a hospital. In other words, parliament is leaving it to the governor in council to determine the right to make provision in that case. I would ask the minister to answer this question. Does he suggest that different conditions would attach to the right of an individual to be paid compensation in Ontario from those that would obtain in Nova Scotia? He said a moment ago that, as far as British Columbia is concerned, that province already has provision for it under the British Columbia workmen's compensation act, and he said that in other provinces the conditions might be different. Is it intended that the conditions shall be different in each province outside British Columbia?


Lionel Chevrier: No. It is intended that the regulations shall be uniform.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, but the
minister made that statement.


Lionel Chevrier: When I made the statement what I meant to convey was that there were already regulations in British Columbia, and while it might be found that they were the best and those regulations might be followed, it did not necessarily mean that they would be, and there might be an improvement on the regulations as enacted in that province.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly it would clarify the matter if the minister would inform the committee of the nature of the conditions in respect of which the governor in council would make regulations. What are the conditions under which compensation shall be payable? I thought compensation was to 8:J166-1211
be payable when a person working in a hospital became disabled one year after commencing employment. What other conditions will determine the right of an individual to compensation?


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend the conditions under which regulations would be made, because they have not yet been made, and, further, the conditions would have to be determined in consultation with another department, the Department of National Health and Welfare, which is vitally interested in this section. What we are asking for here is the power to enact regulations to take care of cases such as are covered in section 8. My hon. friend asks, what assurance have we that that will be done? The only answer I can give is the similar assurance we have in other cases, namely, that the governor in council will not thwart the w-ill of parliament but will enact regulations under the power we now seek.


Mr. HACKETT:: Will the minister allow me to ask from another angle the question which the member for Lake Centre has asked. Turning to section 2, paragraph (c), are any of the companies, corporations, commissions, boards or agencies referred to in this paragraph under benefits prescribed by provincial acts?


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I can answer that in the way in which I answered the hon. member for Peterborough West, who asked the same question this afternoon. Some of these corporations, bodies and companies mentioned in paragraph (c) are already covered by the charter which incorporates them as a body corporate. Some are not, and those that are not can be covered by this paragraph. Does that answer the question?


John Thomas Hackett: Yes, it answers it, but I thought that possibly if section 8 which is under discussion were amended to make it clear that all that escaped from the section are the companies in paragraph (c) which fall under provincial legislation, the loophole which the hon. member for Lake Centre has pointed out would have been closed and there would be certainty that everyone was covered.


Lionel Chevrier: Section 8 will apply to the group mentioned in paragraph (c) of section 2.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Would it not be a. simple matter just to have the statute provide that compensation shall be payable in the case of persons becoming disabled or dying from the disease within a given time,
1896	COMMONS
Compensation for Government Employees_
and then give the government authority to make regulations carrying out the wish of parliament as expressed? With great respect, sir, as I read it now-and I do not think I am wrong-it simply says that the governor in council may make regulations prescribing conditions and so on. If we pass it now, in view of the minister's answer that he has no idea what these regulations are, then we are passing something which is completely in the air and must 'be entirely meaningless. This is parliament speaking, not the regulations speaking, and if we simply said that, in the case of persons being disabled by this illness within twelve months, or djdng from an illness contracted within twelve months after entering employment, compensation would be paid, we would know exactly what we are doing and we would be content that the government should make regulations carrying out the direct will of parliament. It is, I think, a matter of some moment. It is not merely a matter of wording, because we as a parliament should say that they shall be entitled to the compensation. Then we could go ahead and make the regulations and no one would complain about it. But it is the indefinite way in which it is worded that bothers us.


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed by those who drafted the bill that that is exactly the meaning of section 8; that what my hon. friend advocates now is in effect what section 8 says,


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am awfully sorry, but whoever is advising the minister should take another look at it.


Mr. KNIGHT:: I am not a legal man, but from the point of view of the words it is a matter of confusion as between the terms "regulations" and "conditions." To my mind, the condition under which this compensation shall be paid is the condition of the person contracting tuberculosis, and the regulations should be made to fit that particular condition. But that is the condition as I see it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If the employee is disabled he is out. I think the words "contracted pulmonary tuberculosis" should be in there, because if a man has it he might only have been checked up by the medical officers and found to have a mild case of it and he would not want to continue until he was disabled. I think the whole section should be cleaned up and that put in there. If he has contracted tuberculosis, it should be in that act.


Douglas King Hazen: Might I ask the minister a question?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think the minister ought to answer that.
{Mr. A. L. Smith.I


Lionel Chevrier: I feel that I have answered my hon. friend. He has asked that question now on more than one occasion.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know, but the minister has not made it clear whether a man must be absolutely out, unable to work, before this operates.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon, friend wishes me to give a legal opinion on this section, and I do not intend to do that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No. I desire to see that the man gets a fair deal.


Lionel Chevrier: All that I can tell my hon. friend is that section 8 provides something which no other provincial act, save perhaps one, does. It extends compensation to government employees who contract tuberculosis in the course of their employment in government hospitals and sanatoria. That is what the section does, and I am afraid I cannot go any farther.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It does not say "contract". It says "disabled". Therefore the man, even if he did have tuberculosis, would continue until he dropped before he would get compensation.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend reads the section correctly he will see that it says:
. . . where an employee is disabled or his death caused by pulmonary tuberculosis due to the natui'e of his employment and contracted . . .
Within a certain period prior to the date of disablement. There are the words.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, but he must be disabled before it is proven that he contracted it.


Lionel Chevrier: He certainly must be disabled before he can claim compensation.


Douglas King Hazen: Why is the compensation to the employee limited to within twelve months prior to the date of disablement? I can well visualize a case where a man contracts this disease and where he may continue working in the institution for six or eight months or more before anybody realizes that he has the disease. He may continue working there, or he may have worked there for a considerable time. He may have contracted the disease, say eighteen months prior to the date of disablement. He may have been working there for eighteen months and then it is discovered that he has this disease. In a case like that, why should the man not receive compensation?


Lionel Chevrier: The reason why the twelve months is put in there is that in most of the provincial enactments there is a limitation of twelve months for contracting an indus-

_________Compensation for Government Employees
trial disease; and this tuberculosis is in the nature of a disease and is so considered under that section.


Douglas King Hazen: Does the minister not agree with me that a man might work in an institution for eighteen months before it was discovered that he had this disease and before he became disabled? In a case like that he would not be entitled to compensation, the way this section is worded. It hardly seems to me that that is fair or right. If he is engaged and has worked in the institution, say for eighteen months, and then becomes disabled, as this section is worded he is not entitled to compensation. The disease must be contracted within twelve months prior to the date of his disablement. He may have worked there for eighteen months before he became disabled, and he may have contracted the disease prior to the twelve months and yet not be entitled to compensation if the disease is not discovered and if he is not unable to work. Suppose he has W'orked for eighteen months and nobody knows he has the disease; then, as I read this section, he is not entitled to anything. Surely that was never the intention. While I am on my feet, may I ask one more question? Why is this section limited to pulmonary tuberculosis? Are there no other forms of the disease that a person may get while working in one of these institutions?


Lionel Chevrier: I will answer that question later. I am trying to find out whether there is any other kind of tuberculosis in our hospitals.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the minister answers, I wish most sincerely to thank the hon. member for Davenport for his kind support. He has proven once more that he is the friend of the underdog; that he wants to protect the humble and the poor who suffer in this country, and he deserves the highest praise for that.
With regard to section 8, this is most progressive legislation and the minister should be given credit for it. I read in the previous section something about one who is disabled by a disease due to the nature of his employment. This is exactly the case that I referred to this afternoon. It was an industrial disease due to the nature of his employment, and it was not acknowledged by those who should have noticed it and should have granted what the man was asking for. If this law does not apply anywhere else than in Yukon and the Northwest Territories, I hope that the same spirit will prevail throughout Canada and that instructions will be given to the doctors of the
Canadian National Railways to be more careful in examining the men who come before them.


Angus MacInnis: I, of course, cannot add anything to all the legal lore that the lawyers have woven into this section up until now. I do not suppose it matters a great deal, but whenever a lawyer looks at a section, I always think he looks for ways in which he could get a litigant out of it if it came before him. I think the important thing here is that the government has recognized pulmonary tuberculosis as a compensable disease, and is making provision for it in this act. I think, if the section is as satisfactory as the minister says it is, the regulations under the act should provide for examination not only before the person was engaged, but for periodic examination; because it would be much easier for the government, with an examination every twelve months, say, to take a case before the person was disabled than it would be to wait until after it had found the incidence of tuberculosis, and then leave it until the person could not work. I do not suppose the government would do that sort of thing, but that is the important thing in regard to the regulations. If care is taken to see that the regulations are drafted accordingly. I have nothing further to add to this part of the discussion.


William Gourlay Blair: I think this should be drafted more clearly, because a man who is a tuberculosis suspect will receive the same treatment under the compensation board as though he actually had the disease. Suppose they X-ray a man and find a suspicious shadow. He will be given bed rest and treated as a tuberculosis case, and will be eligible for compensation. As far as "pulmonary" is concerned, it must be assumed' that if he contracts any kind of tuberculosis while working in a sanatorium he will be eligible for compensation board treatment. There is no other place he could get the disease. I think it would be well to strike out the word "pulmonary". A man may be a suspect and given bed rest for perhaps six, eight or nine months. During that time I believe he should draw compensation.


Lionel Chevrier: The reason the word "pulmonary" is put in before "tuberculosis"- and this also answers the question of the hon. member for St. John-Albert-is that in these hospitals and sanitaria we have only patients suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. Therefore the employees, male or female nurses in the employ of the government, working there are liable to contract only that kind of tuberculosis.
189?	COMMONS
Compensation for Government Employees_


William Gourlay Blair: Because a man is working in a sanitarium, it does not follow that if he contracts tuberculosis it will be pulmonary; he may get it somewhere else. It is the same bug, as far as that goes. It does not follow that, because he is handling a case of pulmonary tuberculosis, he will contract only pulmonary tuberculosis himself. He may get tuberculosis in some other part of his body. As far as compensation goes, suppose he gets tuberculosis of the bone; a pulmonary tuberculosis patient may be the source of the infection. I think the Minister of National Revenue will agree with me.


Lionel Chevrier: Of course I am not a medical man like my hon. friend, but before we drafted this section we consulted the medical men of the Department of National Health and Welfare, and after a great deal of discussion with them and with the officers of the Department of Justice this is the section it was thought would best cover all these circumstances.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the minister not think he should let this section stand so that it might be redrafted? Consider the point raised a. moment ago by the hon. member for St. John-Albert. I am not a [DOT]doctor, but we all know persons contract tuberculosis over a long period of time, as we have *seen in the case of some of our friends. It is only at a much later time that the disease is actually discovered. My hon. friend suggested eighteen months. I have seen people finally disabled with this disease who probably suffered from it over a matter of years, let alone months. So my suggestion to the minister would be that he permit this section to stand, and consult his two departments and perhaps redraft it. I believe we are all aiming at the same result; I do not believe there is any real controversy, because we are all trying to assist these people. While the hon. member for Vancouver East may say the lawyers are finding holes in the legislation, it is better to find them now than later on.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to accede to the. request of the hon. gentleman, who, I know, is an accomplished lawyer, but again I wish to assure him and hon. members opposite that- a great deal of time was spent in drafting this section, and it was not put in here without a great deal of study. It was submitted to experts in the Department of Justice who say that the section as drafted covers the case. In any event, I do not think it is suggested by hon. gentlemen opposite that, this section, as now drafted, does not make compensation
(Mr. Chevrier.]
payable once the regulations have been set up. It is certainly the intention to set them up the moment this section is approved.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I suggest that no lawyer in the Department of Justice will tell the minister that, under this section as it stands, it is mandatory to compensate anyone who has contracted tuberculosis in one of these hospitals. That is a pretty broad statement, but I will stand by it.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to see the scope of this act extended, because it is supposed to be a revision of the statute of 1927 concerning the compensation to be paid in these cases. As I said this afternoon, I should like to see the interpretation section broadened to define an employee as any officer receiving a wage or salary from the government of Canada or from any board or commission connected therewith. That would make these people eligible for whatever compensation is provided under this legislation, not only as a matter of right but as a matter of health.
I might refer to just one department, the Post Office Department, where there are cramped, crowded conditions. I have seen nearly a thousand men and women working night and day under intolerable conditions at the postal terminal in the union station in Toronto. Then take the postmen, who have to go out on the streets in the dead of winter, with snow waist high, to deliver the mail. Many of these men contract this disease. Under this legislation, compensation is limited to those who contract the disease in a hospital. I received a letter in this connection one day, from a man who could not get any relief from the workmen's compensation board. I wrote and' told him that I was sure the taxpayers of Canada did not want to see the government act like a dead-beat toward their own employees who might contract this disease. If they die their families are given no consideration unless the death occurs in a hospital, or something like that. Why it should be limited in this way I do not know. So I believe the section should be revised and rewritten to include all government employees, as well as employees of outside boards and commissions, who suffer from this terrible scourge as a result of their work or services. Finally, I believe it should be extended to the employees of the Canadian National Railways, which is a commission connected with this government. I believe the definition of an employee should be broadened to include these workers. Some of the men on the demobilization trains running from Halifax right through to the west coast worked at times eighteen and n'neteen hours a day after the war. They should have some

________Compensation for Government Employees
reasonable compensation for disabilities they might incur, as well as a war-time bonus for the hours they spent for nearly seven years in this work.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not going to offer any opinion on the points under discussion, but I am going to express surprise at the attitude of the minister, and for this reason. Here we have competent lawyers suggesting that this clause does not do what it is intended to effect. The minister's answer, as I understand it, is not that he disagrees with that suggestion, but that he is of the opinion that the clause has been considered already by competent lawyers who have assured him that it will do what it is intended to do. I have had some experience with the legal profession, though I am only a reformed lawyer myself, and I suggest to the minister that if this were referred to the competent people who have considered it, together with the point which has been raised by, I suggest, perhaps equally competent lawyers on this side of the house, they might quite conceivably take a different view. Why the minister is not prepared to do that is something I find it difficult to understand.


Lionel Chevrier: There are many things
my hon. [DOT] friend does not understand.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do not get
rough; we are trying to be helpful.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not getting rough at all, but my hon. friend is trying to be smart, and I am talking about the hon. member for Calgary West now. Do my hon. friends on the other side say that there are no competent lawyers in the Department of Justice?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, we do not say that.


Lionel Chevrier: That is exactly the
impression my hon. friends are trying to create.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the minister will permit me, I will restate what I said.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. gentleman
need not restate what he said because I understood him perfectly well.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to restate what I said because the minister stated it wrongly. I will restate it.


Lionel Chevrier: We have a new lawyer
now in the person of my hon. friend.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am acting in the quality of a client; I am
quite an expert client, if that does the minister any good. What I am saying is that we have lawyers here whom on the minister's own statement, he considers to be competent and who have questioned this. The minister does not say that he disagrees with them; he does not say that I must be prepared to accept his opinion as a lawyer. All he says is that this has been considered and that it must not be reconsidered, as the hon. member for Calgary West suggested, by those gentlemen who have already considered it. My hon. friend is not asking that their view be not taken; he is asking that this point, which has been raised and which so far as we know has never been before them in exactly the way mentioned, should be reconsidered by them. That is quite different from what the minister said I said.


Lionel Chevrier: I will tell my hon.
friend that the manner in which the section is now' drafted is no different from the manner in which many sections of this kind have been drafted before. The words "the governor in council may make regulations" have been used from time to time in legislation, but what my hon. friends would like to do is to insert the w'ord "shall" in place of the word "may".


An hon. MEMBER:: We were told it means the same.


Mr. CHEI  RIER@: I would refer my hon.
friends to the words "and compensation shall be payable in accordance with such regulations ' at the end of the section. What the hon. member for Calgary West wishes to have in this section is, in fact, what is already in it. My hon. friend does not agree with that interpretation, which is his right and privilege. However, I say that the section as it is drafted now does exactly what it is intended to do.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Apparently
the minister and I have a slight disagreement, but I hope he will accept my word that we are trying to be helpful. I have no intention of replying to him in the angry manner in which he replied to me, so we shall just pass that over. I merely suggest a redrafting, not just for one reason but for the additional reason of the words, "contracted within twelve months previous to the date of disablement." Surely there is some merit in that and when the minister has cooled out, as we say with regard to race horses, I am sure he will consider that it is at least worthy of his consideration, even though that consideration takes place, may we say, on what the government regards as a very high level. There is nothing wrong in that.
00	COMMONS
Compensation jor Government Employees_


Lionel Chevrier: Not the slightest. I
may tell my hon. friend that I prefer his discussion when it is in that vein. However that is somewhat different from the point raised by my hon. friend at the outset.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I raised both.


Lionel Chevrier: The point being raised now is similar to the point raised by the hon. member for St. John-Albert.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The same; I followed him.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry, I did not understand that. I was directing my attention to the first one. The hon. member says there is merit in the point he raises. When I looked at the section I realized that the words "within twelve months previous to the date of disablement" might cause some difficulty. I have no objection in reconsidering that part of the section and putting in "six months" or "three months" or taking out that phrase altogether if that is the wish of the committee. I have to admit that I was in a quandary as to the exact meaning. I do not think it would make any difference to the legislation as it now stands if the words were taken out.


William Gourlay Blair: While we are considering that, let us go back to tuberculosis for a moment. The section states that compensation shall be payable to employees employed in a hospital or sanatorium wherein tuberculosis patients are treated, but the compensation applies only to pulmonary tuberculosis. Would the minister consider eliminating the word "pulmonary"?


Lionel Chevrier: I answered that a
moment ago, but my hon. friend disagreed with me. He is a medical man and I am afraid I cannot satisfy him on that. I said that the word "pulmonary" had been put in after consultation with the medical men of the Department of National Health and Welfare and I would not wish to take it out.


William Gourlay Blair: Does it not seem fair in the minister's own opinion?


Douglas King Hazen: Is it not possible that those medical men did not appreciate the point raised by the hon. member for Lanark? It seems to me that an employee in an institution of that kind might be able to contract other forms of tuberculosis. An employee might contract tuberculosis of the bone and not pulmonary tuberculosis. In a case of that kind should he not be entitled to compensation?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed that in a hospital where there are tuberculosis patients

those who are liable to contract tuberculosis are liable to contract pulmonary tuberculosis. That is the information I have and I feel that I must be guided by it.


Douglas King Hazen: Can they not contract other forms of tuberculosis by reason of the fact that they are working where tuberculosis patients are?


Lionel Chevrier: I have nothing more to add to what I have already said.


Douglas King Hazen: I would move that the words "and contracted within twelve months previous to the date of disablement" in line 36 of the section be deleted.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I imagine my hon. friend would prefer to leave in the words "and contracted". I do not think he would want to strike out those words.


Lionel Chevrier: If I understand the hon. member aright, he is moving that the words "within twelve months previous to the date of disablement" be struck out.


Douglas King Hazen: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: I am prepared to accept that.
Amendment (Mr. Hazen) agreed to.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I move that the word "pulmonary" be struck out.


Lionel Chevrier: I would have to object to that.


Mr. FERGUSON:: Upon what grounds? Is it because of the medical advice of the department, whether right or wrong? Could the minister not refer it back and check on his information for the benefit of these people? He is just objecting to it, but here is a medical man who is held in high esteem in his community who says that it should be struck out. Why not go back to the department and see whether he is right or wrong and give these men a chance?
Amendment (Mr. Smith, Calgary West) negatived.
Section as amended agreed to on division.
Sections 9 to 14 inclusive agreed to.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I revert to clause 10, subclause 2, to ask my colleague to move an amendment to correct what, is merely a clerical omission. It is to insert the words "order or regulation," to make the last part of the clause conform with the first part thereof which refers to "any statute, order or regulation."

C.N.R.-Appointment of Auditors
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I move, Mr. Chairman, to amend subelause 2 of clause 10 by inserting the words "order or regulation" after the word "statute" in line 1 on page 6 of the bill.
Amendment agreed, to.
Section 10 as amended agreed to.


William Ross Macdonald: May I take this opportunity of reminding the committee that amendments should be in writing. It is difficult to keep a record of the amendments unless they are in writing.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 26, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, in rising to oppose the second reading of this bill, I realize that I am taking a rather unusual course because in the last ten years the bill has been passed not only without opposition but without even discussion. It passes this house just as automatically as divorce bills.
The other evening the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) in his capacity as house leader, referred to the bill as a very short and easy bill. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) a little earlier this session made some passing reference to it. My attention was drawn to it a year ago when the bill passed through the house so quickly, in just a minute, that I did not have a chance to ask a question which was in the back of my mind. The question was, why should the government, by a government act or order, appoint a private auditor to audit the Canadian National Railways? Why does the auditor general not do this? During the past year I have had an opportunity of studying this matter at some length, and the completion of some study convinces me at least that the auditor general should do this job. I do not suggest that the firm of George A. Touche and Company do not do a good job. They do probably as good a job as any ordinary firm of auditors could do. But I am informed by auditors that there are two firms in Canada with a world-wide reputation which undoubtedly could do a better job. On the other hand, many firms undoubtedly could not do as good a job. I intend a little later to read a glowing testimonial to George A.
Touche and Company made by Doctor Man-ion when he was minister of railways. My point is not that the firm of George A. Touche and Company are not capable. My point is, first, that the auditor general should do the job; second, that he can do the job, and third, that he can do a much better job than any civilian auditor appointed by the government.
As far as the first point is concerned that he should do the job, I should like to touch briefly on the whole position of the auditor general. Here in parliament we have three principal servants of our own, men who are our servants and not the servants of the government-the Clerk of the House, the auditor general and the chief electoral officer. The former two are appointed, not by the governor in council, but by the governor of Canada under the great seal, and they can be removed, not by order in council, but only by an address of both houses of parliament. Beauchesne, the book not the Clerk, says that these two servants outrank any deputy minister in the government service. Of these two servants I think undoubtedly the auditor general is the more important. After all, taxation without representation has been the cause of most of the dissatisfaction, discontent and rebellion in our history, and certainly the control over public money is an important part of our system of government. It is to account to parliament that we have this watchdog of our own who is responsible only to us. It has not always been that way. Certainly the development of the position of the auditor general has gone step by step with the development of responsible government in Canada. In the days of the family compact there existed neither appropriations by the elected representatives nor the accounting to them of those appropriations. Back in 1835 the house set up the famous committee on grievances and William Lyon Mackenzie, in presenting its report in 1S35, made one or two remarks that I should like to repeat. He said:
I would impress upon the house the importance of two things:	first the necessity of getting control of the revenue raised in this country, and second a control over the men set out here to govern us by placing them under the direction of responsible advisers.
You will note that even in those days William Lyon Mackenzie put control of public money first.
At page 19 of the report of these grievances, a copy of which is kept under lock and key in the library, there is an elaboration of what was meant by control over revenue-not only a control over the passage of appropriations out of the public revenue, but a satisfactory audit of those expenditures.

C.N.R.-Appointment oj Auditors
The report would not recognize an audit by the government, or by auditors appointed by the government whose reports were described as "complex, obscure and unsatisfactory". An independent audit board was asked. It was not given, however, until 1855. Between 1835 and 1855 we had the rebellion, and then the Durham report and the beginnings of responsible government. But in the old Canada it was the minister of finance, known as the inspector general then, who actually did the auditing and told parliament everything was all right. However, in 1855 after a long debate the government of the day agreed to set up an independent audit board composed of the deputy ministers. This went along until 1878 when Alexander Mackenzie was premier, when the auditor general as we know him today was first set up independent of the political parties of the day and responsible only to parliament. The first auditor general was also comptroller general. Not only did he audit the final accounts for parliament, but before any appropriation could be spent he certified that the method of spending was in accord with parliament's will. This act of 1878 made the auditor general, in effect, an officer of parliament for the more complete examination of public accounts of the dominion and the reporting thereon to the House of Commons.
By 1931 it was agreed that it was not satisfactory to have our auditor general also comptroller, because he was checking up on his own work in that he had authorized the appropriation he was later auditing. Therefore the Consolidated Revenue Act was revised and the two duties separated, the comptroller general now being an officer of the Department of Finance and the auditor general being responsible solely to parliament and responsible for the audit of public accounts. This naturally resulted in a great improvement. The duties of the auditor general are listed in part V of the Consolidated Revenue Act of 1931. He is appointed by the governor general under the great seal and can be removed only by a joint address of both houses. His duties are listed in section 50 and are as follows:
In reporting the result of his examination and audit to the House of Commons, the auditor general shall call attention to every case in which
(a)	a grant has been exceeded;
(b)	moneys received from sources other than the grants for the year to which the account relates have not been applied or accounted for according to the direction of parliament; or
(c)	a sum charged against a grant is not supported by proof of payment.

And so on. And finally, "or to any other case which the auditor general considers should be brought to the notice of parliament." He is given the widest powers.
There is further comment on that actual provision in the auditor general's report of 1943. In 1943 we went one step farther. It was found that, with the enormous increase in government departments and spending, the auditor general's staff was spending much too much time in checking on petty accounts and duplicating the work already done by internal audits. Therefore there was a further change agreed upon by the auditor general, the deputy minister and the comptroller general. The present Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) was then Minister of Finance, and he referred to the matter in the house in 1942, as reported at page 5082 of Hansard, as follows:
Our desire was to draw from all possible sources lessons and suggestions as to the best possible way in which to present to parliament the information necessary to enable it to exercise wisely and efficiently its control over financial matters and assure itself that the executive arm of government is properly carrying out its stewardship.
That, to my mind, summarizes very well the responsibility of the auditor general to this parliament. We only have to compare the reports of the auditor general from 1943 on with the previous reports to realize how that lightened the burden of petty detail and gave the auditor general the opportunity of doing the splendid job he now does.
I have traced this development to show how the position has grown in power and responsibility. The people of this country do entrust us with the public funds. We in turn entrust them to the government of the day, and the auditor general is our watchdog to assure us, the members of the House of Commons, that the money which we have voted for appropriations is properly spent.
Since the Canadian National Railway involves the expenditure of public funds-last week, for example, we voted another S8,960,000 to make up the deficit of the Canadian National Railways-it is my submission that we should have the auditor general, our auditor, report on the Canadian National Railways.
My next point was the fact that the auditor general can do this. There seems to be some question whether or not he or his department is capable of doing the audit of the Canadian National Railways. There was a time when the department of the auditor general was very small. The national budget was small; his department was small. They were engaged mostly in routine matters. But in the last ten years there has been a great increase in

C.N.R.-Appointment of Auditors
the status of the auditor general, in the staff and in the qualities of the staff. I need only remind the house that two years ago the auditor general audited a $6 'billion budget of this house. I need only read the list of the crown companies which he audited in his last report to show the scope of his audits as far as business is concerned. They are as follows: Aero Timber Products Limited; Allied War Supplies Corporation; Board of Grain Commissioners; Canadian Arsenals Limited; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; Canadian Wool Board Limited; Citadel Merchandising Limited; Commodity Prices Stabilization Limited; Eldorado Mining and Refining (1944) Limited; Exports Credits Insurance Corporation; Federal Aircraft Limited; Federal District Commission; Foreign Exchange Control Board; Inspection Board of United Kingdom and Canada; Melbourne Merchandising Limited; National Battlefields Commission:	National Harbours Board;
National Railways Munitions Limited; Northern Transportation Company Limited; Park Steamship Company Limited; Polymer Corporation Limited; Research Enterprises Limited; Small Arms Limited; Sorel Gun Plant; Sugar Administrator; Turbo Research Limited; Veterans Housing Project (Ottawa) Limited; Veterans Housing Project (Toronto) Limited; Victory Aircraft Limited; War Assets Corporation; War Supplies Limited; Wartime Food Corporation Limited; Wartime Housing Limited; Wartime Metals Corporation; Wartime Shipbuilding Limited and the Yukon Council, together with many other smaller government agencies. When you read that list it is Obvious that the auditor general must have the staff and the knowledge to perform an audit of the Canadian National Railways.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is why taxes were so high.


James Sinclair: I shall deal with that in just a moment. The auditor general audits all public expenditures and crown companies execpt the Canadian National Railways and the Trans-Canada Air Lines; therefore the actual bigness need not dismay us. Last year, for example, the Canadian National Railways had a revenue of $434 million and operating expenses of $305 million, a business which was very small in comparison with other public expenditures audited by the auditor general.
Let us turn and see how the firm of George A. Touche and Company does this audit. After the revision of the Canadian National Railway Act in 1933 by the Bennett government, an excellent internal audit was set up
within the Canadian National Railways, and what the auditing firm of George A. Touche and Company did wras what any auditing firm would do under such circumstances. They turned a flock of juniors loose to take a spot-check on the internal audit of the Canadian National Railways auditors, and then the material was correlated by the heads of the Touche Company in this report. I have been unable to find the cost, but I shall ask that question later. In 1934, the cost was $50,000 plus undetermined expenses. I submit, therefore, that the auditor general could certainly do the job.
My third point is the most important one. I feel that the auditor general could not only do the job but do a much better job. First, let us examine the report of George A. Touche and Company. I doubt whether there is one member in twenty who has read it through. I know, after seven years in parliament, that this is the first one I have ever read through and, after having read it through, I must confess I was not much wiser than when I started. It is a proper business report such as would be made to any big corporation; it is lacking in detail, and throughout it all we have the feeling that anything which is legal is quite proper so far as the firm of George A. Touche and Company is concerned. They are not going to question policy. Compare that with the auditor general's report, one part of which is a proper business report, and then the other part of comments which I think every member of parliament reads and studies; certainly a great number use it as the source of speeches. Look at his critical comment, very fair and open and complete comment on all government expenditures. In every way there is full detail given, going far beyond the actual routine of figures and presented in a form we can digest. More than that, the auditor general is able to bring to parliament the things in which hon. members are interested. It is not hard to find the reason for this. To begin with, the auditor general is the servant of parliament. He is in touch with parliament. The second thing I find is that Hansard is compulsory reading for each of the different audit supervisors in his department. So that not only when they come to the audit do they know what they are auditing, but they have some idea in the backs of their minds of the desire of parliament which prompted the legislation and the appropriation. They know, too, of matters which are of special interest to members of parliament, and their attention is directed to these matters when they do the audit. I shall give an example of that. We know that since the end of the war there has

C.N.R.-Appointment oj Auditors
been considerable discussion of pensions, and service pensions in particular. I refer to page 26 of the auditor general's report of this matter on which he comments. He has audited militia pensions, and he has commented on a pension paid to an admiral in the north Atlantic. He says:
The computations for pension are certified as correct, subject to the following qualification.
My argument is that a civilian auditor would end there. The pension is calculated on the man's pay and retirement, and the calculation was correct. But the auditor general knows the attention which is paid in parliament to these pensions. So he went behind the figures to see how they were built up, and he found a shabby thing. He found that this admiral commanding, who had left the command in May, when he went on retirement leave in September had himself posted back on command at command rates of pay, although doing nothing, thus receiving an extra $4.50 a day for six months of retirement leave and thus, because of his pay having been swollen up in that way, henceforth he would receive from the people of Canada $509 more in his pension annually than he would be entitled to except for this action on his part. The auditor general comments upon that and properly so, as not being within the intent of parliament when it passed the Militia Pension Act, and no doubt when the Minister of National Defence brings his estimates before the house the soldier members will have something to say on the question.
The auditor general's report abounds in things like that, On the previous page there is something in connection with housing. There have been long discussions in this house on this question. Indeed, there is no subject which has occupied the attention of parliament more than the question of housing, and the auditor comments on a number of matters, some of them raised by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) with respect to the improper expenditures of funds in connection with housing. Many cases are covered by the auditor general in his report.
Last year I had a resolution on the order paper for some time with reference to the question of crown taxation, my feeling being that the crown should pay municipal taxes. I am concerned about this, because there is in my riding a city which is very hard hit. The auditor general found, on going through the reports, that a great number of crown companies made payments to municipalities in lieu of taxes, and he properly pointed out, for the information of members of parliament,
IMr. J. Sinclair.]
men such as myself, that this was, to all intents and purposes, payment of municipal taxes. He did not comment upon it, but he called attention to the fact that the crown was actually, by this method, paying taxes in certain instances on crown land, without acknowledging the principle everywhere, a thing which I certainly intend to discuss when my resolution comes up, if it ever does see the light of day.
There are other good uses of the auditor general. For example, there is the comparison of salary scales, since he is the one man who can check all departments of government and see whether each department follows the same procedure in the payment of salaries. There is great value in consistency.
In my own service in the air force we always felt that we were in a preferred class receiving better pay, better treatment, billets, transportation and so forth. I mentioned this in the conscription debates, when I pointed out that it was unfair to the army and the navy to have such a situation existing, and urged that they should be brought up to our level. So in the civil service there is also a feeling of resentment if one branch is treated better than another. I say therefore that the auditor general, by his searching comments on all branches, exercises an excellent effect.
I need only refer to the annual report on salaries. One or two examples close to parliament have been turned up by the auditor general. For instance, there is the payment to John Grierson of expenses after he had left the film board, and the payment of expenses to judges' wives while the judges were on duty in Ottawa. These matters were properly drawn to the attention of parliament. In the latter instance, what had been done was legal in that the government had authorized the payment, A civilian auditor would have gone no farther than that; but the auditor general, our servant, knowing our attitude on the question, drew attention to it. The firm of George A. Touche and Company cannot do that. The only Hansard that will be read by the firm of George A. Touche and Company for some time to come will be this Hansard. Such a firm, I maintain, has not the knowledge of other departments which the auditor general has, nor does it know the conditions as members of parliament do, who are the trustees of the public.
The best test that I can put to the House of Commons is the comparison between these two reports. One member in twenty may have read the report of the Canadian National, but every member without exception has read the last part of the comments of the auditor

C.N.R.-Appointment of Auditors
general on the public funds of Canada. There was an interesting confirmation of this last week in the freight rates inquiry, when Colonel Ralston, a member of this house for many years, and at one time minister of finance, complained that he could not get necessary information with respect to the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways from their reports.
The auditor general can also be called on at any time-for extra information by any member of parliament during the session, not as in the case of Touche and Company, only before the railway committee.
I have another and far better and deeper reason for the contention that the auditor general can make a better report than any civilian auditor, and that is his independence. Once appointed under the great seal of Canada, he is responsible only to parliament. He can feel as free as he likes to make criticism of what he thinks is wrong, and it would take a very great dereliction of duty on his part for both houses of parliament to pass an address requiring his removal. Because of that independence, he can make the sort of reports he has made for the last four or five years.
Compare that with the appointment of a civilian auditor by act of parliament-not by resolution of parliament but by act of parliament. He must be very grateful to the government of the day for that appointment. I of course, as a supporter of this government, have every confidence that the present civilian auditor appointed by the government is doing a responsible job. But if the time ever comes, and it may, when I sit over there in opposition, and a Conservative government appoints another auditor, or a C.C.F. government appoints one, I might not have the same confidence in that auditor. The auditor of public accounts should be like Caesar's wife, above reproach.
Having perhaps a suspicious mind, I thought I would look up the record, because I was quite sure that when the Tories were in power they did not employ this firm of Touche and Company, and so I turned to the first appointment in 1934. I was disappointed because I found that Touche and Company were the first auditors appointed by act of parliament to be auditors of the Canadian National Railways in the time of the Bennett administration. That was when Doctor Manion made such a glowing reference to the abilities of this firm, which I said I would read in fairness to the company. Doctor Manion's remarks are to be found in Hansard of 1934 as follows:
It has been decided, after a good deal of consideration, that the auditors who have been
doing the work for a good many years-I do not know exactly how long, but eight or ten years at any rate-are so well trained in the work and are so capable that it would be wise to appoint them at least for this year. I am informed by the railway people themselves that it would take quite a long time for any group of auditors to learn the method of auditing such an immense system of books and accounts as are contained in this vast business.
It was a vast business by the standards of those days, but small compared with public business today.
Tor example, I am told that there are no other chartered accountants in Canada who are familiar with the interstate commerce commission's type of accounting, and the accounting of the Canadian National Railways is carried on under the same rules as those of the interstate commerce commission for the railways of the United States.
The manner of this appointment, however, was challenged, and I was delighted to find that my own leader, at that time leader of the opposition, suggested that it was not proper to have the government of the day make the appointment by act of parliament. He suggested that it should be done by resolution of both houses. Quite casually I looked ahead to the 1935 debate and, to my surprise I found that the Conservative government in 1935 had dispensed with indispensable George A. Touche and had appointed a new firm known as Clarkson, Gordon, Dilworth, Guilfoyle and Nash. There was a touch of humour on that occasion, because one member suggested that in the broken-down condition of the Canadian National at that time it was doubtful whether the railway could carry all that as one load. The charge was made by the opposition-and there was a long and bitter debate-that the firm of George A. Touche and Company had been removed because they had been too critical in the report submitted. They had criticized the debt financing of the Canadian National Railways. The charge was taken up by the national press of Canada. Doctor Manion answered it by saying that he thought a great deal of the agitation had been started by the firm of George A. Touche and Company themselves because they were angry at losing this valuable contract.
Doctor Manion was reminded about the glowing recommendation he had made in the previous year and was asked by members whether the firm of George A. Touche and Company had not been satisfactory, had not been efficient, but he pointed out that that was not the issue at all. He said that the appointment was for one year and that the question was not one of dismissal but of change. When finally challenged, he said

C.N.R.-Appointment of Auditors
something, one sentence which I think is pregnant with meaning, so much so that I will read it. I cannot find it at the moment, but he said that he did not doubt that the firm was satisfactory but that, and I quote, "The firm of Clarkson, Gordon, Dilworth, Guil-foyle and Nash would be more satisfactory," more satisfactory, of course, to the government of the day.
That brings home to me more than anything else the dependence of an auditor appointed in such fashion. Naturally an auditor so appointed will be grateful to the government supporting it and would not be likely to make embarrassing comment. The significant thing about this is that the next year we find, with the Liberals in power, that George A. Touche is back. The significant thing about it is that there was no question at that time of the right of the government to change auditors. That precedent had been established the previous year, so no explanation was now necessary. But once again it is interesting to see how consistent the opposition was, despite the change in membership. At this time R. B. Bennett, as leader of the opposition, got up and said he thought this should not be done by act of parliament, but should be done by resolution of both houses. That is why I take the stand that, because of this complete independence from the government of the day, our auditor general can do a better job, a freer job, than any firm of civilian auditors whose appointment is made by an act of parliament sponsored by the government of the day. Because of that, I think the best comparison again is for members to read the two reports. It is also significant that the firm of George A. Touche and Company have never again been as critical in their reports as they were in that one unfortunate year of 1935, on which they lost the job.
I wish to revert to this debate of 1934, because nowhere in that debate was the suggestion made that the auditor general do the job. Why was that? There were two reasons which I thought appeared in the debate. The first was that there was great political sensitivity, if I may use that phrase, at that time over political interference with the management of the Canadian National Railways. The Canadian National Railway Act had been passed, and it was hoped to have the railway completely removed from any political control. Undoubtedly there wras the feeling that, by having an ordinary civilian firm of auditors do the job, that objective might be strengthened. The second thing was that I do not think the auditor general's department of that day were capable of doing the job. After all,

the Canadian National at that time was almost as big business as the government. More than that, the auditor general's department had no opportunity to do business audits as they have now. That situation, of course, has changed greatly since that time. The enormous wartime budgets of the government, the multitude of crown companies and other agencies which the auditor general does audit, have given him and his department that experience. Part of that is also because of the character of the man who is now auditor general, Mr. Watson Sellar. He was originally with the Department of Finance; for ten years he was comptroller general of Canada; and when he came to the department of the auditor general in 1940, as auditor general, he made great improvements throughout the branch in the quality of the staff, in the work, and in the type of report presented. Perhaps the greatest tribute to the staff is the fact that private industry and crown companies have steadily robbed his staff of keymen by paying them two or three times the wages they get as chartered accountants with the auditor general's department.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Where did they go? Did they go to private accounting firms? Did these expert men who had been trained in the auditor general's department go to private auditing firms?


James Sinclair: Not to private accounting firms, but to private industry and as comptrollers of crown companies.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Is the hon. member sure they did not go to private accounting firms?


James Sinclair: They may go to private accounting firms, because the training they get here is training which cannot be equalled anywhere else. The robbery which I resent the most is the crown companies taking them from the auditor general's department and paying them $7,000 and $8,000 in two cases for auditing jobs and comptroller jobs with these crown companies, salaries which the auditor general's department cannot equal. But here I think a tribute should be paid to the men who stayed with the auditor general's department, despite these attractions; and one of the reasons they stayed was undoubtedly the esprit de corps built up in that department by our present auditor general, Watson Sellar. Perhaps, as one last tribute to him, I might say that two days age I telephoned to Mr. Sellar about this matter and I found that he was absent in New York. He is now, I suppose the phrase could be used, auditor general for the united nations. Until

C.N.R.-Appointment oj Auditors
1950 he is senior of the three auditors appointed to audit the accounts of the united nations, which is certainly another tribute to the ability of the man.
Aside from those arguments, there is one last argument which I should like to make because I am a Liberal-, not a socialist. This matter of crown companies is coming very much to the fore in the development of government here in Canada. Certainly one of the reasons why the auditor general was not suggested in 1933 was that crown companies were unheard of then. We got the Canadian National Railways by accident. It was forced on us through the collapse of the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk. The words "crown company" were not used at that time., but now we are in this crown company business very heavily.
I have one or two observations to make on these crown companies. I do not object to crown companies as such I think they have a rightful field in natural public monopolies. I also think there is no reason why the crown should not go into competitive private enterprise, and I use that word "competitive" because I do not believe they should move in a field in which free competition exists and monopolize it to themselves. For example, I see no reason why the C.C.F. government should not go into the slaughterhouse business or the brick business in Saskatchewan, with, however, these reservations. First of all, they must continue free competition against the people who are in that business themselves; and, second, they must pay the full taxes which every other company in competition with them must pay. The argument is, of course, that for a federal company to pay federal taxes is just taking money from this pocket and putting it in that pocket. But when that is done, however, and an audited statement is submitted, the people of Canada are able to see whether or not this company is efficient and whether it can stand on its own feet as compared with private competition which pays the same taxes. Certainly when it comes to provincial and municipal taxes of a federal crown company, they certainly are doubly obligated to pay them rather than to take advantage of the provincial and municipal taxpayers in one community of the country in order to build up an unnatural balance sheet.
The second point is that these crown companies must be responsible to parliament. It is not a matter of political control. Certainly it would be difficult for a crown company to compete with private industry if there was political patronage all through the crown company. But since these crown companies are started with and employ public funds, and since those which are not successful come back to parliament for more public funds, as the Canadian National did this year, it is most important that this parliament should have control over crown companies in that respect. It is quite true that in all of the crown companies 'but the Canadian National and Trans-Canada Air Lines we do have that control. One obvious suggestion which I make is to have the auditor general do them all.
But more than that is needed. There must be, in this parliament, some item in the estimates under which each crown company could be discussed. I suggest-and my colleague, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) mentioned this-that, if needs be. an item of $10 could appear in the estimates of each minister responsible for crown companies. The hon. member for Quebec South suggested that the $10 could be spent if needs be, if the company does not need the money, on a big picture of the House of Commons, to be hung in the head office with the title "Our Bosses"; and in the present state I would say "Our Bosses" question mark. Then perhaps these crown companies would realize that the parliament of Canada in the end is being held responsible 'by the people of Canada for what they are doing. They are not in the position of private companies who must report directly back to their shareholders, to the people who put up the money. The route is too long, from the taxpayer of Canada, through the House of Commons, through the government to the crown companies to have that feeling of responsibilitj'. That feeling of responsibility would come, however, if somewhere in the estimates each year there were an item under which the conduct of each crown company could be discussed, and if as the basis of discussion, we had the full report of our own auditor general on that subject. That is why I feel this bill should not pass in its present form. I feel that the work started by William Lyon Mackenzie in 1835, with his report on grievances to bring not only the appropriation of all public funds into parliament's hands but also the accounting of those appropriations into parliament's hands, should be completed by the inclusion of this last crown company within the scope of the auditor general.
If this bill is put to a vote immediately I will vote against it, because I feel I have shown that the auditor general is certainly the proper person to do the work, and I have demonstrated, at least to my own satisfaction, that he can do a better job. These things, however, are open to discussion, so I suggest to the minister that, instead of this bill being

C.N.R.-Appointment of Auditors
referred to the committee of the whole house after second reading, it be referred to the railway committee, and that the railway committee summon before it the auditor general and the firm of George A. Touche and Company, if needs be, and there settle whether or not the auditor general of Canada, who certainly should do the job, can do it. Therefore, if the minister gives the assurance that this will be done I -will vote for second reading. Otherwise I will vote against the second reading and make that motion when we get into committee.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) on the excellent speech he has delivered. I feel sure that hon. members in all sections of the house will support the hon. gentleman, in view of the fact that the adoption of his recommendation would save the taxpayers of this country a considerable sum of money. I believe those who are familiar with the operations of the Canadian National Railways in recent years will agree that the accounting system has been maintained in satisfactory fashion. Mr. Cooper, the vice-president, who is also the comptroller, has taken a keen interest in presenting each year a balance sheet as favourable as possible, and I am sure all the directors have been concerned about making this publicly owned railway as efficient as possible. Last year, when the committee was meeting, I noticed in the balance sheet an item of some $12,000,000 on the asset side in connection with insurance. When I questioned Mr. Cooper regarding this item he mentioned that at the time of the amalgamation they took over some insurance funds to the extent of about $1,500,000. Then they decided that, rather than pay out premiums to privately operated companies to carry risks on stations here, there and everywhere across the country, there was no reason why the Canadian National should not set up its own insurance fund. However they charged the prevailing rates, and by 1930 had built up a surplus of about $10,000,000. Then they reduced their premiums by $1,000,000 a year, and a year or so later found that it was unnecessary to charge any premiums at all. So, for some fifteen years the Canadian National Railways have been able to provide for all their losses resulting from fire out of the interest on the accumulated amount that has been built up.
I submit that if the accounts of this corporation had been audited throughout the years by a firm like George A. Touche and Company, they probably would not have given any attention to the payment of high

premiums each year to privately operated insurance companies. There would not have been anything irregular about it; but since the directors of the Canadian National have the interests of the public at heart, they are concerned about economies of this kind.
Last year, when the committee met, the president presented us with a memorandum in connection with the operations of the Canada-West Indies Steamships branch of the company. Mr. Vaughan pointed out that the company was incorporated in 1927, to implement the Canada-West Indies trade agreement of July 6, 1925. Under the first agreement of 1912, the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company had operated four ships on a fortnightly service between Canada and the eastern group of islands, for which the company was paid an annual subsidy of $340,000. In the 1920 agreement, Canada also undertook to provide a service to the western group of islands, and this service was assigned to the Canadian government merchant marine. The memorandum mentioned the amount asked by privately owned corporations for this service. The Royal Mail Steam Packet Company put in a tender for a fortnightly mail, passenger and freight service with four new 12-knot passenger vessels, in accordance with the trade agreement, for which they asked an annual subsidy of $582,000. They also offered to perform the sei'vice every twelve days with smaller ships for an annual subsidy of $534,000. An agreement w'as not reached, however, with this company. The Canadian National Railways went into this field, but for some reason or another-perhaps it was the change of government which occurred in 1930-the subsidies which previously had been paid privately owned companies were not made available to the publicly owned company, and as a result this operation was not profitable. The balance sheet- of the company at the end of 1945 show's that for the whole period of operation there has been an over-all loss of $4,983,000. The statement, however, goes on to say that the balance sheet is not necessarily a final summation of all the gains or losses resultant from the operation of this service. The president explained that it was not unreasonable that the Canadian National might have been compensated on a basis similar to that under which the privately owned company would have been compensated if they had performed the service.
In the committee the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) reviewed this matter in some detail, and made what I think everyone would agree was a very fair and reasonable case. Later, a motion was pre-

C.N.R.-Appointment oj Auditors
sented to the committee by the hon. member and myself with a view to giving the Canadian National Steamships relief from this deficit of 85,000,000 which had accumulated through the years, but we were not successful in getting a majority of the committee to agree to recommend that the government take some action which would relieve the Canadian National of this item. When Mr. Matthews, who represented George A. Touche and Company, was before the committee I asked some questions regarding what would be his personal opinion concerning the carrying of this item in the balance sheet of the Canadian National for fifteen years or more. He replied:
I would not consider that would be part of our function. I think it is a matter of government policy, and our job we regard to be the setting out of facts. As long as the Department of Finance regard it as a liability, we have no alternative.
I asked whether he would make some comments if he were auditing for a privately owned corporation. The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) came to my assistance and said:
May I ask this question of Mr. Matthews? Are there many companies which your firm audits, and with which you are familiar, where a deficit has been carried for fifteen years or more and interest has accrued each year and piled up there?
Mr. Matthews:	No.
Mr. Jackman:	Do you know of any?
Mr. Matthews:	No. It is in the same category as the Canadian National railway system was in 1937 when the Capital Revision Act was brought in; the same principle.
Then the minister said:
Do you audit any other railway company besides the national system?
Mr. Matthews:	Not in Canada. But we regard that as a matter of policy outside our function. Our job is to set out facts to the committee and not matters of policy.
Mr. Nicholson:	I appreciate that very much.
But if you were auditing for a private company, would you not have some comment to make?
Mr. Matthews:	If we were auditing a commercial corporation with a deficit of $5,000,000 and which owed the bank or anyone else the same amount, that would be set out in the balance sheet as it is in the case of the West Indies steamships; and it would again be a matter of corporate policy as to reorganization.
Mr. Nicholson:	Would you not have some
comment to make regarding the carrying on of this for fifteen years?
Hon. Mr. Chevrier: Has not that matter been disposed of pretty much by the committee?
Mr. Nicholson:	I think it is quite relevant.
I wish to contrast the position of George A. Touche and Company with regard to a matter of that sort with the comments made by the auditor general in connection with the operation of crown companies, and of several
departments. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) that this sort of statement by George A. Touche and Company is quite unsatisfactory when compared with the statement made by the auditor general regarding the year's operations.
Several ministers of the crown have been embarrassed by remarks made by the auditor general. Apparently George A. Touche and Company remembered vividly what happened while the Bennett government was in office and when they made some comments regarding matters which I think come within the purview of the auditors' administration. I have been reading Hansard, and I find in Hansard of February' 22, 1935, at page 1092, there is reported a speech by Mr. Manion, in which he referred to an article which had appeared in the Toronto Star. That article reads:
Far from welcoming the proposal of the auditors that the grossly inflated debt of the Canadian National Railways be pared down the Bennett government is demanding that the auditors be dismissed.
The explanation that will be given for the proposed dismissal of the auditors no doubt will be that the firm has its headquarters in England, but so it had a year ago when Mr. Bennett and Dr. Manion were loud in praise of its work.
Apparently a firm such as George A. Touche and Company run a certain risk when they make comments regarding a problem as important to the Canadian people as the inflated debt of the Canadian National Railways. I submit that it would be in the best interests of the Canadian National Railways, and certainly it would be in the best interests of the taxpayers of Canada if the auditing of the financial position of the Canadian National Railways was carried out, as the hon. member for Vancouver North has suggested, by the auditor general.
In the last report which the auditor general submitted to parliament, he makes mention of some matters which hon. members of the opposition are certainly going to use before this session is over. On page 22 there is reference to vote 426, which refers to some tenders which were invited by the director of the Veterans Land Act for the construction of nine houses at Boueherville, Quebec. Bids ranging from $45,884 to $70,200 were rejected as excessive and then, later on in the paragraph, it is stated:
In the fiscal year $87,018.10 war paid by way of progress payments. Administrative officers advise that this contract is under investigation; consequently the payments have been accepted in the audit subject to that qualification. Further claims of $103,820.85 with respect to the contract were, at the time of audit, in the department.

C.N.R.-Appointment of Auditors
I think any auditor who will embarrass the administration by putting down in black and white details in connection with tenders being rejected because bids ranging from $45,884 to $70,200 were rejected as excessive when actual vouchers in excess of $190,000 have been taken in is a pretty satisfactory auditor for the Canadian National Railways. Then on page 24 reference is made to the director of housing being retired with three months' retiring leave as of March 1. The position was abolished and he was given an annual allowance of $1,174. As of that date he was fifty years of age with ten years' service. I am sure my deskmate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, (Mr. Knowles) is going to have something to say about an order in council that provides a pension of $100 a month for life for a man fifty years of age when we cannot get legislation before parliament to do more for our old age pensioners than we have up to date.
Another reference on page 29 is to the de Havilland contract for $6,445,025, representing shipments made to various R.A.F. and R.C.A.F. depots. He states:
Proof of delivery was established by the records for invoices approximating $1,000,000, but no proof of delivery on the balance was produced in the course of audit.
There we have a matter of $5,500,000 which apparently was not accounted for to the satisfaction of the auditor general. I am sure that all members of parliament realize that is the sort of audit we require rather than the type of audit carried out by George A. Touche and Company, although I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver North that this is a well recognized and reliable firm, and I have no quarrel with Mr. Matthews who has been before our committee for several years.
In conclusion, I should like to move an amendment along the lines of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver North, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I should like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to page 228 of Beauchesne, third edition, citation 657, which I think is my authority for moving the following amendment:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to the making of provision for the auditing of the accounts of the Canadian National Railways to be done by the auditor general of Canada.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, as one of those who during the last war urged in the province of Ontario that the

government of the day should take over this system, I wish to say a few words tonight. I addressed meetings along with the late Sir Adam Beck, but we found very few supporters of our policy to nationalize the Canadian National Railways and its various subsidies. After a success had been made of public ownership and the provision of cheap light and power in Ontario, we addressed meetings at St. Thomas, London, Kingston, Belleville and many other points in the province.
The component parts of the road were taken over to form what is now known as the Canadian National Railways. The mistakes of private ownership had been apparent for many years prior to that. There was evident useless duplication and waste, and the result was that a royal commission was appointed, known as the Drayton-Smith-Aeworth commission. This was made up of Mr. Smith, the president of the New York Central railroad; Mr. Acworth, a prominent British engineer and Sir Henry Drayton, then chairman of the board of railway commissioners, now known as the board of transport commissioners.
As a public ownership man, I have always taken a consistent stand in connection with this railroad, and I wish to compliment the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) on the splendid address he has given tonight in support of what I have proposed ever since I have been a member of the house, namely, that we have our own auditor general as an independent audit. The bill recommends that the Touche chartered accountants be appointed as independent auditors for the year 1947 to make a continuous audit of the accounts of national railways as defined in the act. The auditor general is an independent auditor because he does not take work from other private business concerns, the way some of these auditing firms do.
The auditor general is the auditor of public ownership in general; he is the auditor of all the departments of this government. We have had some very good men in this position. I believe a public ownership venture should be administered by those who believe in public ownership. I cannot find one person on the board of directors, either past or present, who has been well known as a supporter of the principle of public ownership. In Ontario we had experience with private companies in the providing of light and power and the hydro system as a public venture was begun after 1905. The hydro started and took over the remaining water powers of the Niagara river and reduced the costs to domestic and commercial users of light and power to one-third.

C.N.R.-Appointment of Auditors
I believe the time has come when a change should be made in the practice of appointing auditors for the Canadian National Railways. Last week the directors of the railways made a report to parliament in which they estimated the deficit for 1946 at nearly $9,000,000, and an item of $8,961,570 appears in the supplementary estimates to make up that deficit. But the annual report of the railways is not out yet. The appointment of private auditors is a violation of the recommendations which were made in the Drayton-Aeworth report after an investigation which cost this country a huge sum of money. They reported that there was duplication and waste all over the country in the construction of branch lines and in other ways which cost a huge expenditure of money and they recommended that no new ventures or new lines be started without the recommendation of the railway commission from the commercial aspect. That report has not since been implemented at all by this house.
The scope of the audit made by George A. Touche and Company is set out on pages 6 and 7 of their report to parliament for the year ended December 31, 1945, the last report made by this company. The system includes the Canadian National Railways Securities Trust, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, and the Trans-Canada Air Lines. I believe that the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) is quite right in proposing that we should substitute the auditor general to audit the Canadian National Railways system. Under the old act, from 1924 on, it was the board of directors of the railways who appointed the auditors. The act vyas amended in 1932 requiring an address from both houses of parliament to appoint an auditor for the system. The auditors have failed to make any recommendations for improving the efficiency of the system. After all is said and done, the railway in part is not run from the commercial aspect. In the first two and a half years of world war II the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Nat.onal Railways made more money than they made in the whole period of the first great war. A return was made to the house, showing that down to the end of 1941 one of these railway systems made $27,000,000 and the other, $25,500,000 more than it made during the whole of the first world war. In addition to the railway itself, there are the hotel services, the land and ocean services and now the Trans-Canada Air Lines, and the expenditures of the system are going up by leaps and bounds. The road is not run from the commercial aspect. Its headquarters
never should have been transferred to Montreal, and money should never have been wasted on that hole in Montreal. There has been useless duplication and waste in the hotel system. In towns where there was business for only one hotel the railway insisted on building another, even though the materials were wanted for building small houses all across the country.
Furthermore, there has been no proper inspection or control of the United States subsidiaries of this railway system. In Ontario the railway makes more money than in any other part of its system, yet the province of Ontario has been completely ignored in connection with betterments, its requirements of rolling stock, locomotives, box cars and things like that. But the railway is spending money on its United States subsidiaries. It gets rolling stock, passenger trains and other equipment for its subsidiaries in the United States. Charity should begin at home.
I believe that the directors do not direct. The directors are appointed from one political party.
Again I believe that the free transportation system should be revised. I am not referring to anybody connected with the government or to members of either house of parliament; far from it. But I say that the railway commission does not supervise properly that particular branch, with the result that we are not getting the revenue we should get from the operation of this railway.
I am a real public ownership man myself, and public ownership must succeed. I believe that we have a faithful able president and faithful officers and rank and file working for the system. They have worked hard at small pay and a large majority of them are efficient, but in some cases in the past exorbitant pensions have been paid to retired officials, and parliament has lost all control over the system. When you ask questions in the house about it you cannot get an answer but are told to go to some committee which was appointed, and largely whitewash the operations of the system. In the report you find very little about the workings of the system. I will give one example. They brought up from the maritime provinces to Toronto an old tub, which is known as the Northumberland and now runs between Toronto and Port Dalhousie. It is not fit for lake traffic. The boat has been condemned. The predecessor of the minister wrote me a letter about it. My hon. friend the member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) had a picnic on this boat; and at times it got stuck out in the lake. It is a wonder he ever got home. What was not good enough twenty years ago for Prince

C.N.R.-Appointment oj Auditors
Edward Island is shipped up to Toronto; an old tub not fit to run down there is good enough for Toronto, a public ownership city. Yet they can afford to spend $2,500,000 at Sorel for a new car fern- for Prince Edward Island.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Five million.


Thomas Langton Church: When it gets up to $5,000,000 it is beyond me. When the railway is dealing in these astronomical figures money is much more likely to be wasted. I am not complaining about Prince Edward Island getting its due in public ownership, because I have been a real genuine public ownership man all my life. We should have some known public ownership directors on this board instead of some of those who are appointed for political purposes. I am not saying that we do not do this when our party is in power, but if we are to have efficient administration of a large publicly-owned utility, particularly with the expansion that is going on, we must use some degree of economy and run the road as a commercial proposition.
I believe that the auditor general, who is now making an elaborate report to parliament on our own departments, should be appointed to audit this system. We have had the experience in Ontario of large expenditures on publicly owned light and power. The city auditor of our city inspects the system daily, inspects the large taxpayer, the Consumers Gas Company and all the other activities of the system. The auditor general has a very fine department now. and he should be appointed to audit this system and make a study of the various proposals which have been made. The scope of the audit should be enlarged, instead of being simply a check-up of the system, an examination of major expenditures and audit tests as set out on page 6 of the Touche report for 1945. It is just a test audit that is made, not a daily audit of each office, but just a test audit here and there. It puts me in mind of a Gallup poll. They have a few people meet in an office, and they size up by such tests how the country is going. It is the same here. It is just a test audit. They pick out a piece here and there. You will find it all on page 6:
(a)	Examination of major expenditure authorities in conjunction with the recorded resolutions of the directors, which in turn are related to corporate by-laws, orders in council and acts of parliament;
(b)	audit tests in the offices of regions, separately operated properties and system headquarters, limited to a cross-section of the major expenditures so authorized:
(c)	Examination into the adequacy of the interna] audit control in general as exercised by the accounting staff of the system. In this eon-
JMr. Church.]
nection we work in collaboration with the executive accounting officers at headquarters having as a common objective the securing of maximum internal protection to the system iu the control of cash receipts and expenditures, securities held, material stores, accounts receivable, et cetera, and through the carrying of fidelity bond insurance with outside underwriters, and , . .
Then we come to the securities trusts and the other systems, but I shall not continue reading it any further. I believe the time has come, as I said in my opening remarks, when the auditor general should have control over all these outside boards. We would get better results in the work which has to be done.
In conclusion, may I say I believe that, ever since the start, the system has had big eyes in building branch lines. They built duplicating branch lines all over the country. A great many of them had to be ripped up and scrapped because their development has been a waste. The road was not run in a commercial way, and there has been duplication of branch lines, to which I have already referred. In the interests of the country, in the interests of the system and in the interests of getting some efficiency in the system I believe that the auditor general of Canada should audit the accounts. It should not be an official auditor who is described in the bill as an independent auditor. He is not an independent auditor at all, because he is doing work for other privately owned agencies.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise to support the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair). In my opinion, the house is indebted to him for an informing and instructive speech, one of those speeches which will be well worth reading tomorrow in Hansard. I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that his native ability, his academic training, his parliamentary and administrative experience, and shall I say his British Columbia environment, fitted him well to make a speech such as he made this evening. I think it was one of the most, lucid and informative speeches that I have heard in the house this session.
I was particularly interested in the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver North gave us a clear historical review of the situation. He then made his criticism and, in addition to that, put forward his suggestions and his constructive proposals. That is what I consider as evidence of a worth-while debate. I was very much interested in the illustrations he gave to us this evening of the deficiencies of the present system of auditing. As a relatively new member of the house, I must say that I was greatly informed this evening. I

C.N.R.-Appointment of Auditors
learned a lot from the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver North. I am not going to repeat any of the things he said; the hour is getting late. I wish to say that, as a result of listening to the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver North, I realize now the great importance of what appeared on the surface to be a rather unimportant bill, and I urge other hon. members to give support to his proposals. Because of his arguments and the illustrations he gave this evening, I for one extend the strongest support to his .suggestion that this bill be sent to the railway committee for further consideration before receiving third reading.


Lionel Chevrier: The bill which is before the house at the present time is an annual bill dealing with the appointment of auditors for the Canadian National Railways. It is not a new bill. The form in which it is now is not at all different from the form in which it has appeared in previous years. In fact, ever since 1932 the manner of appointing auditors for the national railway has been the same in effect as the bill which is now before the house.
This year the bill seeks to appoint the same firm of auditors, namely George A. Touche and Company of Toronto and Montreal, to make a continuous audit under the provision of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act. That act deals with the manner in which auditors shall be appointed and sets out that the auditors shall be appointed by resolution of parliament.
The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) dealt with the resolution stage and suggested that it should be done in that manner now. To my mind, there is no difference in the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman and the wording in section 13 from what is in the bill which is now before the house. If it is done by a bill rather than by resolution it is because the other method is more cumbersome. But, in fact, down the years the procedure has been to do it by bill as we have sought to do it this year.
The hon. member for Vancouver North asked a number of questions. He asked, first, why should the government appoint a private auditor? The answer will be found in section 13 of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act which was passed in 1933 and amended in 1936. Section 13 (1) reads as follows:
A continuous audit of the accounts of national railways shall be made by independent auditors appointed annually by a joint resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons, and annually reporting to parliament in respect of their audit. Their annual report shall call attention to any
matters which in their opinion require consideration or remedial action. They shall be paid by the national company such amounts as the governor in council shall from time to time approve.
Therefore, in answer to his first question, why should the government appoint a private auditor? I say that ever since this act has been in force it has been the practice to put into effect the intention of this act, namely, that there should be appointed an independent firm of auditors. By "independent" I mean not only independent of the Canadian National Railways but, I think, independent of the auditor general. If that had not been the intention I think the act would have clearly stated that the auditor general should be appointed.
The hon. member asked two or three other questions. He said that the auditor general could do the work. I agree with him in that respect. I think the auditor general could do the work and could do a good job, but I do not agree that he could do a much better job; and I certainly cannot agree with the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) who states that it would be a great saving of money to the taxpayers of Canada if the auditor general were appointed. I think I can disprove that point as I go along.
The Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act clearly states that this shall be a continuing audit, which means that the auditors must be in office and in operation all the time. Continuity of auditors is not only advantageous to the national railways, but also necessary because of the nature of the business of the Canadian National Railways. Frequent changes of auditors in the Canadian National Railways would, I believe, be objectionable. Take, for instance, the position of the railways. They have over one hundred thousand employees. It is extremely big business, the railway comprising a large number of subsidiary companies, and there is a considerable diversity of operations. A considerable amount of time is spent over an extended period in auditing the accounts. There are no less than fifty people who are assigned to work on the auditing of the books of the Canadian National Railways, not in permanency it is true, but temporarily, while there are from five to ten men who are assigned to do that work permanently.
Does anyone in this house think for a moment that if the auditor general were to be assigned to do this work he could do it without having the same number of men? Unquestionably he could do it, but he would have to set up a staff of experts such as the firm of George A. Touche and Company employ, and if the auditor general were to set up this staff it

C.N.R.-Appointment of Auditors
would cost the country every bit as much money, and somewhat more, as I shall prove.
Because of the operations of the Canadian National in the United States, it is necessary to have accounting firms that have units in Duluth, Detroit and St. Albans, and the firms that do the auditing work for the Canadian National must have United States branches, or at least connections in the United States. George A. Touche and Company and some other auditing companies in the dominion have auditing units in the United States cities I have mentioned. The auditor general of Canada has not. It is true that the auditor general could employ auditors who would be contacts in those United States cities, but I submit that he would have to pay them far more money than the company which does the work for the Canadian National Railways.
There are not many auditing firms in Canada who, apart from having the necessary experience to do railway work, also have these accounting units in the United States. Then there is the great advantage in continuing one firm of auditors. I presume the house itself might be tempted to raise some objection to appointing the same firm, and I confess that I did not like the idea when I came to the department and saw this. But when I realized what a tumult and chaos would follow if the auditor were changed each year, I came to the conclusion that it was good business for the railways to keep in operation the same firm of auditors.
I said a moment ago that Touche and Company assign about fifty individuals to do the work, some of them only intermittently; but there are at least ten men in the city of Toronto who are assigned to do the work permanently, and four or five in the city of Montreal. If the auditor general were given this assignment he would have to work up a staff, a group of experts to do railway work. In other words, he would have to add to his staff the same number of men; no, I say a far greater number of men than that already employed by this firm of auditors.
There is another point I should like to make. The present firm of auditors also do the work of T.C.A., and under the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act the minister has discretion to appoint auditors. The minister under that act, as far as I can remember, has always appointed the same firm of auditors as the Canadian National. By doing that, he has saved the country money, because the one firm is able to do the work of the two corporations and thereby to do it far more cheaply.
It has been suggested that the auditor general is an excellent person; that he has qualifi-
|Mr. Chevrier.]
cations to do work of this kind, and with that I certainly would not disagree. On the contrary, I am entirely in agreement with my hon. friend when he says that Watson Sellar is a fine type of individual and one who is doing an excellent job as auditor general. With everything that the hon. member has said in that regard I am in full agreement. But where I differ with my hon. friend is on the statement that it would save the taxpayers of the country a substantial sum of money if we were to appoint the auditor general of Canada to do the auditing of the Canadian National Railways. I am informed that it would take the auditor general from two to three years to develop a staff to do this work properly. It is a fact that any new auditor-who might be put in the position of auditing the books of the Canadian National Railways should move in early in the year and be able to start from the beginning. The present auditors, George A. Touche and Company, as stated before, are doing continuous work and therefore have already started to audit the books for the year 1947. They are already in operation. That is by virtue of a practice which has existed over the years.
So that I must say to the house and to my hon. friend-and I agree with those who say that he has made an excellent presentation of his case-that the government cannot appoint a private auditor, because it is bound by section 13 of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Railway Act. I agree with the hon. member that the auditor general could do the job, but that the auditor general could do a much better job I have grave doubts; and certainly when the auditor general should find himself in the position of doing the job it would cost the taxpayers as much as, if not far more than, it costs the country at the moment through the appointment of this firm of auditors.
For that reason I must tell my hon. friend, if it will be of any assistance to him, that for the year 1948 I would be willing to inquire from the officers of my department, and at the same time consult the directors of the Canadian National Railways to ascertain whether it would not be possible to have the auditor general audit the accounts, but I am sure that if I were to discuss it with them they would place before me the reasons which I have now put before the house For these reasons I ask the house to approve the bill.


James Sinclair: In rising to speak to the amendment, I am conscious that this gives me the most unusual chance for a private member to rebut the argument of a minister, but there are two or

C.N.R.-Appointment of Auditors
three points about the answer that has been given which strike me immediately. To begin with, the minister's first point was that I had asked for private auditors by resolution. Hon. members will realize that certainly that is not what I asked for. I asked for audit by the auditor general. I did not ask why private auditors did it, because I knew that was provided under the Canadian National Act, but I asked why the auditor general did not do it.
Because it has been done since 1933 by a private auditor is not a sufficient reason. The reason why I traced the development of the auditor general's position was to show that if perhaps he could not have done the job in 1933, he certainly was in a position to do it now.
The minister's comments about a resolution of parliament being the same as an act of parliament I find difficult to understand, and I can tell him I am in good company because the leader of the opposition in 1934, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), advocated appointment by resolution of parliament and not by act of parliament submitted by the government. In 1936, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, then leader of the opposition, advocated exactly the same thing. So that I am at least in good company, no matter what side of the house you judge my company from.
The second point was that the appointment of different auditors would result in an unhappy situation and that there would be no continuity of auditors. That was one of the points I was trying to make most strongly, because just as long as we have the Tory party appointing the firm of Clarkson and Company, the Liberal party appointing the firm of Touche and Company, and the C.C.F. government in some year far hence appointing some Saskatchewan firm, we shall not have continuity. We shall, however, have it if the auditor general is for all time appointed auditor for the companies.
The next point was one which fascinated me. It was to the effect that it would cost the government more to do that audit through the auditor general's department than through the firm of Touche and Company. Am I to understand that the firm of Touche and Company do that, at no profit? Or more than that, am I to understand that they do it at a loss because of their public spirit?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: They are more efficient.


James Sinclair: No one has denied that the auditor general is efficient. And no one can deny that the auditor general does not pay the salaries that George A. Touche and Company pay. The point about
George A. Touche and Company and their record is the very fact that they, according to the minister of railways in 1934, were the very ones who stirred up the agitation against the Clarkson firm so that they might have this apparently unprofitable audit.
The next point was with regard to staff. If there ever was a time when the auditor general's department had a qualified staff, it is now. They have the staff which did this enormous war work, although it is now being cut down. But they have a qualified staff at this time that they never had before. A point which I found out on inquiry was that, in the firm of Touche and Company, the great bulk of this work is done by juniors, either accountants in training or accountants just qualified. The thing in the minister's speech which shocked me a little was to find that in this day and age, under a government led by the grandson of William Lyon Mackenzie, there should still be one place in the expenditure of public moneys in which the appointment of an auditor was left to the minister's discretion, because in this report I quoted from a little earlier there is case after case in which William Lyon Mackenzie comments in the most scathing terms about the minister's audit and certifying to parliament, that this audit is proper, because in those days ministers of the crown either did the audit themselves in the department or appointed an auditor to do it.
The next point was that it would take two or three years for the auditor general's staff to get on to the job of auditing railway accounts. Again let us look at the record. In 1935. without notice, Doctor Manion changed the firm of George A. Touche and Company to the firm of Clarkson with the long name, and nobody on the Liberal or Conservative side in 1936 contended that this firm as Clarkson, without two or three years' experience in railway auditing, did not do just as good a job as George A. Touche. There was just the old joker, that from our point of view, probably the firm of George A. Touche was more satisfactory, just as Doctor Manion had said that the Clarkson firm was more satisfactory to his government than the firm of George A. Touche.
I did not ask for a change of private auditors. My point was simply that this audit of public funds should be done by the auditor general; and most certainly this parliament should see that no minister is left with the right to appoint an auditor for Trans-Canada Air Lines in this day and age, as apparently the Minister of Reconstruction is. Definitely that auditor should be at least appointed by

C.N.Ii.-Appointment of Auditors
parliament, preferably by a resolution of parliament, and, best of all, should be the auditor general. For these reasons I see very little cause to change the stand which I took when I delivered my main address on this act.	[DOT]


Mr. HLYNKA:: I was paired with the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was paired with the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CLEAVER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Norman Jaques: I was paired with the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cour-noyer). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Main motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.
On motion of Mr. St. Laurent the house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Tuesday, April 1, 1947