1949-10-03

Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Monday next, October 10, will be Thanksgiving day. In common with many others, I feel sure that the Prime Minister has a good deal to be thankful for, and I was wondering whether he would permit the members of this house to have next Monday as a holiday.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): The Prime Minister is always susceptible to any suggestion that comes from the other side of the house. I take it that the applause means that there are several in the house who agree with the suggestion which has been made. If it appears to be the desire of the house, the government will take the necessary steps to see to it that when the house adjourns on Friday night it stand adjourned until three o'clock the following Tuesday.



QUESTIONS

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

[Stage Direction]
4.	The average price obtained on the bushels recited in part 3 was $2.22471 per bushel, basis No. 1 northern in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver.
5.	Wheat sold to millers for manufacture of flour for domestic consumption in Canada was as follows:
Crop year 1946-47,	53,615,866 bushels;
crop year 1947-48, 49,342,532 bushels; crop year 1948-49, 39,281,098 bushels.
6.	Such wheat was sold at the following prices:
Crop year 1946-47, approximately 29,041,927 @ $1.25, approximately 24,573,939 @ $1.55; crop year 1947-48, 49,342,532 @ $1.55; crop year 1948-49, 39,281,098 @ $2.00.
Notes on 6:
1.	All prices basis No. 1 northern in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver.
2.	In addition to the above prices, the board recovered carrying charges of approximately 31 cents per bushel from August 1, 1946 to July 31, 1948, and 5 cents per bushel from August 1, 1948 to July 31, 1949.

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What is the average monthly amount on account of the basic old age pension now being paid in each province?
2.	What supplementary amounts are now being paid by each province?
3.	What medical or other additional services are now being provided to old age pensioners by each province?


Mr. Fair:: 1.	What quantity of wheat was delivered under the British wheat agreement during the crop year 1948-49?
2.	At what price per bushel was this wheat sold?
3.	During the same period what quantity of "class II'' wheat was sold?
4.	What was the average price per bushel obtained?
5.	During each of the crop years 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1948-49, what quantity of wheat was sold to millers for Canadian consumption as flour?
6.	At what price per bushel was such wheat sold?


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1.	Wheat delivered under the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement as wheat or flour for 1948-49 amounted to 146,342,80225 bushels.
2.	$2 per bushel, basis No. 1 northern in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver, plus 5 cents per bushel carrying charges.
3.	During the same period approximately 74,013,774 bushels were sold as wheat or flour at class II prices.


Mr. Martin:: 1.	As at June 30, 1949:
Province
Alberta	
British Columbia	
Manitoba	
New Brunswick	
Nova Scotia	
Ontario	
Prince Edward Island. .
Quebec	
Saskatchewan	
Northwest Territories ..
Old Age	Blind
$32.23	$29.98
29.29	29.31
37.86	38.55
30.15	38.85
30.24	38.47
37.06	37.64
26.42	28.63
28.94	29.68
37.12	38.78
28.75	30.00
Note: At the end of the quarter April 1 to June 30, 1949, all provinces had not completed the work of adjusting pensions in accordance with the provisions of new agreements bringing into operation the amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act passed at the last session of parliament. The average pension paid in Newfoundland and the Yukon

Questions
Territory as at June 30, 1949, is not yet available. Information for the quarter July 1 to Sept. 30, 1949, will not be completed before October 31.
2.	According to information furnished by the provinces, supplemental allowances are being paid as follows: Alberta, $7.50 a month; British Columbia, $10 a month; Manitoba, nil; New Brunswick, nil; Newfoundland, nil; Nova Scotia, nil; Ontario, nil; Prince Edward Island, nil; Quebec, nil; Saskatchewan, $2.50 a month subject to a means test; Northwest Territories, additional assistance may be authorized if required; Yukon Territory, $10 a month.
3.	According to information furnished by the provinces, additional benefits are provided to pensioners as follows:
(a)	Medical services. Medical services for pensioners and certain dependents are provided by British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Ontario provides medical services for pensioners only.
(b)	Dental and optical services. Alberta and Saskatchewan provide dental and optical services.
(c)	Hospital services. British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan have plans under which pensioners are given free hospital care. In other provinces pensioners receive whatever hospital services are available to persons unable to pay.
(d)	Homes for the aged. Ontario and British Columbia offer assistance to municipalities for the purpose of constructing homes for aged persons.



INDIANS


Mr. Shaw:: 1.	What arrangement has been in effect for the hospitalization and treatment of Indians in the Rocky Mountain House district of Alberta?
2.	Has the Department of Indian Affairs or any other branch of government or any official thereof been negotiating with medical and hospital authorities at Rocky Mountain House for the hospitalization and treatment of Indians in that district?
3.	If so, what has been the result of such negotiations?
4.	What provision has been made to provide such services to the Indians after September 30, 1949?


Mr. Martin:: 1.	There are 125 in the Rocky Mountain House band of the Sunchild Cree Indians (treaty Indians) who live on a reserve thirty miles from Rocky Mountain House. There is also a group of 200 Chippewa Indians (nontreaty) who wander in the foothills. So far as is possible in the light of their highly nomadic life, the same facilities are extended to both groups by the directorate of Indian health services.
(Mr. Martin.]
The medical care of these people has been provided by a doctor of Rocky Mountain House on a fee-for-service basis. The doctor has seen patients in his office and has attended them in Rocky Mountain hospital. It has not been convenient to him to attend on the reserve.
A local dentist has provided dental services on a fee-for-service basis,
2 and 3. The doctor's accounts for professional services have been paid in accordance with the prevailing schedule of fees which is applied uniformly across Canada where professional attention is provided on a fee-for-service basis. However the doctor has not been satisfied with the schedule of fees. In June 1948 the directorate of Indian health services offered to pay him a per annum stipend if this would be more agreeable to the doctor but he did not reply to this offer. Recently he signified his intention to cease services to Indians except as private patients.
The rate paid to the Rocky Mountain hospital is $5 per day for adults and $1.25 for newborn children. This rate was established May 1, 1948, and has not been under discussion since that time.
4.	There is every reason to believe that arrangements for hospitalization at Rocky Mountain House are satisfactory. The Indian health service regional superintendent in Alberta is continuing to negotiate with local physicians for the provision of professional services.



COLLECTIVE SECURITY-PACIFIC AREAS

Mr. Church:: 1.	Has the government given any consideration to the creation of a Pacific pact?
2.	If so, what action has been taken?


Mr. Claxion:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The information requested in this part of the question was supplied by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a statement given by him which appears in Hansard of September 16, 1949, on page 14.



NATIONAL HEALTH


Mr. Argue:: 1.	For how many hospital beds have grants been authorized under the hospital construction grant in each province?
2.	What are the names and the location of hospitals for which grants have been authorized, and the number of beds in each case?


Mr. Martin:: Name of hospital
Quebec-Cone.
Herbert Reddy Memorial hospital....,
Hotel Dieu de Sorel	
Hotel Dieu de Levis	
Hopital de St. Redempteur	
Hopital Ste. Marie	
Pontiac Community hospital	
Hopital Notre Dame de Charny	
Ontario
Sudbury General hospital	
West Lincoln Memorial hospital	
Hamilton General hospital	
St. Peters infirmary	
Leamington district memorial	
Centre Grey General hospital	
St. Joseph General hospital	
Cobourg General hospital	
Cornwall General hospital	
Haldimand war memorial hospital ... Oakville Trafalgar memorial hospital
Trenton memorial hospital	
Chesley and district memorial	
St. Joseph hospital	
Peterborough Civic hospital	
Oshawa General hospital	
St. Mary's of the Lake hospital	
Winchester and district memorial

Name of hospital
Alberta-Cone.
Lacombe Municipal hospital	
Three Hills Municipal hospital ...
Stettler Municipal hospital	
Rimbey Municipal hospital	
Crowsnest Pass Municipal hospital. Claresholm Municipal hospital ....
St. Mary's hospital	
Lamont Public hospital	
Wainwright Municipal hospital ... Grande Prairie Municipal hospital Aberhart Memorial sanatorium ... Peace River Municipal hospital ...
British Columbia
Vernon Jubilee hospital	
Provincial mental hospital	
Fernie Memorial hospital	
St. George's hospital	
North Vancouver General hospital .
Royal Columbian hospital	
Princeton General hospital	
Provincial Mental hospital	
Mount St. Francis infirmary	
Langley Memorial hospital	
Prince Rupert General hospital ...
St. Joseph's hospital	
Provincial mental hospital No. 2 ... Bulkley Valley district hospital ... Royal Jubilee hospital



SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER DAM AND IRRIGATION PROJECT

Mr. Diefenbaker:: What expenditures, month by month, since the 1st of January, 1949, have been made on preliminary investigation and work on the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project?


Mr. Gardiner:: January, 1949:	8,788.50;
February, 1949:	20,506.42; March, 1949:
11,855.04; April, 1949: 15,971.01; May, 1949: 27,082.61; June, 1949: 85,432.75; July, 1949: 60,976.58; August, 1949: 71,502.74.



HEALTH SURVEYS

Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	Has the federal government received any preliminary or final reports from any of the provinces on the health surveys which have been undertaken with federal aid?
2.	If so, from which provinces?
3.	Will these reports be published in whole or in part, and when?


Mr. Martin:: 

PUBLIC STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS OF DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

Mr. Hansell:: Does the government accept any responsibility for speeches made by responsible members of the diplomatic corps at home and abroad, and is the subject matter of such speeches to be considered as government policy?


Mr. Claxton:: The general rule is that the government accepts responsibility for speeches on matters of public policy made by officers of the external affairs service, at home and abroad. This general rule is subject to exception according to the circumstances in which speeches are made. So, for example, when an external affairs officer, in speaking, indicates that he is doing so in his personal capacity, or where he speaks as chairman of an international conference, committee, or other body, he is clearly not representing a government view, as such. Moreover the government may disclaim statements made by external affairs officers inconsistent with government policy.



FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCES

Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	Is any province in Canada receiving federal assistance which directly or indirectly helps to pay for drugs, medical care, or hospitalization?
2.	If so, what provinces are receiving this assistance?


Mr. Martin:: 1.	Yes.
2.	All provinces are receiving and are entitled to receive assistance towards medical care, supply of drugs and hospitalization under the mental health grant, tuberculosis control grant, cancer control grant, venereal disease control grant and crippled children grant.



FIRE PREVENTION


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Have representations been received by the dominion Are commissioner, or by any other official or department of the government, from the association of Canadian fire marshals, requesting legislation or regulations prohibiting the manufacture of cigarettes containing saltpetre or other properties in the cigarette paper or the tobacco that increase the burning properties of the cigarette and thus create a fire hazard?
2.	If so, has consideration been given to such a request?
3.	What is the result of such consideration?


Mr. Belzile:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.



DEVALUATION OF CANADIAN DOLLAR


Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	What amount of the Canadian debt is owed to American citizens or the American government?
2.	What is the value, if any, of the bonds or loans which carry interest payable in United States funds?
3.	What is the probable annual loss to the Canadian treasury of such interest payments, caused by the recent dollar devaluation?


Mr. Belzile:: 

WHITE ROCK, B.C., POST OFFICE SITE

Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	Has the government purchased a site for a post office at White Rock, British Columbia?
2.	If so, what (a) is the size of the site; (b) was the purchase price?
3.	Who was the registered owner of the property at the time of purchase?
4.	Was other property or properties offered to the government?
5.	If so, what was the size and price in each case?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 60 feet by 69-08 feet; (b) $27,000.
3.	James Lee Monahan and Albert Victor Gay.
4.	Yes.
5.	(a) Lot 5 and J Lot 6, Vidal Subdivision, S.E. J section 10, T.W.P. 1, N.W.D. map 2386, irregular size; $6,300.
(b)	Corner Victoria and Martin streets, lots 14 and 15, 60 feet by 99-47 feet; no price quoted.
(c)	Lots 11 and 12, S.E. I section 10, T.I., map 4270, 100 feet by 117 feet; $12,500.



* CATTLE-COMPENSATION FOR TUBERCULOSIS REACTORS

Mr. Cardiff:: 1.	Has the government taken any action towards raising the compensation paid to farmers for cattle condemned under the T.B. testing program?
2.	If so, what action has been taken?
3.	Has compensation been raised?


James Garfield Gardiner: The other day I was under the impression that I answered this question and asked that it be dropped until the legislation was brought down, when we could discuss it fully. It is on its way here now, and I am sure it will be fully discussed then.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Has the Newfoundland surplus in sterling held in England been made available to the government of Newfoundland?
2.	If so, was the full fund made available, and has devaluation of the pound in any way reduced the amount received by the government of Newfoundland?


Mr. Belzile:: Questions



FISH-PRICE SUPPORT-ORDER IN COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
p.c. 1148
Mr. Bryce:: 1.	Under order in council P.C. 1148, what quantities and species of fish were bought?
2.	Has this fish been sold? If so, at what price and to whom?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1.	The following species and quantities:
Species	Quantity
(lbs.)
Whitefish (dressed)	 152,044
Whitefish (round)	 2,398
Sauger (round)	 469,950
Pike (round)	 161,034
Pike (headless)	 396,031
Pickerel (round)	 759,825
Trout (dressed)	 3,671
Trout (headless)	 1,115
Tullibee (boxed)	 1,341,688
Tullibee (bagged)	 89,046
Total
3,376,802
2.	Yes. The disposal was as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Disposal
Sold for reduction to
fish meal	
Sold to fur farmers for fox and mink feed .. Sold in Toronto retail markets for human
consumption	
Used for filleting and reduction experiments Used in training federal fisheries inspectors
in Winnipeg	
Held for re-inspection as to quality	
Totals	
Quantity (lbs.)	Receipts $
2,328,572	28,889.80
968,687	14,654.00
31,244	3,841.20
35,820	-
9,951	-
2,528	-
3,376,802	47,385.00
The above figures are all subject to final audit.
^HOUSING



STEAM SUBURBAN SERVICE IN TORONTO DISTRICT

Mr. Church:: 1.	What arrangements are being made by the government to secure a steam suburban service from the two national railways to aid the new government housing scheme in the Toronto district?
2.	Will the government confer with the two steam railways of Canada accordingly, to aid in this work?


Mr. Chevrier:: I should like to deal with this question orally. For more than one reason I think it is ambiguous. So far as I am concerned, it is ambiguous because I do not know whether it pertains to the Department of Transport or the Department of Recon-
[Mr. Belzile.l
struction and Supply. But it is clearly ambiguous for another reason. It reads as follows:
What arrangements are being made by the government to secure a steam suburban service from the two national railways to aid the new government housing scheme in the Toronto district?
What does the hon. member mean when he says "aid the new housing scheme"? If it is the ordinary meaning of the word "aid" that is intended, then I do not think there can be an answer. If by "aid" is meant the commuting of passengers from the suburban areas to the city of Toronto, then I would point out that the hon. gentleman has already put that question and has received an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.


Mr. Green:: Could the question be allowed to stand until the hon. member has a chance to review the minister's statement?


Lionel Chevrier: If my statement is correct that the question is ambiguous, it should be reworded.


Mr. Church:: I will read it in Hansard and see what the minister said. I just came in as he finished and was about to sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Have representations been received from persons or organizations representing superannuated civil servants since January 1, of this year, asking for reconsideration of the request for a cost of living bonus or other supplement for superannuated civil servants?
2.	Has the government reconsidered this matter at any time this year?
3.	Has any such reconsideration to this question been given since June 27, 1949?
4.	If so, what is the result of such reconsideration?


Gleason Belzile: The Minister of Finance and other ministers have received a number of representations on this matter this year, and the Minister of Finance has reconsidered the policy on several occasions this year, but he has come to the conclusion that the policy announced in the House of Commons last year and in the earlier session this year should be continued.



GOVERNMENT HOLDINGS

Mr. Caiherwood:: What action is contemplated by the government in regard to the disposition of marketing of the 48 million to 50 million pounds of butter that is held in storage at the present time?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the government's intention to sell its holdings of butter to the people of Canada through the trade, during the period of short supply.



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPEMENT BANK

Mr. Isnor:: 1.	What was the total number of applications received by the Industrial Development bank for the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948?
2.	By provinces, what was the number of applications (a) received; (b) granted; (c) refused; (d) withdrawn?
3.	What number of supervisors are employed, showing their names, addresses and districts served?
4.	Are there supervisors in any one of the four maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland?
5.	If so, what are their names, addresses and districts served?
6.	What was the number of employees and the annual payroll in each of the years 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948?


Mr. Belzile:: 1.	Fiscal year ended September 30; 19451, 485; 1946, 377; 1947, 387; 1948, 391.
ill months.
2.	Details of applications by provinces are not of government record. For Canada as a whole the information is as follows:
Fiscal year ended
September 30	(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)19451 . . .	485	97	160	2281946 	377	169	103	1051947 	387	177	97	1131948 	
ill months.	391	143	159	893. J. C. Ingram,	Toronto-Ontario between	Fort William-Sault Ste.	Marie	on the	west
and Ottawa-Kingston on the east.
D. T. Muskett, Winnipeg-Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario as far east as Fort William.
N. C. Tompkins, Vancouver-Alberta and British Columbia.
S.	R. Noble, general manager, Montreal- all other parts of Canada.
4.	No. Maritime business is handled through the general manager's office.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Number of employees at September 30; 1945, 26; 1946, 44; 1947, 77; 1948, 92.
Total of salaries paid in fiscal year ended September 30; 1945*, $67,443.61; 1946, $128,487.29; 1947, $203,180.12; 1948, $265,440.26 (* 11 months).



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Have any representations been received from (a) trade union organizations; (b) unemployment insurance advisory committees; (c) any other bodies, requesting that the Unemployment Insurance Act be amended so as to make it possible for a recipient of unemployment insurance benefits to continue to receive such benefits even though he becomes ill after being awarded the same?
Questions
2.	If so, has consideration been given to such representations ?
3.	What is the result of such consideration?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: 1.	(a) Yes.
(b)	No.
(c)	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The matter is still under consideration, and an actuarial expert is reviewing same.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY    CONNECTIONS WITH BORDER PORTS

Mr. Winkler:: 1.	Has assistance been asked by the provinces or offered by the government to aid in the construction of first class highways connecting the proposed trans-Canada highway with the main United States border ports?
2.	If so, what provinces, and to what United States border ports?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



RENT CONTROL

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What proportion of residential premises in each province is now subject to rent control?
2.	What proportion of residential premises has been decontrolled?
3.	How many residential premises have been decontrolled in each province, in each month, since the regulations providing for such decontrol came into effect?


Gleason Belzile: In so far as the wartime prices and trade board is concerned:
At the inception of dominion-wide rental control all real properties, with the exception of lands and premises used solely for farm purposes, were made subject to the regulations. From time to time the regulations were relaxed by exempting from either all or part of the regulations a certain class of real property or a certain class of lease of real property. So hotel accommodation was exempted on April 7, 1947; summer cottages, winter chalets, etc., on February 23, 1948; commercial accommodation on March 8, 1948; buildings completed by new construction after January 1, 1947, on June 19, 1947; and self-contained housing accommodation let to a person who was not the tenant on November 1, 1948, on that date. The various exemptions applied to the property itself or the lease thereof as was appropriate in each case. Since these exemptions all were effected by general amendment of the regulations, and the landlords in order to take advantage of the regulations do not have to communicate with the wartime prices and trade board, and since there never has been and is not yet any complete tabulation of every rental in effect in Canada, it is impossible to determine

Questions
the number of residential properties which have been affected by these various exemptions.
The wartime prices and trade board, by its order effective on April 14, 1947, permitted landlords who suffered grievous hardship from their inability to recover possession of their own housing accommodation to apply to a commissioner for an exemption permitting them so to recover possession in accordance with the laws of the province in which the accommodation is situated. It is the duty of the commissioner to consider the hardship of the landlord and also that of the tenant, if he were evicted, and either to grant or refuse such application. To the 31st of August, 1949, commissioners have granted such applications in the following numbers:
British Columbia	 709
Alberta	 316
Saskatchewan	 289
Manitoba	 382
Ontario	 3,845
Quebec	 2,505
New Brunswick	 179
Nova Scotia	 139
Prince Edward Island	 24
8,388
It should be emphasized that such exemptions are not decontrol but merely the granting of permission to the landlord to recover possession for his personal occupancy. So long as the tenant remains in occupancy the maximum rental ceiling is still in effect, and thereafter the premises are not rented but owner-occupied.
Effective November 1, 1948, the wartime prices and trade board permitted landlords who needed housing accommodation for their own personal residence and who had owned it since November 1, 1947, to give to the tenant six months' notice to vacate on forms provided by the board. A copy of such notice must be filed in an office of the board prior to service. To August 31, 1948, such notices have been filed in the following number:
British Columbia	 357
Alberta	 199
Saskatchewan	 219
Manitoba	 245
Ontario	 5,210
Quebec	 3,443
New Brunswick	 133
Nova Scotia	 87
Prince Edward Island	 7
9,900
Again it is pointed out that such notices to vacate are not indicative of residential properties which have been decontrolled. They simply represent demands for possession filed 
in the board's office. If they were served on the tenant, and in all probability the large majority were so served, the maximum rental ceiling applied to the residential accommodation until the tenant vacated, and thereafter the accommodation was owner-occupied. In fact in both these cases and those described in the preceding paragraph the board by a special and individual order on each filing prohibits the landlord from renting or selling the accommodation for a lengthy period.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	How many troops, army and R.C.A.F., took part in "Exercise Eagle?"
2.	How many aircraft took part, and of what type were they?
3.	How many observers and spectators from the services were permitted to watch the exercise?
4.	How many civilian spectators were authorized to attend?
5.	What was the total cost of the exercise?


Brooke Claxton: While I am giving the answer to this question, it should be understood that it is not to be regarded as a precedent for giving similar information in the future about other training exercises.
1.	Army-965 of which 225 were reserve; R.C.A.F.-659 of which 50 were auxiliary.
2.	72-Long range transport, tactical transport, communication, tactical bombers and fighters and trainers.
3.	54.
4.	41 press and radio personnel. No restriction was imposed upon the public, and approximately 500 watched the parachute drop and a further number estimated at 900 watched the action at Dawson Creek.
5.	The exercise was part of the regular training of the forces, and additional expenses over and above pay, allowances, etc., incurred in connection with the exercise for overhaul spares for aircraft, travel, transportation, freight and fuel, amounted to $131,000.



INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

Mr. Argue:: 1.	What nations are participating in the international wheat agreement?
2.	What is the total market available for wheat under the agreement, as presently operated?
3.	What is Canada's share of the total market?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1. Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Ceylon, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Greece, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Australia, Canada, France and the United States of America. In addition to the foregoing countries which have ratified the agreement, the following countries have until

October 31, 1949, to ratify: Brazil, China, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama, Philippines and Uruguay.
2.	456,283,389 bushels, subject to adjustment of quantities upward for importing countries or downward for exporting countries to allow for countries which may not eventually ratify.
3.	203,069,635 bushels, or 44.5 per cent.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Has the government or the Department of Transport received any advice to the effect that the Canadian National Railways intends to discontinue the movement of its transcontinental trains to and from Kamloops Junction to Kamloops station?
2.	If so, what reasons are given for this decision?
3.	Will the government or the Minister of Transport intervene to have the railway continue the service to and from Kamloops as formerly?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Yes, by passenger traffic department, special circular No. E-16/49. This circular was sent to the board of transport commissioners and to the Department of Transport.
2.	The Canadian National Railways advise that until the fall change of time train No. 3, one of Canadian National's two westbound transcontinental trains, operated via Kamloops. Withdrawal at the conclusion of the summer service of one of the two steamers plying between Vancouver and Victoria necessitated the schedule of No. 3 being shortened one hour in order to permit this train to make steamer connections. It was not possible to shorten the schedule of No. 3 sufficiently without eliminating the Kamloops Junction to Kamloops station movement.
3.	It is not the policy of the government or the Minister of Transport to intervene in matters which relate to the internal operation of the Canadian National Railways, but it is open to any individual or organization to make representations to the board of transport commissioners with respect to changes which may be made from time to time in railway services.



FOREIGN EXCHANGE


Mr. Church:: 1.	In view of the devaluation, will consideration be given by the government to providing imperial veterans residing in Canada some allowances for devaluation of the pound sterling?
2.	Will any action be taken?


Mr. Mutch:: Canadians who were domiciled in Canada prior to their service with the British forces have their British awards of pension supplemented by Canada to an amount equivalent to that paid to Canadian
Questions
pensioners under similar circumstances. The recent devaluation of the pound sterling will consequently not affect such pensioners. The only proviso is that such supplementation may only be paid during residence in Canada. Other than the foregoing, no provision exists to pay moneys from public funds to imperial veterans who were non-pre-war residents and have income from some British source on the grounds that their income is affected by the change in rate of exchange.



WHEAT BOARD


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many bushels of (a) oats; (b) barley; (c) flax have been sold and delivered to the wheat board, by provinces, in the period August 1 and September 15, 1949?
2.	How many bushels of each of said grains have been sold by the wheat board during the said period?


Mr. Howe:: For obvious reasons it has not been the custom to give particulars of the current transactions of the wheat board. To publish the information would be to prejudice the operations of the board. I ask that this question be dropped.


Mr. Fulton:: In view of the fact that the hon. member who asked the question is absent, may we ask that it stand pending his return?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; it is not in the public interest to give the information. I would ask that it be dropped.


Mr. Charlton:: A similar question was
asked last year.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	How much of each of the health grants was approved for expenditure in each of the provinces prior to April 1, 1949?
2.	What percentage of each of the health grants was approved for expenditure in each of the provinces prior to April 1, 1949?
3.	How much of each of the health grants was paid to each of the provinces prior to April 1, 1949?
4.	What percentage of each of the health grants was paid to each of the provinces prior to April 1, 1949?
5.	How much of each of the health grants has been approved for expenditure in each of the provinces from April 1, 1949, to date?
6.	What percentage of each of the health grants has been approved for expenditure in each of the provinces from April 1, 1949, to date?
7.	How much of each of the health grants has been paid to each of the provinces from April 1, 1949, to date?
8.	What percentage of each of the health grants has been paid to each of the provinces from April 1, 1949, to date?


Mr. Marlin:: Return tabled.

Orders for Returns


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE
[Stage Direction]
MANITOBA	MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Ross (Souris):: 1.	How many townships in Manitoba have applied for assistance under PFAA?
2.	What locations by township and range?
3.	What are the names and addresses of field inspectors under PFAA, now in Manitoba?


RENT CONTROL
Mr. Isnor:: 1.	Are rental controls in effect at the present time?
2.	Do houses owned by (a) individuals; (b) corporations; (c) trust companies; (d) Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation; (e) crown companies come under rental control?
3.	Has the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at Toronto, or any other city, increased its rental rates during the past six months?
4.	If so, was permission requested and granted?


BEEF CATTLE-EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES   LIVESTOCK OFFICERS
Mr. Isnor:: 1.	What was the total export shipment to United States of beef cattle for the first eight months of the years 1947, 1948, 1949, through each of the following provinces (a) Quebec; (b) Ontario; (c) Manitoba; (d) Saskatchewan; (e) Alberta; (f) British Columbia?
2.	How many livestock officers are located in each of the above provinces?


SUPERANNUATED CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less than $20 per month; (b) $20 to $29.99 per month; (c) $30 to $39.99 per month; (d) $40 to $49.99 per month; (e) $50 to $59.99 per month; (f) $60 to $69.99 per month; (g) $70 to $79.99 per month; (h) $80 to $89.99 per month; (i) $90 to $99.99 per month; (j) $100 per month or over?
2.	How many widows of retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	How many veterans of world war I are included in the figures given in each bracket in question 1?
4.	What is the number of retired federal civil servants and also the number of widows of retired federal civil servants at present residing in each province?



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT


Mr. Fair:: 1.	How many soldier settlers of great war I are still in debt to the soldier settlement board?
2.	What is the total amount of their indebtedness?
3.	How many have paid off their loans and acquired clear titles since January 1, 1948?
4.	Have any reductions in debt been granted during 1948 and 1949?
5.	If so, in how many cases, and what is the total amount of such reductions?
6.	What is (a) the smallest; (b) the largest reduction granted?



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all correspondence that has passed between the government of Canada and the governments of the various provinces in connection with construction of, and in particular the location of, the trans-Canada highway.


Mr. Winiers:: Subject to the usual reservation as to obtaining the consent of the provincial governments.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, subject to the
reservation made by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply.


Mr. Coldwell:: For a copy of all correspondence and telegrams which have passed between the government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan from July 1, 1944 to July 30, 1949, in regard to the trans-Canada highway.


Robert Henry Winters: Subject to the reservation that it would be necessary to obtain the permission of the Saskatchewan government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
1918-19-PENSION RIGHTS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the immediate establishment of a royal commission to examine into the whole question of the pension rights of Canadian Pacific employees who were involved in the strikes of 1918 and 1919, the said commission to have power to determine the settlement that should be made of the matters in dispute and to whom and in what manner any pension adjustments should be made, as recommended by Mr. H. S. Johnstone, Industrial Relations Officer of the federal Department of Labour, in his report to the Minister of Labour under date of December 7, 1945.
He said: I am satisfied that this is a motion the purpose of which has the support of hon. members in all parties in this house. In fact I believe it has the support of the majority of hon. members, and I hope they will vote accordingly. Its purpose is to try to find a way to rectify a gross injustice perpetrated thirty years ago. It may seem strange that an injustice outstanding so long should still be the subject of debate in this House of Commons, but hon. members who were here prior to the last election, and those who were here prior to the election of 1945, will be familiar with the story of the employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company whose pension rights were denied to them because of their participation in certain strikes of 1918 and in the Winnipeg general strike of 1919.

I realize that hon. members who have been here as long as I have, or longer, may feel that the story is well known to them and need not be rehearsed; but so as to refresh their memories, and so as to bring the grievous nature of this injustice to the attention of the ninety or one hundred new members, I should like to touch upon some of the highlights.
As some hon. members know, there were in the years 1918 and 1919 a number of sporadic strikes, particularly in western Canada from Fort William through to the Pacific coast. In addition to these strikes, many of which were of short duration-one that I know of in Kenora, Ontario, lasted for only eighteen hours-there was the general strike in Winnipeg in May and June of 1919. Railway employees became involved in these strikes, particularly in the general strike of 1919. Those involved were mainly the shop crafts, the trainmen, express employees, and a few others. I am not going into the story of the strike itself, nor shall I argue its merits one way or another at this late date; but the fact is that when employees of various companies and corporations returned to work, questions arose about their pension rights. In due course employees of other large corporations and bodies in the city of Winnipeg had their pension rights restored. I refer particularly to the employees of the Canadian National Railways, a few provincial government employees, quite a number of telephone employees, and also employees of the city of Winnipeg, including policemen and firemen. All those employees were on plans which at that time were noncontributory. Yet in a very short time the pension rights of the employees of all these other employers to whom I have referred were reinstated. But not so the employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. They were informed that a rule in the pension plan, which had been in effect since 1903, brought about a condition under which a break in service would cut off any prior pension rights. Another rule stipulated that no one starting to work over the age of forty years could become eligible for pension.
The joint effect of these two rules was that Canadian Pacific employees who were over forty years of age in 1919 lost all the pension rights they had earned up to that time, and were denied entry into or the enjoyment of any pension benefits they might otherwise have earned after 1919. I emphasize that there is that group of men who thirty years ago were forty years of age and over who lost their pension rights in their entirety. In addition to that, employees who in 1919 were under forty years of age, while in due course permitted to enter the pension plan which
Labour Conditions
was brought into effect in 1937, and while given certain rights from 1919 to 1937, were denied all rights they had earned prior to 1919.
This means that we now have quite a number of older men in the first category about which I have spoken who are retired employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, some of whom had thirty, forty or fifty years of service-I know of one who had fifty-four years-but no pension whatsoever. In addition we have men retiring now, year by year, and going on pension, but that pension is reduced from what it should be. They receive only such rights as they have earned since 1919. They lose the rights they earned prior to that year.
For reasons which have been detailed here so often, and which are well known particularly to hon. members from railway centres from Fort William to the Pacific coast, the men affected have felt this was a grievous wrong, and one which should be rectified. They made their own efforts over the years, particularly in 1936, 1937 and 1938, when negotiations were under way in connection with the new contributory plan which was put into effect on January 1, 1937.
During the negotiations for that plan the general chairmen, who represented the trade unions to which these men belonged, tried to have the company reinstate the men who had lost their rights because of the so-called break in service in 1919. The company refused. Even after the new pension plan was agreed to, and even after it came into effect on January 1, 1937, the same general chairmen who had negotiated for the men in respect of the new contributory plan continued to negotiate, and appealed on behalf of the men who were affected because of the 1919 situation.
I emphasize that point because it is sometimes alleged that the unions, and the leaders representing the men, accepted this as an accomplished fact when they agreed to the new pension plan. This is not so.


Mr. Mitchell:: Would the hon. member give the name of the general chairman?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have on my desk, and was about to deal with, a copy of a letter sent out on October 18, 1939, over the signature of Thomas Broad, addressed to all the officers and members of the affiliated lodges-and in this connection the affiliated lodges are those of the C.P.R. system federation, No. 125- telling the members of the affiliated lodges what they had been trying to do on their behalf, and expressing regret that thus far Mr. Coleman, on behalf of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and the others

Labour Conditions
for whom he spoke, had not seen fit to meet their request.
In the letter sent out by Mr. Broad, in which he quoted from a report placed in his hands by Mr. A. McGovern and Mr. J. A. Bell, who were respectively chairman and secretary of the subcommittee dealing with the question of the reinstatement of pension rights, this statement is made by the general chairmen, who carried on representations on behalf of the men:
We have kept in close touch with this matter for a very considerable period of time, always encouraged by the hope that sufficient improvement might take place in the financial condition of the company to enable us to realize the firm conviction which we have always held, that, in such improved conditions at least, some relief might be forthcoming.
One of the main arguments used by Mr. Coleman was that to meet the request made would cost $1,250,000 and, their revenues being what they were in the mid-thirties, the request could not be granted. But the same general chairmen reported the firm conviction, following their dealings with the company, that if there came a period of better revenues, the requests of the applicants might be met.


Humphrey Mitchell: Did the hon. member read the advice of the late Senator Murdock on behalf of the trainmen?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The late Senator Murdock came to see me and to talk with me about this matter on several occasions. If there was one man in this building who kept encouraging me to keep at this matter, it was the same late Senator Murdock.


Humphrey Mitchell: He is not here to speak for himself.


An hon. Member:: Who is making the speech?


Mr. Maclnnis:: Why do you not speak for him?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In connection with the financial position of the company, I hold in my hand annual reports of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the years 1942 to 1948. They show the following as the net incomes of the company in those years:
Year	Net Income
1942		 $48,187,689
1943		 42,982,718
1944		 34,699,830
1945		 31,614,162
1946		 25,134,731
1947		 31,893,942
1948		 27,393,851
These are the net incomes before they paid dividends, which in some years were of the order of $5 million, some years of the order of $11 million, but always a good balance in terms of millions to add to the profit and 
loss account. Yet they still protest that they cannot afford the million and a quarter-and it is less now because of the number of men who have passed away-that it would cost to rectify this injustice.
In view of the efforts these men had made through their trade union leaders to obtain redress from the company, and in view of the further fact that the company had refused to meet them through their leaders, the day naturally came when some of them decided it would be well to see if something could be done on their behalf from the floor of this house. Shortly after I was first elected to the House of Commons, therefore, they came to me, as a representative from the city of Winnipeg, and, as the older members in the house will know, I have been discussing this matter from the floor of the house ever since.
May I point out at this moment that my efforts in connection with this whole problem have divided themselves into two parts: On the one hand I have tried to persuade the government to find some way to rectify the injustice perpetrated in 1919, and on the other hand I have tried to get legislation to prevent the recurrence of this kind of injustice.
With respect to the second matter of trying to get legislation to prevent this from happening again, hon. members who were here in the last parliament will know that that has been achieved. It is now the law of the land that-
No employer or employers' organization, and no person acting on behalf of an employer or employers' organization, shall-
I skip a bit to get down to the meat of the law from which I am quoting:
-deny to any employee any pension rights or benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled by reason only of his ceasing to work after the commencement of this act as the result of a lockout or while taking part in a concerted stoppage of work due to a labour dispute where such lockout or stoppage of work has been enforced by the employer or called by the recognized representative of such employee, as the case may be, after all steps provided or contemplated by law have been taken through negotiation, collective bargaining, conciliation and arbitration to settle such dispute or by reason only of dismissal contrary to this act.
I am reading from subsection 2 (b) of section 4 of the labour code. That amendment was agreed to by this house on June 17, 1948. Hon. members will remember how often I asked for that protection. It means a great deal, not only to the railroad workers but to all workers covered by the federal labour code, to have it in there. I might say in passing that the effect of this parliament passing that amendment has gone even farther. Ontario has adopted the federal labour code in full, and that clause now appears in the labour code of that province.

As I have said before, one of the things that has been most thrilling to me in my experience in public life is the way in which these older men whose cases are still not rectified have rejoiced in the fact that their loss has not been in vain, that there is now such an act on the statute book which prevents it from ever happening again. I want to impress upon hon. members who have heard me speak time and time again on this subject the fact that there is a difference between the bill I brought in year after year, the principle of which is now on the statute books, and the fact that the men who were deprived of their rights in 1919 still have not had that injustice rectified.
In bringing this matter before parliament during the early years of my sojourn here I tried to get the government to look at it in various ways. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) expressed sympathy for the plight of these men, and he used certain arguments which I shall come to in a moment. The minister stated that the letters I was producing from local lodges across the country expressed just local feeling, and that he could not act unless there was a request from the Canadian heads of the unions involved.


Humphrey Mitchell: I never said anything of the kind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister wants it I shall dig up Hansard and show it to him. What did I do? I communicated with the people interested, and in April, 1945, that objection was met by letters being sent to the prime minister from Mr. Frank Hall, of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship clerks; Mr. J. Hampson, of the International Association of Machinists, and Mr. J. J. Hendrick, Canadian vice-president of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. Those three men, along with Mr. Thomas Boyd, of the Brotherhood of Express Employees, a Canadian Congress of Labour railroad union, asked the Prime Minister to establish a royal commission to go into the whole question. Those letters from the trade union leaders whom I have named-all of them the Canadian heads of their unions- were written on April 6, and when no action had followed by April 12 of that year I brought the matter up on the floor of the house and asked the then prime minister if he would give attention to it. As recorded in Hansard of April 12, 1945, the prime minister said that if they had written him making such a request it would certainly receive consideration. A little later in the
Labour Conditions
same exchange that day the then prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, said, as reported on page 818 of Hansard:
I remember having had an experience somewhat similar of a strike in 1910 or 1911 when I was minister of labour, and we were unable to get redress for another twelve years, but we got it eventually. If any wrong has been done in this case-
That is the case I am now talking about.
-I would hope that it might be remedied, even if it took forty years.
I suggest that there is the stamp of approval, of the principle at any rate, of the fight that we are carrying on in connection with this matter, by the former prime minister himself. That was April 12, and only a few days later, on April 24, an officer of the Department of Labour, Mr. M. M. Maclean, was directed by the minister to instruct Mr. H. S. Johnstone, an employee of the Department of Labour, to make an investigation into this matter.
The terms of reference of that investigation were specific, and are set out in the report Mr. Johnstone made later to the Minister of Labour. He was asked to determine whether or not a royal commission should be appointed. That was the task given to Mr. Johnstone by Mr. Maclean on April 24, 1945. Mr. Johnstone conducted a thorough investigation and made a report on December 7 of that year, a copy of which I hold in my hand. It is sessional paper 23 8A, which was tabled in this house on Tuesday, August 20, 1946.
This is a 66-page document. If you read it through you will find that Mr. Johnstone interviewed all the people who were concerned or even related to this question. He interviewed representatives of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Canadian Pacific Steamships, representatives of the former Canadian Pacific Express Company, and of the various unions at both high and local levels. He also saw representatives of the Canadian National Railways in Winnipeg, and of the government of Manitoba, and the city of Winnipeg, in order to get their views of what they had done in the same situation. His report summarizes all those conversations and deals categorically with a number of points that had been in dispute. May I remind hon. members again that the question asked was clear-cut: Should a royal commission be established? This is the concluding paragraph of the report in which Mr. Johnstone answers that question:
It is the opinion of the undersigned that the employees have established strong claims for consideration. The nature and extent for adjustments, if any, cannot be determined except by a more exhaustive analysis than was possible, or even contemplated, in this preliminary investigation. I would therefore recommend that a royal commission be established to examine into the whole ques-

Labour Conditions
tion, to determine what if any consideration should be granted, and if so, then to whom and in what manner pension adjustments should be made.
That is signed by H. S. Johnstone, industrial relations officer of the dominion Department of Labour. I repeat that that is the categorical recommendation from an official of the department following the best and most objective study of this whole problem that has ever been made, and the results of which are contained in this worth-while report.
It took a while to get that report tabled in this house; as I have indicated, it was not tabled until August 20, 1946. When I discovered that Mr. Johnstone's recommendation was so categorical I thought it only reasonable that the government should carry it out. Naturally I began pressing for that action and questioned both the Minister of Labour and the former prime minister on the point. The minister knows that I raised the matter on a number of occasions. Every time I got an answer of some kind.
In the main the minister's answers have been consistent. He has given two reasons for objecting to the carrying out of this recommendation. Incidentally I might say that before we got this report in the house a copy had been sent to the Canadian Pacific, and they produced a memorandum commenting on it, and this memorandum was tabled in the house. We know of course that they objected to the carrying out of this recommendation. But the minister's objections have in the main been two, and one of the best statements of those objections was made in the house on Monday, February 3, 1947. The statement to which I refer can be found in Hansard of that year at pages 35 and 36. It was very early in the session. In the first place the minister said that he had consulted the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice had advised him that the appointment of a royal commission would serve no useful purpose. On subsequent occasions, when I pressed the matter, the minister fell back again and again on that opinion from the Department of Justice. I will deal with that in a moment.
The other point the minister made was made by him after my good friend the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) came to my support with a very fine statement. In fact I think I should read it. It is to be found on page 36 of Hansard of February 3, 1947, and reads:


Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: May I ask the
Minister of Labour a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre? Has the minister no suggestion about finding some sort of justice for those people who were over forty years of age when the Winnipeg strike ended and were denied pensions for that reason? I think the hon. member has that in mind. To say

that a royal commission will not be appointed does not help us very much. Has he no suggestion to offer as to getting justice for these people?
That is the whole point of this motion. I ask the house to pass it so that the government will have the opinion of the house that the government should give consideration either to the suggestion I make, the appointment of a royal commission, or to some alternative suggestion that will secure justice for these men. I shall read the answer made by the Minister of Labour to the hon. member for Calgary West at that time:


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer is simple. The money
does not belong to the government to begin with. As both my hon. friend and the member for Winnipeg North Centre know, this money is the property of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We don't agree.


Humphrey Mitchell: You don't agree with anything.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is easy to see you agree with
the C.P.R.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is the property of the Canadian
Pacific Railway Company, and at the time no. contribution, I understand, was made by the employees to the insurance fund.
Then there are exchanges between the minister and myself of the kind that he and I often have across the floor of the house. The minister makes the point that he does not feel he should be asked to spend other people's money.
Those are the two main arguments against my proposal for a royal commission. The first is the opinion of the Department of Justice that it would serve no useful purpose, and the second is the minister's contention that we should not spend other people's money. As to the first point, I think it is time that members of the house say what they all feel, that the Department of Justice is not a court of law, and that the rulings that cabinet ministers are able to bring from the Department of Justice in support of the stands they take in the house no longer impress us. There have been far too many of them.
In this instance I put against the advice of the Department of Justice the statement I have already read from the report of Mr. Johnstone who said that even after a six months' inquiry it was not possible to reach a final conclusion, but that the problem called for the more exhaustive inquiry involved in a royal commission. That is what a man says who lived with the problem for six months. The Department of Justice brushes it aside by saying that the appointment of a royal commission would serve no useful purpose.


Humphrey Mitchell: After six months he could not make up his own mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no! The minister
apparently has not read the report. Mr. Johnstone certainly did make up his mind. His

Labour Conditions
mind was very clearly made up after studying both sides, and he was of the opinion that the matter should receive the attention of a royal commission. Frankly, if there is no purpose in setting up a royal commission when a grievous injustice is before the country, then let us not have any more royal commissions. It seems to me that the case is clear for giving consideration to this matter, and it is something that the house should call upon the government to deal with.
The other point the minister makes is that it is C.P.R. money. That is one of the issues in dispute, and Mr. Johnstone does not have any trouble making a statement with regard to that. It is found on page 15 of his report, and reads:
Another argument has to do with the employee's equity in pensions. The employee organizations assert that during wage negotiations the company always pointed to the pension plan as one of the benefits accruing by reason of their employment with this particular concern. The company officials interviewed stated that they had never heard pensions being discussed in this manner during wage negotiations.
Look at what Mr. Johnstone says:
The unanimity of the employees on this point makes it difficult to accept the company's statement. It is hard to imagine wage discussions occurring wherein the pension plan was not mentioned in this way. Any established plan of this nature, whether wholly company contributory or not, when maintained for a time becomes one of the established working conditions, and together with the actual wage paid they form the remuneration earned by the employee. The employee argument therefore that by each year of service he is building up deferred earnings in a pension is one which has considerable weight. To be deprived of these past earnings by reason of absence on strike, or absence during a strike, does not seem to be equitable treatment: and all the more so-
I ask the minister to listen to this.
-and all the more so when the decision is made by the party which will thereby save large sums of money as a result of rigid adherence to this rule.
Mr. Johnstone was satisfied that this money, even though it was a noncontributory plan at that time, was an equity that the men had in the funds of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and that in effect the company was taking away from these employees a million and a quarter dollars, or more, if the company says it is more, that had been put aside for them.
I might point out that C.P.R. men who are on pension today draw a pension made up in part of what they have earned by contributing to the new fund since 1937 and in part out of the consolidated revenue fund, shall I call it, of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the years they served from 1919 to 1937. The money was in a different classification from that which is applicable now under the contributory plan, but the principle is the same. In those days the company told 45781-29
the men that this was their money. If you read Mr. Johnstone's report with regard to his interview with the Canadian National Railways, and provincial and municipal governments, you will find the same position taken. They all point out that their plans were noncontributory in those days, but that the result was the same. The money was there for the employees concerned. We are not asking that somebody else's money be given these men. We are simply asking that their own money that was set aside for them be given to them.
Those are the two principal objections that the Minister of Labour has given to the house. I think that the answers to them are unanswerable, and that the house should now pass the motion. In the name of such of these people who are still alive, I plead with the house not to play any tricks with this motion today, not to talk it out, but to take a few hours if necessary to debate both sides, and certainly before eleven o'clock tonight vote on it and ask the government to give consideration to the whole question. As I have already said, if the government has a better plan-


Mr. Carroll:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he think his resolution gives the proposed royal commission power to enforce any award that it might recommend?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the hon. member knows, there are a number of rules that limit what private members can put on the order paper. If we put anything on the order paper that involves, even indirectly, the possible expenditure of money, you know what happens.


William F. Carroll: I did not mean that at all. When a court of law makes a decision as to the apportionment of money, the court of law has power to enforce it. Does the hon. member think his resolution sufficiently definite to enable this royal commission, when it has made its report, to enforce any award that it might make?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like it to be that way, but I know that if I made it that way, even if it were not challenged on a point of order, hon. members on the other side would then argue that I was going too far.


William F. Carroll: Oh, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, yes. The hon. member has been here before; he will soon learn how it goes in this parliament, too. If you put too much into one of these motions you just do not get anywhere with it. I am prepared to leave some of the details to the government. I am prepared to leave it to them to work out the terms of reference of this royal commission. Further, may I say that I worded the resolution in the terms of Mr

Labour Conditions
Johnstone's report. If you read the last few sentences of that report you will find that I am not asking the government to do any of the additional things I might like them to do, but only precisely what Mr. Johnstone recommended to the government concerning the matter which was placed before him.
Before my time runs out I want to refer to at least one other argument which is sometimes advanced in connection with this matter, though I do not recall its having been put forward on the floor of this house. I refer to the suggestion that it might upset the actuarial nature of the C.P.R. pension plan to pay these pensions, and that other employees who came to work in the twenties or thirties might not approve it. As a matter of fact there is a suggestion of selfishness in that argument that I do not find to be present among trade union workers, in particular among railroad workers; but it is an argument sometimes made which should be dealt with. Mr. Johnstone himself deals with it at page 16 of his report, where he says:
The C.P.R. has claimed that in order to restore pensions it would be necessary to raise the employees' contributions under the new plan beyond the present three per cent-
In other words the C.P.R. claimed that if this had to be done they were not going to take the cost out of their own funds but were going to take it out of the pay cheques of the people now working for them. Of course all you have to do is make that suggestion and perhaps you can scare up some fear about it among those now employed by the company. But I can tell the minister it has not worked out in that way. Young men in the Canadian Pacific Weston shops, who for the most part live in my riding, who have been working for the railway perhaps only a few years, are just as much interested as are the older men in having this grievance rectified. Let me continue quoting from that paragraph:
-the inference being that the employees on a system-wide basis would not agree to this. The petitioners in this case are asking for restoration of benefits lost under the old plan-
They are asking for the money that was set aside in the years prior to 1919, and which is now in the consolidated revenue fund of the railway company.
-and it is hardly fair to argue now that the request cannot be granted because it is believed that other persons than the company, namely the present employees, are not prepared to pay for something the C.P.R. failed to provide in the past.
I read that paragraph partly for its own content, but also to indicate that in his report Mr. Johnstone has dealt with all the arguments, and in nine cases out of ten his findings make it clear that the case is on the side

of the men and that the company has not a leg to stand on.
There is one place where he does say the company has something to its credit. It is a minor point, but I am going to refer to it. On page 8 of the report he deals with the case of the employees of the Canadian Pacific Express Company, and points out that a few of these, twenty-three to be exact, who were over forty when they returned to work in 1919, did have their rights reinstated from 1919 down to October 18, 1937, the date settlement was made. The men say this is one case in which the pension rights of men over forty were reinstated, and that this does seem like a point from which the C.P.R. ought to go on and give justice to the rest of the men, But the company comes back and says that in the pension plan of the Canadian Pacific Express Company they did not have tha1 "over forty" clause which has been in the plan of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company since 1903. Even so, says Mr. Johnstone, this is an example of substantial justice which was given a few people, and the mer generally feel it indicates that a break ir service should not interfere with their pension rights.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, and the reasons I have been giving down through the years; and because of the fact that this parliament pronounced itself upon this principle by section 4 (2) (b) of the labour code passed or June 17, 1948, I urge that we should not le' this matter drop. It is true that a number oi these men have died even during the years I have been raising this question on the flooi of this house. It is also true that as the years go by the men who retire and lose part o: their pension rights lose a relatively smallei portion, because this relates only to wha they would have earned prior to 1919. Bu here is a case of grievous injustice. Originally over ten thousand men were involved ii these strikes in 1918-19, but it was not Ion; before the number affected so far as pensior rights were concerned dropped to foui thousand, then three thousand and tw< thousand. So far as I can estimate from my study of the problem, I doubt whether mori than two thousand are affected today. O those two thousand probably less than tw< hundred are affected in full-that is, les: than two hundred of these men were forty years of age thirty years ago and are stil living, but without pensions because they were over forty years of age when they wen back to work in 1919. To those two hundrec men this parliament owes redress of thi: grievance. In addition to the two hundred something less than two thousand, perhapi 1,500, are either now retired on less pensioi

han they should have, or will be retiring iuring the next few years with pensions less han they otherwise would enjoy.
I have said already, and I repeat it, this Darliament pronounced on this principle on Tune 17, 1948. We stated that from then on his sort of thing was not going to happen (gain. We wrote it into the law of the land.
: am not trying to stretch a legal point. I enow that law came into effect only when the ict was proclaimed. It was not retroactive, nore is the pity. But we have accepted the principle that absence due to a strike should lot interfere with pension rights, and having lone so I submit that this parliament should ;ay that that legislation should be retroactive n this instance, at least in principle, so that his grievance may be rectified before all hese men are gone. I plead with the house o treat this matter seriously, and, before his day is over, to see that this resolution lasses.


Mr. A. F. Macdonald (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal if interest while the hon. member for Winni->eg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) presented (is case in support of this resolution. When saw this motion on the order paper I lelieved I could add something to the debate, lecause, while I am not an employee of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, I am imployed by a steam railway in this country.
can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when men md women serve in that important industry hey are made aware of all the rules govern-ng their employment and the operation of rains and their duties. Knowing a little ibout labour matters, and having been imployed in western Canada at the time of he 1919 strike, though not one of the strikers, looked up the pension rule of the Canadian Jacific Railway Company which is in question tere, and it reads like this:
13. Persons voluntarily leaving the employment if the company when their services are required hereby become ineligible for pension allowance.
There is no question about it; it is definitely aid down, and I am sure every employee is iware of the rules governing the pension und and of the fact that the railway had bsolute jurisdiction over that fund. I am ure also that the employees are aware of he rules and regulations which apply when heir employment with the railway is ter-ainated because of the fact that they have eached the age of superannuation.
At the time of the 1918-19 strikes the trikers were participating in a sympathy trike and were using their economic arm in . dispute that was no concern of the railway hat was employing them. It was definitely . sympathy strike. In going out on such a 45781-29J
Labour Conditions
strike the employees did not abide by the pension rules. If I recollect correctly, the union leaders of that day thirty years ago advised the employees-even begged them- not to go out on strike.
The action of the federal Department of Labour has now been called into question. From my own experience I know that the federal Department of Labour is not a dictatorship, but it gives legislative advice to the government. In this country we have enacted labour laws and laws for the handling of industrial disputes. The Department of Labour has the means of conciliation and the machinery to put to work to safeguard the interests of labour and management.
As to the question of pension rights of the C.P.R. employees who were involved in this strike of thirty years ago, in an attempt to clear up this matter the Department of Labour did go so far as to delegate an industrial relations officer in the person of Mr. H. S. Johnstone to make a separate inquiry and report to the department. This he did. The report made by him has been highly praised by labour. But the resolution now before us proposes the establishment of a royal commission to inquire into the whole question. I am certainly opposed to the resolution. The C.P.R. definitely has no legal responsibility to abide by the findings of a royal commission even if those findings favoured the paying of the pension. There is no obligation to do so on the part of the C.P.R. After thirty years have elapsed, if we were to favour the establishment of a royal commission at this time we could only be accused of giving support to the establishment of a pressure group. I am quite sure that the intent of this resolution is to try to prejudge the findings of a royal commission, if one were established, and to use those findings in order to put pressure on the company to do something they have no legal right to do. There is no legal responsibility on the C.P.R.
Then I think there is something really more terrible in moving this resolution after thirty years have gone by, and that is because of the humanity involved. If we vote to establish a royal commission or to find ways of establishing one, we shall raise the hopes of these people that they have a legal right which I believe they do not possess. I am sure their hopes would be raised and that a royal commission, even if one were appointed, could do nothing about the matter.
I hesitated to rise on this matter, but the labour laws of this country are respected and I believe that at this time we have no right to ask for the establishment of a royal commission to inquire into something that has already been dealt with.

Labour Conditions


Mr. W. Ross Thaicher (Moose Jaw):: I am
certain, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution which is before the house this afternoon is one which will be of prime interest to the many railroad workers in the constituency of Moose Jaw. This afternoon therefore I should like to join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in what I at least think is a reasonable appeal to the government.
What does this resolution before us this afternoon ask us to do? It calls for the establishment of a royal commission to examine into the whole question of the pension rights of Canadian Pacific employees who were involved in the strikes of 1918 and 1919, the said commission to have power to determine the settlement that should be made of the matters in dispute. The history of the strike is so well known that I shall not dwell on it this afternoon. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) covered it briefly. Hon. members will, however, recall that back in 1919 approximately ten thousand railroad workers went out on strike. The strike was one of the most unfortunate, I suppose, in Canadian labour history. Finally it was broken. It was crushed by the company. But the C.P.R. were not content merely to crush it. Having done that, they decided that they would also take away the pension rights of the employees by calling the strike a "break in service". As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, employees over forty were cut off from all pension rights and those under forty were cut off from pension rights before 1919. Since that time we have seen representation after representation made by the various railroad unions to the company, all of which have failed.
I think a great deal of credit is due the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for having raised this matter in the house so consistently since 1944. I know that the railroad workers in my own constituency greatly appreciate his efforts. I think it was largely as a result of the plea he made in this house that Mr. H. S. Johnstone, an official of the labour department, was appointed by the minister to investigate this whole question in
1945.	I might say that Mr. H. S. Johnstone is well known to me. He used to be the mayor of Mioose Jaw, and I am sure he is exceedingly capable; he is an able and honest-minded citizen. I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) used great discretion when he appointed him. Mr. Johnstone spent many months speaking with the various people affected by and interested in this strike. Some of the statements he made in his report are fairly interesting to a layman.

For instance, on page 2 he states that a roya commission which had been set up by Si Robert Borden-
. . . recommended specifically to the C.P.R. that th' action of the officers be not considered a break ii service affecting employee rights.
Then on page 14 Mr. Johnstone stated:
In the state of chaos which existed it is conceiv able that many of the absentees were away becaus they genuinely believed they were in danger if the: tried to work; others had good reason to believ they were needed at home; still others might hav presented themselves for work that afternoon, an. finding the premises closed could see no good reaso] for remaining on hand;
Then on page 15 Mr. Johnstone goes on t say:
. . . the employers argue that the strike was illegal If it were, then the proper place to bring punitiv measures is through the courts. The legality o illegality of a strike is not mentioned in the pensio rules, and the fact that the strike is illegal shoul form no part of the decision to withhold or grar pensions.
Then on page 16 Mr. Johnstone continued The C.N.R. has passed through the same experi ence as the C.P.R. The C.N.R. has not regarde absence on strike or absence during strike as dis qualifying a worker for pension.
He went on to point out that the employee of the Manitoba government, the employee of the Manitoba telephone system, and th Winnipeg municipal employees' who ha also gone out on sympathy strikes, did nc have their pension rights taken away froi them. Finally, on page 17 of his report M: Johnstone made a categorical recommendatio as follows:
It is the opinion of the undersigned that ti employees have established strong claims for cor sideration ... I would therefore recommend th; a royal commission be established.
The report is a particularly significant on in view of the fact that it was made by a official of the labour department, and mac by a man who I believe was appointed b the minister himself. The report was mac four years ago, but still nothing has bee done about it. I ask the minister and tl government:	If they did not intend 1
implement Mr. Johnstone's recommendation why did they waste his time, and the tai payers' money, in having him compile report?
The resolution which is before us todt asks parliament to do exactly what one i the minister's officials has recommended-i more and no less.
When representations were made in 191 by the unions, regarding the pensic rights, requests incidentally which had bee made repeatedly, at earlier dates, to M D. C. Coleman, vice-president of the Can. dian Pacific Railway, he said:
We have kept in close touch with this matter ov a considerable period of time, always encourag

jy the hope that sufficient improvement might take jlace in the financial position of the company as to rnable us to realize the firm conviction which we lave always held that in such improved conditions iome relief might be forthcoming.
In other words, the then vice-president 'rankly admitted that there was a moral ibligation on the part of the company, if rot a legal obligation. At that time Mr. Coleman blamed the financial position of ;he company for the inability of the Canadian Pacific Railway to take any action in regard ;o these pensions. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has pointed out, in the last ten years the financial position of the company has greatly improved, it has had very healthy surpluses each year ind considerably augmented revenues. We rave seen the board of transport commissioners grant freight rate increases totalling [ believe about 28 per cent. Surely now ;here is no excuse for the company, if that svas the reason they gave for not giving these pensions. So far as I know, they have made no attempt to live up to the promise which Mr. Coleman made in 1939. Personally I believe that even at this late moment the railroad itself, on its own initiative, should make some attempt to restore these pension rights. Most Canadians would probably agree that there were wrongs on both sides of this dispute. Most Canadians would agree that probably the railroad had certain legitimate grievances. But surely after 29 years, surely after all the suffering that some of these employees have endured, the railroad can at this time afford to be magnanimous, even though belatedly so.
The board of transport commissioners and the government of Canada have been generous with the Canadian Pacific Railway in the last few years. I do not think it would hurt the Canadian Pacific Railway to be equally generous with some of its loyal and faithful employees. If the railway still refuses to act, Mr. Speaker, then this royal commission should be set up. The trade unions have asked for it, and the minister's investigator has asked for it. I do not see why we cannot act. The minister has said that the commission could not force the company to carry out its recommendation; the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald) has suggested that it would not be legal. But surely no one in this house is naive enough to suggest that the board of transport commissioners would not have certain bargaining powers with the railway. I suggest that they use these bargaining powers and use them pretty soon. I believe that it is in the interests of every hon. member, regardless of his politics, to have this matter investigated, and I hope that a
Labour Conditions
vote will be taken before eleven o'clock and that the royal commission will be set up.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up a great deal of the time of the house on this resolution because I have spoken quite extensively on it on another occasion, but I do wish to express the view that it seems to me rather strange the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) did not act upon the recommendations of the Johnstone report, when it was he himself who set in motion the machinery for the commission. It is decidedly poor practice to disregard the recommendations of a commission of the kind that Mr. Johnstone was the chairman of, even though they did not quite coincide with the views held by the Department of Labour. In my view there is a greater need than ever before for the government to set up the royal commission asked for in the resolution, and by that means determine once and for all whether there are sufficient grounds to compensate these men, as requested in the resolution.
I was amazed at the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald). It is a well-known fact of course that railway officials are on call almost all the time, but that does not interfere in any way with this particular subject. The point is, when a strike is in operation the men cannot go back to work. If you made it a general rule that a man must appear for work when a strike is called-whether it is a legal strike or not is not the point- of what use would a strike be? What earthly effect would a strike have if employees had to report for work? In effect, what the hon. member for Edmonton East suggests is that the power of a strike be taken away from workers entirely. If that were done they would have no effective weapon whatever with which to fight large companies. Almost everyone in his senses would regard such a suggestion as utterly foolish.
As has been suggested, the government itself recognizes the power of a strike, because it is guaranteed in the national labour code, and properly so. If the hon. member for Edmonton East kept in a little closer touch with the Department of Labour he would know that.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member was a member of the industrial relations committee and I think he will agree with me that there is no recognition of the breach of contract in the labour legislation of this country.


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not say that.


Humphrey Mitchell: But the hon. member ran around the corner.

Labour Conditions


Charles Edward Johnston: That is just another illustration of why this resolution should be passed. The minister is assuming that I said something which I did not, and he is assuming something else which is not in the Johnstone report. It is wrong to base a judgment on that kind of assumption, and there should be a royal commission to determine once and for all what the facts are.
The hon. member for Edmonton East thought it was a shame to raise the hopes of these poor individuals. What a lamentable excuse! He would throw out the resolution which asks for a thorough investigation of this matter on the ground that it may raise the hopes of these individuals. I wonder whether it is better to raise their hopes or to let them starve to death. Apparently he would prefer the latter. I am quite convinced that the people of Edmonton East, who elected him, even though they be Liberals, would object to an attitude such as that.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: On a
question of privilege, the hon. member is making statements that are quite derogatory.


Charles Edward Johnston: What is the privilege? It is just a matter of opinion.


Mr. Wylie:: He has no privilege.


Charles Edward Johnston: Most hon. members will agree that in the statement he made the hon. member for Edmonton East was wrong all the way through.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: I did not
state-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: I did not
say that men could starve.


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not hear the point of privilege.


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: May I be
allowed to speak on the point of order.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: You can make your speech later on.


Paul-Émile Côté: Speaking to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Edmonton East-


William Duncan McKay Wylie: That does not come under this question.


Paul-Émile Côté: Anyone may speak on a point of order. I understood the hon. member for Edmonton East to say that, unless it could be proved that the findings of a royal commission could be executed or

could be enforced, an inquiry would raise hopes unnecessarily in the minds and hearts of those who were affected by this matter.


Charles Edward Johnston: How would you know
whether the findings and conclusions of a royal commission would raise the hopes of the men until the commission had completed its work? No objection surely could be raised on that ground. They may, and very likely would, rule in favour of the Johnstone report, I am afraid that that is what the governmenf fears, and why it is somewhat reluctant tc set up the royal commission to make a thorough investigation.
As I said at the beginning of my observations, it was not my intention to speak al length because I have spoken about this matter on other occasions. I wish to assure the house however that I am in full accord with the sentiments expressed in the resolution. ] should like to see the royal commission se1 up, and proper attention paid to these men,


Angus MacInnis: Mr,
Speaker, I am going to say only a few words in this debate, because I do not think the case made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) requires support, I do not believe his case could be improved by anything that either I or any member could say in support of it.
I rise merely to draw attention to a question which has been asked in connection with the appointment of a royal commission. This question was asked by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll), and ] believe the same question has been put in more positive form by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald). The hon, member for Inverness-Richmond has asked whether the findings of a royal commission, if enforceable, could be legally binding upon the company. Then, if I heard him correctly, the hon. member for Edmonton East gave il as a categorical statement that the findings of a royal commission could not be legal.
Surely when a royal commission is appointed we do not ask whether its decisions or its findings-it does not make decisions; it makes findings-can or cannot be enforced. That is not the purpose of appointing a royal commission. About a year age the government appointed a royal commission on prices. Was it a prerequisite to the appointment of that royal commission tha1 its findings could be enforced in a court of law? It could make findings against certain companies.
We have appointed hundreds of royal commissions. As a matter of fact, a royal commission is appointed to ascertain facts, following which the government may or maj

not act upon such facts thus ascertained by the royal commission. That is the whole point of this proposed appointment.
Let me go back to the appointment of Mr. Johnstone, who was appointed to investigate this matter and make recommendations. Evidently his recommendations were not binding. Nevertheless he was appointed and he made a finding to the effect that the case should be further investigated by a royal commission, such body or individual having greater moral authority than he would have.
I am positive that, if the investigator had said he did not think a royal commission should be appointed, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) would bring that forward at once as a reason for not appointing such royal commission. He would base his case solely upon that finding. However, the investigator did not do that; on the contrary, he submitted to the Department of Labour that this was a case of importance sufficient to warrant the appointment of a royal commission to ascertain further facts. I suggest that the Department of Labour, or the government on the advice of the Department of Labour, could not go far astray in accepting that advice.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I should think the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Mac-Innis), who spoke last, would probably remember very little of the 1919 strike. You do not need a royal commission, because the point is a simple one.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) has referred to the right to strike. No one is denying anyone the right to strike. There is a fundamental principle in British institutions, namely the sanctity of contract. Let us understand that.
Hon. members will understand that I have some knowledge of the 1919 strike, and had knowledge of it before some hon. members who now sit in the House of Commons resided in Canada. I remember as a young man negotiating an agreement with the Dominion Power and Transmission Company, of Hamilton, one of the vice-presidents of which was the father of the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Gibson). I recall the mental condition throughout the country at that time, and the people who went up and down this country, as so often happens, without any sense of responsibility to the people they are supposed to lead.
Frankly-and I suppose I learned this procedure at my mother's knee-I said to my organization of electrical workers: "If you go on strike in sympathy with these people in
Labour Conditions
Winnipeg, I am through, because I have just negotiated and signed a contract with this company."
I do not have to ask Mr. Johnstone because, you will understand, this is the end of the road. I have to make the decision. There is no place beyond this; this is the pivotal point. I have said before in the house that I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is just kidding these people-that is all. Well, perhaps I should not go that far-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit one question?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In return for the one the minister asked me. Why did the minister appoint Mr. Johnstone to do this job, and why did the minister ask him to report on this matter?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is simple. If my hon. friend is ever charged with any responsibility in the life of this nation, and God forbid-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Answer the question.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will come to the question. During the war I appointed hundreds of conciliators to look into disputes for me-hundreds of them. And my hon. friend must remember that those were difficult days.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This was just before an election.


Humphrey Mitchell: My C.C.F. friends laugh. They laughed in 1939 when they said: Goods but not men; cash on the barrelhead.
In those difficult days I had these problems-and I suggest they were vast problems. I appointed the commissioner, he made his report to me, and I had to make the decision.
I want to say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that I am just as sympathetic toward these people as he is. Let that be clearly understood. It is not a question of sympathy; it is a question of deciding whether you can do anything. May I give a lesson to my hon. friends in this house, whether they are on this side or on the other side, by saying that I am a great believer in the contributory form of pension, whether it be old age, health insurance or anything else. When you pay into something you have a right to say how that money shall be spent. I think the trade unions and the railroad industry of this country followed the right procedure when they established pension plans on a contributory basis, and where committees were set up on which were represented the employers and the employees to decide on matters of policy. My hon.

Labour Conditions
friend may not agree, but I would rather take the opinion of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald).


Stanley Howard Knowles: He did not know what he was talking about.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know my hon. friend is so clever. This world is full of clever people who have got it into such a mix-up that we do not know which way they are going.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is in power in this country?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not casting any reflections upon my hon. friends.


Mr. Fair:: You are doing all right.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think it is the simple things that govern the life and destiny of a nation, but there are some people in this country and in other countries-I have said this before-who feel that, if they can make a thing so complicated that they cannot understand it themselves, then the other fellow should understand it. I have never taken that view. We hear a lot about the law of supply and demand, choose your own weapons and so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't forget the canopy of heaven.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend, who is a clergyman, should know something about the canopy of heaven.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want these people to get some justice before they get there.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not interrupt the hon. member when he was speaking.


Angus MacInnis: Wait until you see Hansard tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister would not have a speech if we did not interrupt.


Humphrey Mitchell: This afternoon the hon. member said that I had said something, but I have not the faintest recollection of it. When two men talk together there is such a thing as confidence between them. I have not the faintest recollection of having said that to my hon. friend. I remember last year he raised the question of my integrity in connection with a file that I had permitted him to read in my office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege, I accept the minister's challenge and before this day is over I shall bring down Hansard to show that he said what I said he said.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member said it this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is accusing me of saying that he said something when he has

no recollection of having said it. I referred to something that was said on the floor of this house and which appeared in Hansard.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am sorry, I will take the hon. member's word for it for what it is worth. This problem strikes at the very roots of contractual obligations as we understand them. I have a vivid recollection as a boy, in Hamilton, of the 1919 strike. I could name the actors in that great labour drama. I think the mistake in Winnipeg was that they took the wrong advice. When you make a contract, it is a contract; when you break it, there is no longer a contract. You have to renegotiate just as they had to do in 1926 after the general strike in Great Britain.
I am sincere when I say that if by following the advice of my hon. friend we could give, not justice but a measure of support to these men, I would certainly go along with him. Do not accuse me of supporting big industry or monopoly capitalism, whatever that might mean, and all that sort of thing, when I say that this is not our money, but that it belongs to somebody else. As was stated by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll), if a royal commission or some other person should make a recommendation, this House of Commons has no power to carry it out. As I have said before, it is far better to tell people the blunt truth as you understand it even though it may not be very popular.
I believe quite sincerely that the setting up of a royal commission would be nothing else but window-dressing. It could not do anything for the people concerned. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) said something about the right to strike-I do not know where he read that; so did the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). That is not the point. The point is that there was a breach of contract. This money belongs to somebody else because it was a noncontributory system. While the powers of parliament are great, there is a limit to those powers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To whom did that money belong?


Humphrey Mitchell: It did not belong to my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To whom did it belong?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is a matter of opinion. The hon. member has been going around in circles.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Johnstone says that it belonged to the men.


Humphrey Mitchell: Who cares about Johnstone?


Angus MacInnis: The minister did at one time because he appointed him.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am reminded of the time when I acted as chairman of a conciliation board in the city of Quebec. I was probably the first trade unionist in the history of the British commonwealth who had been appointed the chairman of a conciliation board and I know whereof I speak.


Angus MacInnis: That does not prove anything.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a minute. I remember my good-looking friend when he was in the city of Montreal many years ago with his nice black hair and all that sort of thing.


Angus MacInnis: I still have the hair.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre reminds me of one witness who appeared before that conciliation board. He talked for an hour and a half and when he left the room I said to one of the commissioners, "I wish you would look through the window." He said, "What for, Humphrey?" I said, "I want you to see if the street railway in this town is running around in circles." He said, "Why do you say that?" I said, "That last witness, the superintendent of the street railway, certainly is."
As I said, it is far better to be frank. These men should be told that, notwithstanding the report of any commission or commissioners, this parliament or this government cannot do for them what my hon. friend wants to have done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, the Canadian Pacific is above the law?


Humphrey Mitchell: Above the law? That is just sloppy talk. I believe that you are rendering a disservice to these men by seeking to have such a procedure adopted when, in my judgment, the matter should be handled by the men's organizations rather than by some politician who never negotiated an agreement in his life. I think that the correct approach is for the men's organizations to go to this particular railway company and submit their case to them, - as they did for a good many years before I was even born. The discussion on the floor of the House of Commons-I am not talking of the basic law-of the day-to-day negotiation of industrial relations renders no service to the men themselves, renders no service to the employers, and certainly does not render any service to the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: From 1942 to 1945, Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of listening to various debates on this question. I am amazed to find a minister of labour taking the position that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) has taken this afternoon, particularly a minister who over the 45781-30
Labour Conditions
years has prided himself on carrying his trade union card and being so closely identified with trade unions, and also in view of the efforts that trade unionists belonging to the railway trades have themselves made.
There are one or two statements made by the minister to which I want to call attention. First of all he charges that those who are pressing this matter today are simply kidding these poor men who suffered an injustice thirty years ago. I submit that, by the same process of reasoning, if the minister is right, then he was also kidding these men when he appointed an officer of his department for the purpose of finding out whether a royal commission was necessary to investigate the matter. I do not see how the minister can escape that conclusion. Of course that officer was appointed just prior to an election, but that is no excuse. I submit that the minister cannot escape the conclusion that, if those who are waging this fight today are kidding these people, the minister also was kidding them, and he must have known he was kidding them.
The minister laid great stress on the fact that this is somebody else's money. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) merely tried to show that the money actually belonged to the employees by reason of their years of service, and was to some extent compensation over those years for that service. There is another point I wish to make. If people are going to talk about C.P.R. money being somebody else's money, I want to place on the record what this parliament and other parliaments have given to the C.P.R. in the past. I quote from the Canada Year Book, 1942, which brings the figures up to December 31, 1940. In terms of acres of land, up until December 31, 1940, according to pages 587 and 588 of the Canada Year Book, the dominion government granted the C.P.R. 26,109,043 acres of land. The provinces of Canada gave to the C.P.R. 10,847,333 acres, or a total of 36,956,376 acres. Incidentally, that is nearly 30 million acres more than was given over the years to what is now the government-owned railway, the Canadian National system.
In addition to that, the government gave cash subsidies to the C.P.R. up to December 31, 1940, of $99,860,984. The provinces gave $14,587,592. Various municipalities gave $4,610,157, making a grand total of $119,058,733, or about $31 million more in cash subsidies than was given to the publicly-owned system. Considering the amount of money that has been given to the C.P.R., it is difficult to understand how the minister can defend his position and defend the C.P.R.
The minister made one other statement, which apparently is a new argument, that contracts had been broken in the old strike,

Labour Conditions
and that the trade union movement had taken the correct measures to try to rectify the situation. In reply I say that the trade union movement and those former employees of the C.P.R. are entitled to some help from parliament. I urge that members of the house support the motion notwithstanding the position taken by the Minister of Labour.


Paul-Émile Côté: I do
not intend to be very long, Mr. Speaker. I should like particularly to answer a few of the points that have been raised by hon. members of the party of the mover of the resolution. Before I do so I think it would be appropriate to review briefly events of some importance which have taken place ever since this subject has been under consideration, either directly or indirectly, by the federal Department of Labour.
The resolution has been inspired by reason of the difficulties which arose out of the Winnipeg strike of 1918 and 1919 in which employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway were involved. A general strike started about the beginning of May, 1919, and lasted for about a month and a half. After it was ended most of the C.P.R. employees were rehired by the company as new employees, and that is the crux of the question.
As a matter of record I may say that not more than a month after the end of the strike the Manitoba government saw fit to set up a royal commission, which of course was within the jurisdiction and responsibility of that government. That royal commission commenced sitting in July, 1919, and held its last sitting on September 10 of that year, after having heard a number of witnesses and conducted independent inquiries into several activities related to the strike. The final report was made to the lieutenant governor in council on November 6, 1919.
The question raised in the resolution now under consideration was allowed to pass, without action being taken on the grievances of those C.P.R. employees in regard to the loss of pension rights, until after January 1, 1937. At that time a new pension plan for C.P.R. employees came into operation, based upon contributions by both labour and management. It was after the new plan had been considered by a joint council of representatives of the company and the employees that the brotherhoods realized the implications of this new plan as against those employees who had taken part in the 1919 strike and who had been rehired after reaching the age of forty.
This matter was dealt with in consultations between the brotherhoods and the C.P.R. for close to two years after the new pension scheme came into force on January 1, 1937. That was the right way to handle this matter,

as the minister mentioned in his short address. This is a matter for negotiation between labour and management. In any case, this negotiation procedure went on for practically two years, from 1937 to 1939, but did not bring about the concrete results for which the C.P.R. employees were looking. In 1944, twenty-five years after the end of the strike, during which period of time nothing had been done through the usual channels of collective bargaining except during 1937 and 1938, the matter was brought to the attention of the house. I give credit to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for having raised the question here. I should like all hon. members and the country to realize that the government has been most sympathetic to the case of those my hon. friend had in mind when he raised this question in 1944; and I shall attempt to show that in the course of events which followed the Department of Labour and the minister did their utmost within the bounds of their jurisdiction to impress upon the company that certain wrongs should be redressed.


Mr.   Johnslon@: Was that why they set up the Johnstone commission?


Paul-Émile Côté: My hon. friend will note that the setting up of the Johnstone inquiry at least provided ground for further negotiation with the company; and if it had been at all possible to reach a satisfactory conclusion through bargaining, the facts brought out in the Johnstone report certainly would have contributed to that agreement. If that inquiry had not been directed by the minister this question would have been considered closed as of 1945. It was the hope that, by having that inquiry conducted and then sending a copy of the report to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, it would be possible to find some sort of compromise, some sort of agreement; and communications were exchanged between the company and the federal Department of Labour over a period of many months.


Mr.   Johnsion@: What are you going to do with it now, since it did not support the opinion of the government?


Paul-Émile Côté: If my hon. friend will allow me to proceed I shall be glad to give my views on what would be the advantage or otherwise of setting up a royal commission.
It was in 1944, I said, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre brought up the matter while the house was discussing the labour angle of the war appropriation bill. At that time the basic argument he presented was that since other important bodies

such as our own government, the provincial government, the city of Winnipeg and the Canadian National Railways had solved a similar problem to the advantage of the employees concerned, there was no reason why the C.P.R. should not fall into line and abide by this precedent, if I may call it that, which had been set by the others concerned. What was the answer of the minister? Let me quote what he had to say on that occasion. As a matter of fact he did not undertake to do anything more than he and his department have been doing since 1944. Here is what he said, as it appears at page 2508 of Hansard for May 1, 1944:
I shall be very glad to do whatever lies within the power of my department to bring to the attention of the railway concerned the observations made by my hon. friends this afternoon.
Other hon. members had given their views on the matter, including the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Fort William. This reply by the minister clearly indicated that the ground on which the minister might act was the humanitarian ground. Nothing was said in one way or another which would permit the inference to be drawn that the minister committed himself to set up a royal commission, or that he committed himself to force the hand of the Canadian Pacific Railway if any favourable conclusion was reached which might be used in that way.
After that what happened? On May 19,
1944,	negotiations were initiated with the company. My hon. friend has seen the file, which I may say is one of the thickest in the industrial relations branch of the department. On that date a communication was addressed to Mr. W. M. Neal, vice-president of the C.P.R.; and thereafter the minister took it upon himself to suggest to the company that a meeting should be arranged to be attended by representatives of the brotherhood of railway and steamship clerks, the brotherhood of express employees, the brotherhood of railway trainmen and another organization known as the Canadian merchant service guild, which had made representations. It was suggested that these people should meet with the responsible railway officials under the auspices of the Minister of Labour, and try to thresh out this whole matter and find some satisfactory basis of agreement.
The meeting took place on February 19,
1945,	and the labour bodies I have mentioned were represented at it. It lasted a good length of time but was not fruitful in results. This was the first concrete attempt of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) as conciliator in this important matter. On April 24, 1945, the principle of an inquiry by one of the officers of our industrial relations branch was agreed
45781-30J
Labour Conditions
upon, and instructions were forwarded to Mr. H. S. Johnstone who was at that time stationed in Winnipeg.


Howard Charles Green: Where is he now?


Mr. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: He is at the
head office here in Ottawa.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After what the minister said about him today, we wondered where he was.


Charles Delmar Coyle: The instructions were precise and contained no restriction at all. Having regard to the high praise which my hon. friend and his colleagues have accorded Mr. Johnstone and the extensive factual report he made, one will realize that what the minister had in mind in instructing Mr. Johnstone was the obtaining of all the pertinent facts of the situation in order that he might be in a position to decide whether or not any useful and legal action could be taken here. This inquiry went on for a certain length of time. It was only on December 7 of the same year that the report was made to the minister. Shortly after receipt of this report, the first action of the minister was to send a copy of it to the Canadian Pacific Railway. My hon. friend will recall, as will some labour unions, having voiced a certain complaint because of not having received a copy of that report when one had been sent to the company. The answer of the minister was that in the particular circumstances of this case the negotiations had to go on with the company, and that this fact-finding report could serve some purpose with the company. As to the unions and as to my hon. friends, they were fully aware of all the circumstances discussed in the report. The idea behind this inquiry and behind the sending of the copy of the report to the company was in order to provide another ground for discussion and negotiation and possibly hope for a satisfactory solution. As a matter of fact, the report was taken under advisement by the company for several months. During that time communications were exchanged between the company and the department. On May 26, 1946, the company made known its views on the Johnstone report.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question with regard to a matter of fact?


Paul-Émile Côté: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the parliamentary
assistant say how many communications dealing with the substance of the argument were exchanged between the Department of Labour and the company during that period from December, 1945, until May, 1946?


Paul-Émile Côté: I could not
say.

Labour Conditions


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think there was only one.


Paul-Émile Côté: The only thing my recollection helps me to say is that the company and the Department of Labour kept in contact with each other during that interval. Exactly what the underlying purpose of the communications was, except that they were related directly to the report of Mr. Johnstone, is something that I could not say. I have not them here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Only one exchange during that period was tabled in the house.


Paul-Émile Côté: I could not
answer my hon. friend's question now, but I shall be pleased to give him precise information if he wishes to have it. But the point of fact is that this report, in the opinion of the department, is the best possible ground that could have been supplied, under the circumstances, to resume deliberations and negotiations looking toward a possible settlement of the dispute.
If I may, I should like to quote a word or two from the answer to the Johnstone report received from the C.P.R. company. This letter was tabled. My hon. friend is fully aware of the purport of that report. If, in quoting from this C.P.R. answer, I do not take time to go over the Johnstone report itself, the reason is that basically this is a problem of negotiating with a company that is on extremely solid ground in its attitude until such time as the word "voluntarily" contained in pension rule No. 13 has been cleared by the proper authorities; and by that I mean the courts of justice, not a body such as the House of Commons. In view of the nature of the pension scheme, which was a noncontributory one until that time, the C.P.R. company was absolutely free, in a free country like this, to give an honest interpretation to pension rule No. 13, and more particularly to the word "voluntarily", which provides that any employee who has voluntarily left the employ of the company at a time when his services are required shall be disqualified and barred from any rights deriving from the pension fund.
The company is absolutely on sure ground, I would say, because of that rule. It is with the company that one must conduct his negotiations or his bargaining if he wishes to get any satisfactory result. The answer by Mr. W. Manson, vice-president of personnel of the Canadian Pacific Railway, is dated May 26,
1946.	It is relatively brief. I will not quote it in extenso but I wish to point out these particular references in a specific way. The first one reads as follows:
In the report of Mr. Johnstone, accent has been placed upon the difficulty of determining whether

particular employees were or were not strikers and whether they were or were not justified, as a result of intimidation or other causes, in remaining away from work. The company gave the employees concerned every opportunity at that time and in subsequent years to establish that their absence from work was justified and that they did not participate in the strike. In cases where this was established no pension disabilities were suffered. It is difficult to see how a royal commission, investigating this matter after so many years have elapsed, could properly be expected to develop all of the facts in regard to which most, if not all, of the evidence must necessarily be lacking.
And the following paragraph:
Quite apart from the foregoing, the appointment of a royal commission in the circumstances would imply the assertion of an intention on the part of the government to assume absolute and detailed control of the pension plan of private corporations, and of every detail of their execution. I hesitate to believe that the government accepts this as a normal part of its functions.
In giving these quotations I do not wish to be taken as the spokesman of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is not my intention, and it has not been the intention of the department, to do anything but try to find some way to effect some redress which may seem to be necessary in that particular situation. If I have quoted these sentences from Mr. Man-son's report it was to show what the department was up against throughout these negotiations with the company from 1944 down to today.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) replied to the arguments of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald) in a very clever way. He said: If the department's objections to the initiating of proceedings of a royal commission lie exclusively or mainly in the fact that the department does not see how the findings in the report could be enforced or executed in some way, what about the royal commission on prices? Speaking for myself, I say that when the government authorized the setting up of a royal commission on prices it did so on the ground that throughout the war years, and after the war in a lesser way, the government assumed a certain responsibility to try to contribute to correcting a situation which was the source of complaint across the country. That was different. In this particular case we are dealing with property and civil rights. We are dealing with a pension fund which was set up by a company without any participation from the employees. The company was entirely responsible financially for the administration of that fund. There was no joint council formed of employees on the one side and the representatives of management on the other. The company was the absolute owner and ruler of this pension fund.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is he not aware of the fact that the authority for railway pension funds is to be found in the Railway Act.


Paul-Émile Côté: Section 122.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Paul-Émile Côté: I have the
section here. Section 122 of the Railway Act gives full discretion to the directors of the railway company to set up a pension scheme. My hon. friend found it more appropriate to drop his bill amending the Railway Act, which he introduced two years ago, and submit an amendment to the then draft labour bill which was before parliament, and which was passed as the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. The amendment which my hon. friend sponsored makes it an unfair labour practice to all intents and purposes in all fields of jurisdiction, which come directly under the federal government, to jeopardize the acquired rights to a pension fund of an employee who is affected by a stoppage of work either through a lock-out or through a strike, when these stoppages of work are permissible under the act; that is, when all the negotiation procedures have been complied with. The placing on the statute books of that type of protection for employees is more far-reaching than it would have been had it been done in the form of an amendment to the Railway Act. That is why my hon. friend was better advised to do it in the way in which he finally did it.
There are a few questions to which I should like to direct my attention for a few moments. I may not give a conclusive answer to them, but I cannot help picking out a few of them and giving my views on them.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said that the Department of Justice should not be a court of law. In this particular instance I am amazed that the brotherhoods have waited such a long time, from 1919 to 1937, without challenging in the courts the interpretations which the Canadian Pacific Railway gave to rule 13 of the pension fund. In my opinion, the Johnstone report has brought some facts to light. In his participation in various debates in this house the hon. member has referred to several cases where I think a very good case could have been made before the courts if the absence from work was not a voluntary one on account of special circumstances during that time. If that were true, then I think the employee involved in that particular case would have had a good case before any court of justice to have rule 13 applied to himself in a favourable way. In matters
Labour Conditions
such as this, it is not for the federal parliament to interpret the pension rule.
Some hon. members have said that some men had very good cases for the restoration of their pension rights. I am inclined to agree with that. I am inclined to believe that a good many may not have availed themselves of the opportunity, which the company, through the vice-president, Mr. Manson, mentioned in the report from which I have quoted. In the report it is plain that the company did not refuse to look into the matter of any particular case which was brought to its attention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How many of these were rectified?


Paul-Émile Côté: I could not say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In his report Mr. Johnstone says that the company documented a great many of them but all were rejected.


Paul-Émile Côté: I could not say how many were accepted or rejected; but unless my hon. friend challenges the statement of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and says that no opportunity was given, or that no hearing was granted in a particular case, I have to take that statement. Even if it happened that one hundred per cent of the cases were turned down, and on this I have no data, that would be only an additional reason for the employees to go to the courts. If they were not satisfied with the attitude taken by the company, based on the special interpretation given to pension rule No. 13, that course would be open to them.
If I may return the compliment to the hon. member, and ask him a question, I would ask if there has been a single case of this kind presented in some way or another before a competent court of justice in Manitoba or in any other province. I do not know, but I do not think a single case has gone to the courts.
The question has been raised by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) as to the ownership of the pension fund. I believe the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) raised a similar point. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) during his observations referred to the attitude taken by the company, when on occasions they have expressed a feeling of moral obligation, and have indicated that if the financial position of the company warranted it, or improved to a reasonable extent, they might try to bring about a remedy.
Nothing has been said to show conclusively this afternoon that there was legal ownership, by the employees, of the pension fund of the Canadian Pacific Railway as it existed before 1937. There may have been a moral obligation on the part of the company in at

Labour Conditions
least a few exceptional cases, and where there was good faith on the part of the employee. This was the point I mentioned a few moments ago in support of my contention that this would have given rise at least to an opportunity for presentation before a court of justice for the purpose of obtaining an interpretation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Courts deal with legal obligations, not moral obligations. If I may interrupt, may I say that that is exactly the point, namely that it was a moral claim the men felt they had; and, because they realized they could not establish a legal claim, no case was taken to court.


Paul-Émile Côté: It was a moral obligation on the part of the railway, in view of the fact that the interpretation they gave to pension rule 13 did not bind them legally. That was their viewpoint. If on the other hand the employees thought that the interpretation of the company was wrong, they could claim the legal right to their share of the pension fund, and could apply to the courts of justice to have their interpretation of the rule prevail over that of the company.
The hon. member for York South has said that throughout the transactions, since 1944, and more particularly when he decided to send a special investigator in the person of Mr. Johnstone to Winnipeg, the minister was kidding. As I have tried to show during my observations, the Johnstone report has provided a new ground from which to start fresh negotiations with the company. This inquiry has provided a new picture of the situation, and has allowed the department to re-establish its contact with the company and thus to begin negotiations anew. There can be no doubt that this was done in the best of good faith, and for the best of purposes.
I believe I have set out a fair outline of what the stand has been by the Department of Labour throughout the past five years, since this matter has been brought to the fore. The department has been trying to act in the capacity of negotiator between the company and the employees; at the same time it has never admitted any direct responsibility, other than that of its deep interest in and sympathy with the fate and the distress of a certain number of men.
In 1904 when the pension fund was set up by the company-and this is the focal point of the whole situation, from a legal standpoint-it was done of its own free will, and without any interference from any governmental group or union representatives. This was done through the wish of the company to better the welfare of its employees- at least it was so taken at the time. The company remained entirely responsible for it.
tMr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle.)
It seems to me the employees might have been well advised to decide before 1937 to show a direct interest in the management of the fund. I do not know whether they did or not, but the fact is that they did not have any link whatsoever with the administration of the fund until 1937, when the new plan was set up. The company was free to set up the scheme and to manage it as it chose, under its own rules and formulae. This is the situation which confronted the employees at the time of the 1919 strike.
After thirty years there is nothing the Department of Labour can do beyond its own jurisdictional bounds. The department has done its utmost, and I suggest this once more illustrates its deep interest in matters of concern to labour. Since 1944 we have accumulated a file which challenges in physical content any other file in our department. At least we have done that. The department claims that the only corrective measure which can be obtained would be through the procedure of negotiations. We have exhausted all those procedures.
Now we are faced with the suggestion set out in the resolution that a royal commission be set up. It is true that the recommendation of the Johnstone report is to that effect, and the hon. member has quoted the concluding paragraph in the report which, it seems to me, indicates clearly that the industrial relations officer, Mr. Johnstone, thought there was sufficient information of importance and concern which he had gathered to justify a more complete inquiry. It was his suggestion that a royal commission be set up, and he was speaking of course as an industrial relations officer.
It is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and the government to decide whether a royal commission should be resorted to to settle a problem such as this, which is not within the competence and jurisdiction of this government or parliament. The responsibility of government obliges it to take an attitude one way or another; and the attitude that has been taken is that the setting up of a royal commission would serve no useful purpose whatsoever.
Now that all possible grounds of negotiation with the company have been covered, what would be the use of permitting this inquiry to prolong itself over months, perhaps years? What would be the purpose of spending public money to an unknown extent?- because, in the past, some royal commissions have been quite costly. What would be the purpose in doing all this unless there was some way of carrying out the findings of such a commission to relieve a situation which affects these employees who lost their pension rights with the Canadian Pacific in 1919?

That is the position taken by the government. The Department of Labour wishes labour to know that it has done everything humanly possible to co-operate in this matter and to attempt to arrive at a satisfactory solution. The department cannot go any further without interfering with the jurisdiction of somebody else. If we set up a royal commission and tried to implement its recommendations there is no doubt that in one way or another-my hon. friends know what I am referring to-the matter would come before the courts and it is as clear as crystal that it would be declared ultra vires. We have no right to go beyond what we have done already in an attempt to bring about a satisfactory conclusion.
I conclude by reminding my hon. friend that his interest in this matter since 1944 has brought some results. He has achieved one of his purposes by having placed on the statute books labour legislation which would prevent any such action being taken in the future as a result of a strike or lock-out. He is now asking us to interfere with something that happened thirty years ago, to adopt a procedure which would force the company to take retroactive action back that far. He is asking us to attempt to remedy a situation which is essentially a matter of collective bargaining.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) mentioned this afternoon that he could not go so far as to set up a royal commission because jurisdiction does not lie with the federal government. Therefore, I think the hon. member would be wise not to go further with this matter. His resolution has served his purpose in bringing about a useful discussion and has given the government an opportunity to voice its views on the matter. The hon. member should not insist on this matter going any further. It has become insoluble because action could not be forced on the company.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lamblon West):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief in speaking to this particular resolution. I think a good many hon. members believe that the government did recognize certain of the rights of these employees, because it set up an inquiry. If those rights had not been recognized I think all members will agree that this or any other government would not have set up any such inquiry. I am quite sure that all hon. members are anxious that justice be done to these men. However, we must remember that these men are members of one of the strongest and best organized unions in this country. If effective steps are to be taken there is a recognized procedure by which the union can assert the rights of
Labour Conditions
its members. Unless the government is prepared to present its views to the company and urge them to follow a particular course, the present resolution will produce no practical results.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, if I were still representing exactly the same constituency that I represented in two previous parliaments I would not have to get up and say anything today, but at this time I am representing many railroaders. I want to take only a couple of minutes to endorse what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) have said. I want also to assure the house that I am wholeheartedly behind those members in the request they made.
I listened attentively to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cote) when he put forth a wonderful argument against this resolution. I congratulate him on making a good defence of a poor case. I would have no hesitation in hiring him if I thought I was on the losing side.


Mr. Sinclair:: What about June 27? Were you on the winning side then?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member certainly was in Selkirk.


William Scottie Bryce: It has been said in argument that the Canadian Pacific has no obligation toward these men. I have been a machinist and for part of my time I worked in railway shops. When you hire with the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian National or any other company which has a pension scheme, that is taken into consideration along with the wages you are to receive. You consider that you are providing for a rainy day, that you are preparing for the time when you get to the end of the road. I think these men were quite justified in expecting that. The money really belonged to them.
The Department of Labour felt some obligation in the matter because they appointed Mr. Johnstone to investigate. Several hon. gentlemen have referred to the results of that inquiry. I did not like the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) accusing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre of kidding the people. I do not think there is an hon. member of this house who comes down here to kid the people. If we have any such intentions, we should not be here.
The minister may disagree with me or any other member, but I think he should credit us with being sincere. I want you to believe that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is sincere in bringing up this matter. Men in my constituency have come to me to ask that

Labour Conditions
I support this resolution in an effort to get some help for them. Many of these men are older than I am but they worked in the railway shops when I was there. They are now getting only a small pension. If their pension time dated back to 1910 or 1911 they would have enough to live on. Many of them cannot get an old age pension to augment what they are getting now.
I intend to be brief and I shall say no more than that I support this motion wholeheartedly. I hope the government will not turn it down but will do something about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just before the question is put-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaks now he will close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will be very brief in closing the debate on what I regard as an extremely important matter. I noted that it was still put forth as an argument a good many times, especially by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), that the money involved is someone else's money. As I tried to indicate by means of an interruption in the minister's speech, I agree that it is someone else's money. In fact I agree with Mr. Johnstone that morally the money belongs to the men.
May I point out that right now the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is having the experience of paying out money that is in the same category. Reference has been made repeatedly to the new contributory pension plan that came into effect on January 1, 1937. A man who retired from the C.P.R. in 1948, and is today on pension, is receiving a pension made up in part of what he has earned out of the contributory fund since January 1, 1937, and in part of his stake in the noncontributory funds prior to January 1, 1937. We are simply asking that the recognition that there is money there in the general funds of the C.P.R. that belonged to certain men be extended to cover these other men.
Another argument put forward forcibly by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cote) was to quote considerably rule 13, from the old rules, and contend that there was a voluntary staying away from work on the part of these men. Of course whether or not it was voluntary is one of the matters in dispute. That is one of the reasons a royal commission is needed. In his report Mr. Johnstone says that was one of the matters that had to be considered by the Canadian National Railways, and they decided

that, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the Winnipeg general strike, they could not make a blanket decision that all these men stayed away on a voluntary basis. Mr. Johnstone says that some of these men, for example, reported for work during the day and found that the place had been closed because of difficulties and disturbances earlier in the morning. The position that the hon. member for Verdun-La Salle (Mr. Cote) took is challenged by the report of Mr. Johnstone, which again is a reason why the whole question should be gone into more thoroughly, more objectively, and more judicially, as we feel it can be done by a royal commission.
I listened with interest to the recital which the parliamentary assistant gave of the things the Department of Labour has done, but it seemed to me that at times he was putting a very good front on it. As I recall the months between December, 1945, and May, 1946, that is the time between the date of the Johnstone report and the reply of the C.P.R., all that is shown in the correspondence that has been tabled in the house is that the Minister of Labour shipped the Johnstone report to the C.P.R., and then there were several letters asking the C.P.R. to send their reply because it was being demanded in the house. Finally, in May, the report came back, and the C.P.R. reply with it.
Despite the recital that the hon. member has given this afternoon, I am not satisfied that the government has done what he says, namely, its utmost. He can say that the government has done all the things he has indicated, but until the government is prepared to set up a royal commission to go into these matters the government cannot say that it has done its utmost. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in the name of justice for these citizens of Canada who have suffered this injustice so long, I plead with the house to call upon the government to give the consideration asked for in the resolution. Now that the debate on the matter is over I hope that the house will approve the resolution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was paired with the hon.	
member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis).	
Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was paired with the hon.	
member for Souris (Mr. Ross). If I had voted,	
I would have voted	against the motion.
Privilege-Mr. Knowles Mr. McCubbin: I was paired with hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. During the debate this afternoon the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and I had an exchange which ended amicably when he accepted my word as to certain statements that I had made. However, I rose during that exchange and indicated that I was prepared to accept his challenge to bring Hansard down before the day was over, and show that what I had quoted him as saying was on the record. The matter had to do with my saying that in 1944 the Minister of Labour was not satisfied with representations that I brought on the floor of this house from local railway lodges, but that if he received a request from the Canadian heads of the unions involved his department would act on such a request. The minister at first denied making the statement. Later he implied that this had been said to me in confidence. Still later he accepted my word. I now wish to document my statement by pointing out that this all appears in Hansard of July 24, 1944. The list of local lodges to which I referred takes about a column of page 5267. Then on page 5269 the minister said:
The hon. gentleman read a certain number of' letters from local organizations.
Then he went on in his usual way to refer to them and ended up by saying:
But if I were to get a request from the parent organization-and as my hon. friend from Cape Breton South knows probably as well as I do, they always deal with their national organization in matters of this kind-I should be glad to endeavour to arrange a conference if possible between the company and the organizations concerned.
A similar statement was made by the minister a few moments later, as recorded on page 5271 of the same day. I will not take the time of the house to read his repetition of his insistence on any request coming from a parent organization, but I thought it only fair that it should be clear that the statement I attributed to the minister was not something said in confidence but a statement made on the floor of the house.

Social Security SOCIAL SECURITY



REQUEST FOR FORMULATION OF NATIONAL PROGRAM

Angus MacInnis: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should seek the co-operation of the provinces for the purpose of formulating a program of social security that will be national in scope, adequate in its provisions, and that will cover all citizens of Canada in every circumstance where the individual or the family is, for any reason, deprived of the opportunity of earning a living.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely glad to have the opportunity of moving this resolution and of expressing my views in regard to the subject matter of it. I think this is the fourth session of parliament in which I have had this, or a similar, resolution on the order paper, but because of the urgency of government business at other sessions, which eliminated private members' days, or because my resolution was too far down on the order paper to be reached, this is the first opportunity I have had of moving it in the house.
Perhaps it is well that the resolution should be moved now. We have had an election in which every party represented in this house has had a social security plank in its program, and as far as I have been able to learn through following the reports of speeches of the candidates of the various parties they too advocated a policy of social security improvement. As far as I can remember, most of the members from my own province told their constituents that if they were sent to represent the constituencies in this house they would advocate social security improvement on the floor of the House of Commons.
I have tried, Mr. Speaker, to make the resolution as short and as explicit as words could possibly make it. I do not wish to have any misunderstanding of what I am urging. Briefly the resolution asks this house to endorse a nation-wide social security program.
For convenience in debate the resolution may be divided into four parts. First, it asks the government to seek the co-operation of the provinces for the purpose of formulating a program of social security. In my opinion this is the obvious first step since social service or social security is by our constitution a provincial responsibility. However, it has been demonstrated that it is a responsibility which most of the provinces are not able to discharge.
Second, the resolution proposes that our social security program be nation-wide in scope. That is, as far as the federal government is concerned, the benefits paid and the conditions under which they are paid shall be the same in every province in Canada.

Third, that our social security program be adequate in its provision; that is, that the benefits, in the absence of any other income, shall be such as to assure a minimum but adequate standard of living.
Fourth and last, that the social security benefits should be available to every citizen of Canada who is deprived, by reasons beyond his control, of the opportunity of earning a living.
The points I have outlined are the essential requirements of a social security program. Indeed, I think they are all the essential requirements of a social security program for Canada and I believe that anything less would not be adequate. I could produce many reasons, economic and social, as to why social security measures provided by the state are becoming increasingly essential to larger and larger sections of our people. I do not believe it is necessary for me to take the time to do that. Almost everyone realizes that they arise out of economic and social development, economic and social progress, if you like, over which we have little control. But apart from these reasons there are humanitarian considerations which provide sufficient grounds for this parliament enacting such a program. As far as this house is concerned I should like to believe that the humanitarian considerations would be sufficient in themselves.
May I draw to the attention of hon. members the fact that an additional reason why we are entitled to look to the state for assistance is that when the state feels it is in need it can and does require not only the service of its citizens but their lives as well. I claim therefore that if the state can call upon a citizen in its time of need, the citizen should be able to call upon the state in his hour of need. While I refer to "the state", I do not want the house to conclude that I refer only to the federal government. It will be noted that in the resolution I ask that the federal government seek the co-operation of provincial governments for the purpose of working out a complete system of social security.
I do not propose either that everything should be centralized here in Ottawa. However, in co-operation between the dominion and the provinces, it should be made clear as to what the provinces are prepared to do and what the dominion government is prepared to do in order that among the eleven governments we would have a complete system of social security.
When the federal government of 1945 laid the green book proposals before the provincial governments, an attempt was made along the lines I am now suggesting. Failure at that time does not mean that we should

accept failure for all time to come. The proposals made in 1945 by the federal government are as valid today as they were then.
Not only that, but I am convinced that the need for social security is more pervasive among our people today than it was at that time. May I quote briefly from the proposals of the government of Canada, which are generally referred to as the green book proposals. The opening section of the government's proposals, entitled "National Problems and Objectives", outlines what the government in 1945 saw as the national problems, and the means it intended to take to solve those problems.
At page 7 of this book are found these words:
The government has clear and definite views on how these objectives can be obtained.
The objectives were, in the main, prosperity and security for the people of Canada. It continues:
These views may be summarized very briefly as, first, to facilitate private enterprise to produce and provide employment;
Secondly, to promote-
And I would ask hon. members to notice this one carefully

-to promote bold action by the state in those fields in which the public interest calls for public enterprise in national development;
Thirdly, to provide through public investment, productive employment for our human and physical resources when international and other conditions adversely affect employment; and.
Fourthly, to provide on the basis of small regular payments against large and uncertain individual risks, for such hazards and disabilities as unemployment, sickness and old age.
I am dealing tonight only with the fourth item. I should like to read further from page 8, two short paragraphs which really state my position as well as or better than I could state it myself:
Because Canada is a federal state these responsibilities are shared by the federal and provincial governments. This division of responsibility should not be permitted to prevent any government, or governments, in co-operation from taking effective action.
What I am asking tonight is not only that the house approve my resolution, but that it approve what was put forward by the government of 1945, and that this government take effective action as quickly as possible. May I read on:
To devise a working co-operative arrangement to a common end, in harmony with our federal system, is the main purpose of this conference.
That is the conference which was called to discuss these proposals. It continues:
It is with these considerations in mind, and in search of common ground for agreement, that the government presents its proposals. These proposals assume a broad federal responsibility, in co-operation with provincial governments, for establishing
Social Security
the general conditions and framework for high employment and income policies, and for support of national minimum standards of social services. They also assume that provincial governments should be in a financial position to discharge their responsibilities adequately.
My resolution is quite in harmony with the proposals and, I must presume, with the policies of the government of that time. Because of the size and constitution of this country, decentralization of administration to the provincial level is in my opinion not only desirable but imperative. People intimate with local conditions can make a much better job of dealing with human beings than can those who are remote. It makes a great deal of difference to the person concerned whether he is treated merely as a case with a number or whether he is treated as a human being.
I have been a trade union official or a public representative for almost the whole of the past thirty years. As such it has been my opportunity to come in contact with the boards administering the social security legislation in my own province, such as the old age pensions board and the workmen's compensation board. I am bound to say I have always found that these officials consider, with both sympathy and imagination, the problems coming before them. If they have not done a better job it is, I am satisfied, ninety-nine per cent because the law they have had to administer has not made that possible. I would not be dealing with this question realistically if I did not point out that considerable social security is provided at the present time by the dominion and the provinces. Under federal and provincial jurisdiction we have old age and blind pensions. Wholly under federal control we have unemployment insurance and family allowances-


An hon. Member:: Widows' allowances.


Angus MacInnis: That comes under the provinces. And there is certain assistance in the way of health grants. Under the provinces we have workmen's compensation, mothers' allowances, welfare legislation of various kinds and health and hospital services. However, these social security measures whether under provincial or dominion jurisdiction have developed in a haphazard way. Many of these measures have been put into operation, not so much because of the government's belief in them as because it was thought politically expedient to provide them. I submit that the time has come when we should find out what is required and see what we can do in an orderly and planned way.
There are tremendous gaps in our social security program. For example, there is no provision for sickness or invalidity. A worker who is out of a job because there is no work

Social Security
is entitled to unemployment insurance, but if the same worker is out of a job because he is sick, he is not entitled to anything. Indeed if he is taken sick while drawing unemployment insurance benefits the benefits stop. Surely a person who is unemployed because of sickness is more in need of assistance than one who is just unemployed. A man in such circumstances has the additional expenses associated with illness.
Our old age pensions provide for people who have reached the age of 70 years provided they are practically destitute. But surely the person who has not reached the age of 70 years is just as much entitled to assistance if because of illness or infirmity he is unable to provide for himself? Surely these are gaps which a country such as Canada should be ready to concede ought not to be tolerated?
As a beginning of an adequate social security program I think we should lay it down that need should be the criterion for state assistance and not a particular category or class into which a person might fall. Following that, the assistance given should be such as to provide a minimum standard of health and decency. I do not know of any better words to use, and those are the words generally used by welfare organizations. We should strive to set a minimum standard below which no family income should fall.
May I point out that no country can escape the social consequences of poverty. If we do not provide an adequate family income, whether we like it or not we shall have to make provision for more police, more jails, more courts, more reformatories, more hospitals and more of all those institutions the need for which is created in large measure by poverty and the consequential family breakdown. The general opinion among people experienced in social service administration or those engaged in social welfare work is that the greatest cause of family breakdown is poverty. If we do not eliminate poverty in one way we shall have to take care of it in another. Perhaps I should quote an authority on this point. In 1943, Dr. L. C. Marsh was engaged by the government to prepare a report on social service for Canada. I have that report in my hand and I quote from page 119 as follows:
Finally, the obvious but vital point must be made that social security payments are not money lost. The social insurances, and even some straightforward disbursements like children's allowances, are investments in morale and health, in greater family stability, and from both material and psychological viewpoints, in human productive efficiency. They demand personal and community responsibilities; but in the eyes of most of the people who are beneficiaries, give a more evident meaning to the
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
ideas of common effort and national solidarity. It has yet to be proved that any democracy which underwrites the social minimum for its citizens is any the weaker or less wealthy for doing so.
I think we can all agree with that. 1 urge this house to show by its approval of this resolution that it believes that the time has arrived for the elimination of the effects of poverty, if we cannot, at this time, get down to eliminating its causes, by expanding and co-ordinating the social services of this country so that all those people who need assistance will be covered. It is possible that a social security program such as I have suggested will require amendments to our constitution. If so, those amendments should be sought without delay. But, even while we are preparing any amendments that we think necessary, we should see what we can do in co-operation with the provinces, because I am convinced that a great deal can be done without amendment of the constitution. As far as I can remember, from reading the proposals made in 1945, there was no mention of amendments being necessary for what the dominion government proposed at that time.
Other countries less wealthy than Canada are ahead of us in this regard. Perhaps I need only mention the United Kingdom and New Zealand. In the United Kingdom, despite their difficulties, all parties are agreed that their social security program is necessary and must be maintained. Following the United Kingdom election of 1945 the Labour government put a social security program into effect. The Conservative party in its election program, "The Right Road for Britain", has laid it down that the country's social security program will be not only maintained but expanded if that party assumes office after the next election. I merely point out that today people everywhere are convinced of the necessity of providing social security.
There are some people in Canada who oppose any further extension of our social services, but I do not think we should pay much attention to them because they have opposed every extension of social security in the past, and they will do so in the future. Perhaps the most comprehensive report that has ever been made on social security is what is known as the Beveridge report, prepared by Sir William Beveridge in 1942. He laid down three guiding principles for social security. The first principle reads as follows:
. . . that any proposals for the future, while they should use to the full the experience gathered in the past, should not be restricted by consideration of sectional interests established in the obtaining of that experience. Now, when the war is abolishing landmarks of every kind, is the opportunity for using experience in a clear field. A revolutionary moment in the world's history is a time for revolutions, not for patching.

I suggest to the government that world revolution is not yet complete. It is proceeding in every country, and perhaps faster than anywhere else in the western nations where people have the opportunity of thinking, and thinking aloud. I suggest to the government that what they need now is not to put patches on our present social security but to take bold steps to build a comprehensive program such as I have suggested. The second principle laid down by Sir William Beveridge is:
. . . that organization of social insurance should be treated as one part only of a comprehensive policy of social progress. Social insurance fully developed may provide income security; it is an attack upon want. But want is one only of five giants on the road of reconstruction and in some ways the easiest to attack. The others are disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness.
I think that if we make a frontal attack on want we will go a long way towards conquering these other giants that Sir William Beveridge mentions. The third principle reads as follows:
. . . that social security must be achieved by cooperation between the state and the individual. The state should offer security for service and contribution. The state in organizing security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility-
I have never seen the case for the abolition of the means test put better than that. I have never been able to see the logic of insisting that a person should not be allowed to help himself. I do not want to mention specific cases tonight, but at the moment I have a case, which I am taking up with the war veterans' allowance board, where a veteran has had his allowance cut off because his wife went to work during the war at the age of sixty-five, and the income she produced, which was used for shingling their home, as they told me, was not reported to the war veterans' allowance board. Personally I do not see who could be hurt by allowing these people to add something more to their income. If they made something more than what is allowed under the income tax structure they could be taxed in the same way as other individuals.
Up to this point I have not said anything about how a social security program should be financed. I am dealing with broad principles and not with details. I do not believe that I have any illusions about how measures of this kind are paid for. They are paid for out of the national income. That in turn comes out of national production, and the national production is the product of those who work. When we provide social services of any kind we are providing material things such as food, clothing, shelter and services of one kind or another, which must be produced by those who are working.
Social Security
Perhaps I could express my own ideas of how such things can be paid for by a simple illustration. It is easier to think in small numbers than in large ones because when a thing gets very large it sometimes becomes complex, and it is difficult for the ordinary person to understand it.
Let us suppose that the population of the country was composed of the three members behind me and myself. It would be a dull world, but this is just a supposition. Suppose it was composed of those four people and we were all working. We would all be producing our own keep, the others anyway, and I suppose they would see that I did. Let us suppose that they decided to pension me off because I had reached an age where my youthfulness was a thing of the past. There would be no place under the sun where my keep could come from except out of their labour.
The same is true in our national affairs; you merely have to multiply that by ten million, or whatever figure you like. The result is the same. The money is merely the measure of the goods and services provided by the rest of the community. For instance, if you keep your mother-in-law you pay for her upkeep yourself; but if she receives an old age pension the community keeps her. That is the difference; you are throwing some of your burden on the community. I say that, because there is an idea abroad that there is some mysterious source from which food, shelter and clothing can be paid for without taking it from those who produce it or have claims of ownership to it. There is no such way.


Mr. Blackmore:: There is.


Angus MacInnis: Then I shall leave my hon. friend to find it.


John Horne Blackmore: Speak from your own
knowledge, not from general knowledge.


Angus MacInnis: As a matter of fact, I am speaking from my own knowledge, the only knowledge that I can count on. General knowledge is of no value at all, because neither my hon. friend nor I have the capacity to understand all of it.


John Horne Blackmore: Your knowledge is very limited.


Angus MacInnis: I admit that; and my admission of my lack of understanding is proof that I have taken the first step to wisdom.


John Horne Blackmore: We will teach you if you will listen.


Angus MacInnis: My time has almost expired, Mr. Speaker, but I want the Minister of

Social Security
National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) to note that as far as was humanly possible I refrained from using political illustrations, or quoting what anyone said to use it against him. I wanted to accomplish something by introducing this resolution, and I approached it in that spirit. If I had just wanted to get my hon. friends on either side of the house riled, as the saying is, I would have spoken in another manner and I believe I have had enough political experience to know how to do that. But I am serious in putting forward this resolution. I hope it will be discussed in the spirit it was proposed. I hope hon. members will not leave the government in doubt as to the need as they see it in their constituencies, so that something may be done this year, not in 1953.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members appreciated the way the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) placed his resolution before us for consideration this evening. I should like to say a few words in support of the main theme of the resolution, which in my understanding is that now is the time for steps to be taken to formulate a program of social security which will be national in its scope. That is the part of the resolution that particularly appeals to me.
I think it very timely that we should consider this topic now, in this first session of the twenty-first parliament, for several reasons. The first reason is the attitude of the Canadian people toward questions of this sort. I believe Canadians generally, and certainly Canadians on the Pacific slope, desire an all-embracing program of social security. They hope the different governments throughout the country will take steps to see that such an all-embracing program is put on the statute books at the earliest possible moment. Then, too, I think the attitude of the Canadian people is that they are willing to pay for such a program. Provided that the payment is spread evenly and fairly across the country, I believe Canadians are willing to pay for such a plan.
I also believe their attitude is one of intense dislike of the means test. There is something very un-Canadian about it. Many elderly people come in to ask me about making application for old age pension. These people who have worked hard for a lifetime, who have brought up families at great sacrifice, and who while they have very little money have great natural dignity and pride, in reality are the type of people who have built this nation. Yet when they are faced with the necessity of disclosing their resources, they hesitate to do so. They are hurt by the thought that they must tell

someone what assets they have, and must show that their children are not able to support them. The whole idea of a means test is repugnant to such people, and I repeat that they are the very finest citizens we have in this country.
That attitude should be well known to the government. Hon. members will even find it at page 37 of the proposals of the government of Canada at the dominion-provincial conference of 1945, in what is commonly called the green book. There we find this statement:
The means test is generally recognized as undesirable after a certain age. It has been noted that about forty per cent of all persons of seventy years of age and over make application, satisfy the means test requirements and receive pensions. There is little doubt that a very considerable number in addition are not able entirely to support themselves, but are dependent upon their family, and refrain from applying for pensions because of the embarrassment occasioned by the means test.
I repeat, I believe the Canadian people are anxious to get rid of this means test. They would prefer to permit our senior citizens to improve their position by working, if able to do so. Not only would that be a help to the elderly people themselves; it would also be a help to the country at large, and I believe it is still generally the feeling of our people that thrift should be encouraged. So my first reason for saying that this resolution is timely is the attitude of the Canadian people.
My second reason is the attitude of the Canadian political parties. I believe every party in Canada is deeply interested in welfare measures. I do not wish to be political tonight, but if I had one criticism of the C.C.F. more than another it would be that at times they speak as though they believe they are the only Canadians in public life who are interested in the welfare of the people. That is not so. The members of all parties are vitally interested in welfare measures. If they are not interested in people they do not get elected, or if they get in once they do not stay elected. We are all deeply concerned with welfare measures. There may be some difference of opinion as to how those measures can be best enacted and put into effect, but I do not believe the hearts of the members of any one party in Canada are a bit bigger than the hearts of the members of other parties. My second reason, therefore, for my stand is the attitude of the Canadian political parties. Every party in this house is pledged up to the hilt to bring in a national social security program. I have here the advertisements of the government party, and also those of our own. The other parties are pledged in the same way.

Now that we are here, let us get busy and do something about carrying out those pledges.
My third reason for saying that this resolution is timely is that there is now a great move on in the United States in the direction of social security plans. I have here the last issue of U.S. News and World Report. In it I find a most interesting article entitled "Bigger and Better Pensions?" which contains this statement:
In congress, plans are being pushed to make 1950 "social security year."
Our neighbours to the south are taking great interest in this type of plan, just as we are in Canada. In the United States within the last few days we have seen the settlement of the Ford strike on the basis that there will be pensions for the employees of the company. That really is my fourth reason for my stand this evening. I believe that pensions are coming in industry. In some cases the companies may pay the whole pension, as I believe is being done by the Ford company. In other cases they may make a partial contribution. But there is no doubt that this whole question of pensions in industry is one of the important ones to be faced by the public men on this continent at this time.
Even if pensions in industry come into effect, many Canadians will not be covered by such a plan; considerably over half could never possibly be covered by any such plan. Therefore consideration must be given by governments to ways of bringing in a plan that will cover all of the Canadian people. Furthermore, I think difficulty may arise in determining the fields to be covered by government and by industry; there is no clear-cut demarcation of what group will be covered by industry and what group will be covered by government measures. We must try to figure out what division there should be.
The article to which I referred a few moments ago ends with this paragraph:
Decision, in favour of one system or two systems, is what is forming now.
That is, a decision between pensions in industry and government pensions.
If liberal, but costly, private pensions paid for by industry are given to millions of workers, then, in the opinion of many officials, there will be little chance of getting employers to help pay for a more liberal government system for all. Result may be high pensions for some workers, relief lines for others.
I read that paragraph to show that this whole question is worthy of a great deal of investigation and thought. Those are four reasons advanced for the consideration of hon. members.
Social Security
In my own opinion we should have in Canada a contributory pension system under which men and women would contribute as they work, employers would contribute, and the various governments would contribute. Then Canadians would be entitled to draw as of right benefits in adequate amounts when they were needed. I believe that such a plan would make it possible for us to provide pensions at sixty-five years of age, without a means test, or earlier if people are unable to work further; to provide sickness and disability benefits and health insurance; and to give extended unemployment insurance benefits. There would also have to be similar benefits for those Canadians who are unable to make contributions.
That is my idea at the moment of the way in which this problem could best be solved by Canada. I believe that is the Canadian way in which to work out a solution. But certainly at this session some steps should be taken by the government. There is no doubt at all that they should raise the ceiling on old age pensions to conform with the raise in the pension itself which was put through last spring. I do not believe there is a member in this house who would not be in favour of raising that ceiling. That is one statute that should be passed at this particular session. In addition to that, I believe consideration should be given to the broader plans for meeting this problem. I hope that the government, through the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), will agree to the terms of this resolution. Then if the minister will go ahead and take whatever steps are necessary to bring about the required legislation, I think he will find general support from all sides in this chamber.
(Translation):


Mr. Lionel Bertrand (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the speech just delivered by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) on the subject of social security and I am pleased to have this opportunity of taking part in the debate.
It would be, I believe, extremely important for the government to request the co-operation of the provinces in order to work out a nation-wide social security plan. It would probably take some time to apply such a plan, so that it would be better, I think, to go about it by stages, so as to gradually, year by year, bring about a permanent solution of some aspect of the social problem.
I am in favour of a social security plan as elaborate as possible, for it is my considered opinion that communism can never enter homes in which peace, joy and happiness are to be found.

Social Security
I would however like to point out that I have myself placed on the order paper, under No. 7, a resolution which particularly concerns destitute invalids and cripples.
I first submitted this resolution in 1946; it was discussed and met with the approval of the house but was never adopted. Since then, the resolution has appeared in the order paper at every session but due to certain circumstances or to special legislation, it was never considered. I am confident, however, that this resolution, which I consider very important, will be considered and given the general approval of this house during the present session.
A class of people who are particularly neglected are the infirm and the invalid. If their families are too poor to give them appropriate care or if, because of their infirmities, they are unable to earn their own livelihood, these infirm and invalid become forsaken and outcast. Municipalities are unable to do anything to help them. The provincial statutes do not provide for them. I have found nothing in the federal statutes which might authorize the central power to help them.
Cripples and invalids are excluded from the labour market. They are turned away for reasons having to do with security, output and production. Deprived of employment, or occasionally doing some odd job, can an invalid ensure his own subsistence? If he has a wife and children, his plight becomes tragic and his distress is increased by the humiliation of having to beg and live on public charity.
Cripples and invalids deserve their share of well-being. I suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) that he should consider the matter and have a survey made of the number of cripples and invalids without means of support, with a view to recommending an adequate and proper allowance, to be paid jointly by the central government and the provinces. If it so happened that the provinces declined to accept such a nation-wide plan, I believe the dominion government should assume the cost itself.
In a country as wealthy as ours, where life has become quite comfortable, there is no reason for leaving the underprivileged class in destitution and discouragement. Besides, our national security program will never be complete unless it includes special consideration for cripples and invalids.
In connection with social security, I have a suggestion to make to the Minister of

National Health and Welfare. I believe that the term "old age pension" has become obsolete and inappropriate.
When the act was passed in 1927, it could be considered that reaching the age of 70 marked a giant stride on the road of life. Since that time, the legislation passed by the dominion and provincial governments for the control of contagious diseases and the promotion of public health has considerably increased the duration of human life and at 70, unlike what happened formerly, one can look forward to many years of existence, made lighter by the conveniences with which science has so wonderfully helped domestic life.
I have seen people sign their old age pension applications with some timidity, and I have also seen some persons driven to tears by the thought that such endorsement marked for them a transition which emphasized their old age. "Old age pension" is a hackneyed and undesirable expression. I would suggest "family welfare allowances", which would have a more pleasant ring and would suggest to our older citizens not the thought of impending death but the idea of serene and peaceful retirement.
Would it not be possible for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to ask the provinces for authorization to change the term "old age pension" to that of "family welfare allowance"? This simple change would cast more sunshine on one of the finest social security measures put forward by this country.
(Text):


Mr. E. A. McCusker (Regina City):: I should like to say a few words in this debate. I congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) on bringing this resolution before the house and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) on the saner view he takes of it. In moving his resolution I think the hon. member for Vancouver East forgot the cost entailed in implementing the services. Probably I would not speak tonight if I did not come from a province in which we have had considerable experience in socialized medicine and with these different schemes over a long number of years.
Like the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, I think that the socialists and C.C.F. are too inclined to take the credit for any social services or health measures which are being implemented or extended at the present time. I would remind them that back in 1916, and earlier than that, the Liberal government of Saskatchewan introduced many health measures which were of great benefit to the people. We had then a people

who were suffering from adversity, crop failures and one thing and another. We had a portion of our people who were unable to meet their obligations and receive the attention that they required. A number of schemes were put into operation. In one of those a municipal doctor was introduced and the municipality gave a basic guarantee of salary to the doctor to enable him to come in and live there while he provided medical services for the community. Municipal hospitals were put into effect. Contributions were made by people at large. Those within the municipality itself who were unable to pay their municipal bill were assisted by those who were in more fortunate circumstances. Municipal health schemes were introduced many years ago by Dr. Seymour, who was then the deputy minister of health in Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan tuberculosis league was an outstanding example of what a community can do in the treatment of disease. This organization was made up of officers from the rural municipality and officers from the urban communities, citizens at large and members of the government. They set up the committee which handled the tuberculosis hospitals of Saskatchewan. I believe it was then that free hospitalization first came into effect and not in recent years, as our friends from the C.C.F. party would have us believe. However, this was done under the control of a sane nonpolitical body, which sought no kudos for what they were doing. Expenses were controlled and I need not say anything about the work that they have carried on. All hon. members know that in Saskatchewan today we have the lowest incidence of tuberculosis to be found anywhere in the world, and probably the most advanced treatment. I may say that the other day in my city a tuberculosis survey was made of the population. What percentage of the population do you think was covered? Ninety-nine per cent of the people were X-rayed. That shows how conscious they are of this disease. These things have not been brought forward in recent years. It is something that has developed. You cannot give a service such as that to a people and have it accepted overnight. It must be built up gradually.
In 1930 the Saskatchewan Cancer Commission Act was introduced by Dr. Munroe. The work was developed by Dr. Uhrich, now lieutenant governor of Saskatchewan, when he was the health minister of that province. Today we have probably one of the most advanced centres for cancer treatment in the Dominion of Canada. We had there, until a few months ago when he died of a heart attack, Dr. Blair, who was director of our cancer service and who, along with Dr.
Social Security
Richards of Toronto, has contributed more to the care and treatment of cancer than anyone else in this country. It was sane treatment gradually developed.
During my election campaign I expressed myself openly and wholeheartedly in favour of a contributory old age pension without a means test. I believe in the contributory feature of it. In the constituency I have the honour to represent there are a large number of people who have been ordinary labourers. They have worked on the streets -worked here, and worked there. The more frugal among them during the years have been able to purchase their modest homes, develop good gardens around them, and grow some of their winter supplies. However, they have not been able to put aside quite enough to look after their security in old age.
In order to be eligible for old age pension they would have to pass means tests. Some worthless galoot down the street, who had never done a decent day's work all his life, could get an old age pension and be just about as well off as someone else who had worked hard, been a good citizen and saved during his lifetime. Therefore I am in favour of the old age pension without a means test. But it must be a contributory pension. I do not think anything is worthwhile if one does not contribute toward it.
I am in favour of unemployment insurance, and I believe family allowances are a fine thing. I had not intended to speak long this evening, but I did wish to mention briefly the matter of health grants. Here perhaps my C.C.F. friends may give me a little assistance by handling some of my C.C.F. friends in Saskatchewan, so that I may get for the community I represent that to which it is entitled, and which it is prevented from getting today by a C.C.F. government.
As hon. members are aware, the national health program made provision for the sum of $165 million to support provincial health programs over a period of years. These grants covered public health, professional training, technical training, public health research-and it goes on down the line until it comes to hospital construction.
The Regina General hospital built a wing at a cost of $800,000. Construction had been started before the health grant became effective. I believe that date was April of 1948. At any rate, the hospital was partly constructed by that time, so that the city was not entitled to the total amount of the grant. The hospital authorities felt that $225,000 was coming to them from the federal government by way of grant, and an equal sum of $225,000 was coming from the provincial government. It will be recalled that

Social Security
federal health grants were to be matched by the provincial governments, in hospital construction.
When the campaign started last spring the city of Regina had received no grant. The hospital wing was completed, but remained empty because they had not sufficient money to purchase furniture. I made a public statement at that time, and the result was that there was an agreement to match $75,000 of the grant so that the hospital could buy furniture and open the wing. There was a waiting list of 300 people to get into the hospital. The building was there, but the provincial government refused to match the grant so that furniture could be purchased. The hospital had expended its funds. When I hear these great humanitarians talking I want to let them know just what the truth is, and just how human they are. They have matched $75,000 of that grant, but there is still over $100,000 which has not been received.	The dominion government has
agreed that the city is entitled to $175,000. Thus far the provincial government has matched only $75,000 of this amount. The taxpayers of Regina are forced to find out of taxes another $200,000, to which they are rightfully entitled by way of hospital grants.
So that if my hon. friends to my left who get their inspiration from there, and who seem to send inspiration out to them, can induce them to match this grant, I am sure my constituents in Regina city would be most grateful.
I believe I have said all I wish to say at this time.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. First I should like to congratulate the hon. member who preceded me. I believe his profession permits him to have a thorough knowledge about the subject concerning which he spoke. May I also say a good word for my friend from Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). I did not hear all he said, but, with the exception of one or two particulars, I approve of the resolution.
In particular I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), that no party or individual has any monopoly on the desire to foster legislation of this kind. I agree entirely with the hon. member when he says that no member or party should attempt to claim that he or they alone desire to foster social security.
Like the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker), I committed myself during the election, before the election, and after the election. I believe in a compulsory contributory insurance scheme for all people,

without a means test-and I believe that everyone in my riding is of the same opinion.
We have heard a good deal about dominion-provincial relations. Only two provinces balked at it before, and if they do not want to come in, then I believe the other eight provinces should not be deprived of the right to compulsory contributory protection by way of health insurance, or whatever one may wish to call it. I do not like the term "old age pensions", and I think some other name might be substituted.
I intend to support the resolution. It does not go as far as I should like to have it go, but I believe in a general way it embraces things which people in my constituency want. While I am not mentioning the names of the two provinces to which I referred, yet I feel that if they do not wish to come in, certainly the other eight provinces should not be penalized. I commend the hon. member upon his resolution. I do not happen to have a mother-in-law, but I like to tell stories. However, I do not like jokes on mothers-in-law. A person is very fortunate to have one.
If I may speak on behalf of the people in my constituency, I would say we are entirely in favour of what the resolution suggests. We think the government should not delay in bringing legislation down. Eight provinces have expressed a desire, while only two remain outside.


Mr. Karl A. Eyre (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to hon. members who have spoken thus far concerning this resolution. May I take this opportunity to place myself on record as being in favour of the government's formulating a program of insurance which would be national in scope and sufficient to cover all citizens regardless of their age, or at any age, who, through permanent sickness or injury, become unemployable.
In my opinion this should be on a contributory basis, within the framework of our present system of unemployment insurance. May I at this time be permitted to bring to the attention of the house notices of motions Nos. 7, 12 and 23. Those three resolutions cover most of the reforms which I should like to see put into force.
During the past few months as mayor of Timmins I have witnessed a mine dispensing with the services of a considerable number of its old employees because of sickness, or for other reasons. The majority of these men had been employed by this particular mine for over 25 years and most of them have no income apart from a limited unemployment insurance benefit which will give them a small monthly income for about a year. In every case they are not eligible for old age

pensions. In a year or two these men who have been discharged will have to seek financial aid from the municipality or some other source.
I am quite aware that because of the uncertain life of a gold mine there are many factors that would have to be ironed out before a retirement plan could be instituted, and the majority of the gold mines in my constituency have had no retirement plans to date. To the best of my knowledge there is only one which has a plan formulated on paper. No doubt this situation will correct itself in the near future, but these men will not be helped.
I think industry large and small should be compelled to institute a contributory retirement pension plan and, if not, this government should institute a plan to cover all our citizens. Timmins constituency in the Porcupine area takes in approximately 16 operating mines. We have had a very good contributory medical plan covering all mine employees and their families. I think that plan should be studied and continued along with a contributory insurance retirement pension plan.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate until the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker) spoke. I am sorry that in his maiden speech he should have attempted to introduce a political angle. In introducing this resolution the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) tried to keep the debate on such a plane that all hon. members could express their opinions without introducing a political angle. As a member from Saskatchewan, I do not think anyone can say that I have tried to derive political advantage from the things which may have been done in that province.
It is true that in Saskatchewan we have not been able to take as great advantage of the dominion government's dollar for dollar offer as we would have been had our government not been carrying on an aggressive hospitalization scheme for some two or three years prior to the dominion scheme being introduced. The fact is that we have the largest number of hospital beds per thousand of population of any province in the dominion.
That province, as well as the provinces of Manitoba and Alberta, has become very health conscious, not just in recent years but over a long period of time. It is true, as the hon. member for Regina City said, that there have been municipal hospital and medical care schemes for a number of years. It is true also that we have had tuberculosis clinics and free hospitalization for tubercular
Social Security
patients for some twenty years. This is made possible by taxes levied by the municipalities and through grants from the provincial government.
The hon. member left the wrong impression as far as cancer treatment is concerned. The hon. member stated that cancer treatment had been started long before the present government started in Saskatchewan, but the fact is that free cancer treatment came into effect after the C.C.F. government was elected and introduced the scheme.


Mr. Boucher:: But the law was passed before.


Percy Ellis Wright: It had never been implemented. I do not want to become too political in connection with this thing, and I am going to leave it at that. I ask any hon. member who is interested in what has been accomplished there to get the facts and consider them for himself.
There are two points in connection with this resolution which appeal to me. One is the fact that it is asking for an integrated scheme for the whole of Canada, a minimum standard of social security for everyone in the dominion, instead of a hodgepodge scheme built up by introducing certain social security measures which are under provincial jurisdiction in some places and under dominion jurisdiction in others. In the case of children's allowances, I understand in seven provinces the administration is provincial whereas in two provinces these allowances are administered by the dominion government. Such a mix-up in administration makes it more costly.
It is only by having an integrated scheme arrived at by the provinces and the dominion getting together that we can hope to have social security at a reasonable cost and where everyone will contribute and feel that any benefit derived is a right.
Then with respect to the contributory feature, as the hon. member for Vancouver East has stated, the only way that social security can be paid for is by the work and labour of the people who produce the goods and services. I have heard the hon. members say that we in the C.C.F. expect these things to come from heaven or somewhere else, that their cost is going to come out of the large corporations or the men who have a million dollars; but social security can come from no one but the people who produce the goods and services, the men who sweat to raise food and the men who work in the factories to produce our goods and services. That is the only way that we can provide our older and indigent people with what they need.
There is no argument about our ability to produce. Every year we produce to an extent

Social Security
whereby we can export some $400 million to $500 million more in the way of goods and services than we are prepared to bring back into the country. Surely a nation that can dc that can provide necessary social security for its people. It is only a matter of working out the method. Surely in this house we can work out, in co-operation with the provinces, a method to give social security to our people.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think it may be desirable for me to take part in the debate at this stage and give an indication to the house generally of how the government views this particular resolution. May I say in the first place that I join with hon. members in expressing the conviction that an objective discussion of this matter is in the interests not only of good debate but also of a fuller appreciation of all the complexities involved in a resolution of this character.
I should also like to say that today we hear a good deal of indirect and suggestive criticism of what is called in many quarters the "welfare state". I want to say right here and now that I am not quite sure what precisely is meant by those who use the phrase "welfare state", but I suspect that their criticisms of the welfare programs of this and other countries carry with them the intention of trying to criticize social security programs generally. If by the "welfare state" is meant a government of a country providing for its aged; providing for those who, because of want of economic resources, are denied the best of hospital and medical care; providing children with the opportunity of attending school until the statutory school age limit and providing them with as great an amount of nutrition and general opportunity as possible, if by the "welfare state" is meant that the state must have a continuing interest in the welfare of those groups in the nation who must look to the state for assistance in one way or another, then I am afraid that those who use that term for critical purposes will find that most people in Canada believe in that type of welfare state.
The other day the same observation was made by the President of the United States. Therefore I suggest to those who use this phrase disapprovingly that they take serious account of the implications that are involved in their criticisms. If by "welfare state" they mean that we shall set up a system of statism or of socialism in its broad sense, then of course their criticism may have greater merit; but to suggest that the welfare state, in the sense in which it has been developed in most countries of the world, is in itself a sinister

thing is to say something with which I would want to take serious issue at the outset of my remarks.
The resolution of the hon. member will bear repetition. While it does contain in its generality something that most of us can accept, certainly, speaking as a member of the government, I must give it the most careful analysis, and suggest that it may contain implications that were not in the mind of the hon. member who proposed the resolution. The resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should seek the co-operation of the provinces for the purpose of formulating a program of social security that will be national in scope, adequate in its provisions, and that will cover all citizens of Canada in every circumstance where the individual or the family is, for any reason, deprived of the opportunity of earning a living.
On the question of co-operation with the provinces, may I say that not only should this government co-operate with the provinces towards the attainment of the objectives envisaged in the resolution, but this government continues almost daily that very type of co-operation. The co-operation formally began in 1945 when, at a conference in another part of this building, the provinces and the dominion sat down to discuss certain proposals which the dominion government offered to the then nine provinces of Canada. A subsequent conference was held a year later. Those two conferences followed one held in this chamber in January, 1941. Since that time, in spite of the failure to arrive at an understanding or agreement in full conference, there have been bilateral discussions and agreements on tax matters between the dominion government on the one hand and seven provincial governments on the other.
Since that time there have been, as I said a moment ago, continuing discussions with the provinces. Only this morning I had a discussion with a representative of a provincial government with respect to a matter that would be involved in this resolution. I offer the suggestion that our experience in the holding of open conferences perhaps will suggest to our minds that the most effective way by which to achieve the desired objectives is not necessarily to proceed at once with a full conference, but to carry on talks as they are now being carried on in certain fields for purposes of exploration with the provinces. Of course sooner or later, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has already indicated in the letter he has written to all of the provincial premiers, it will be necessary to have a larger conference as a result of the preparatory work that may have taken place.

Therefore I can agree at once with that part of the resolution which says:
. . . the government should seek the co-operation of the provinces for the purpose of formulating a program of social security that will be national in scope, adequate in its provisions . . .
I think I should at once enter a caveat that what will be "adequate" will be a subject of controversy. As Mr. Marsh says in his report of 1943, I believe it is, what is adequate in terms of social security benefits is a matter that involves a variety of opinions, and I would not be honest with the house if I said anything other than what I have already stated in this chamber, that social security benefits by their very nature are by way of maintenance grants.
As to suggesting a particular figure for old age pensions, for instance, I have never heard a figure suggested that could in the truest sense of the word be said to be an adequate old age pension. Even the highest figure given in this house, or now in existence in any country, might be interpreted, and I think possibly with justification by most, as not being wholly adequate in the fullest sense of the word. What we can hope to do is to try to obtain a system of social security benefits that will be as generous as it is possible to have under all the circumstances.
On a resolution like this, as the minister charged with the responsibility for many of these matters, in my analysis this evening I think the house would expect me not merely to dismiss some phases of this resolution but to show why there are difficulties in accepting it in full measure as it is presented to us. To do so, I think I should show what we have done, the cost involved in what we have done, and what we hope will be other projects to be carried out, indicating in this way the possibility of expansion; for nothing would be more dangerous than to embark suddenly upon a particular social security measure without a full appreciation of all the economic factors involved. To do that would be to prejudice the possibility of ever having a complete social security program. When I brought in the first amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act in my name as minister, and it was suggested that the amount was not large enough, I think hon. members will remember that I agreed. I said it was not as large as the government would like to see it or as I was sure the house generally would like to see it, but that in fixing that particular amount the government had exercised its judgment having in mind other social security measures. So I am sure that when I indicate to the house the cost involved, not only in what we are now doing but in what may perhaps
Social Security
be done in future, I am sure there will be general acceptance of the word of caution I am now expressing.
I have dealt with the fact that we are co-operating. I have indicated that we have certain proposals whose objectives still represent the policy of this government, and that we are proceeding in the light of our experience in what we consider the most effective way to attain those objectives. But I would not want anyone to think from reading this resolution that no substantial steps have been taken already in the development of a social security program in this country. As an authority from the university of Columbia said about two years ago, speaking at Lake Couchiching, Canada's social security program as of that date- and it has expanded very considerably since that time-was a rounded, responsible scheme of social security that would commend itself to any reasonable student in any part of the world. When you examine the monetary returns from family allowances, old age pensions, unemployment insurance benefits and the various financial opportunities given under the veterans' legislation, it will be found that in terms of dollars and cents our record will stand against that of any country in the world with the exception of four individual states in the republic to the south. That is a fact of great note which must be borne in mind in considering whether or not we have, for the time being, a program that can commend itself to reasonable men and women throughout the country who believe in a responsibly-conceived program of social security.
One of the more recent steps, of course, was the national health program announced by the then Prime Minister a little more than a year and a half ago. It should not be forgotten also that in 1947 and 1949 important amendments were made to the Old Age Pensions Act, not only with respect to the aged but also with regard to our blind citizens; and those amendments had the effect of increasing the number of old age pensioners in Canada from some 225,000 to the present figure of something like 280,000, out of the 550,000 aged citizens of this country. At the same time, provision was made through an amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act to lower the age of qualification by blind pensioners from forty to twenty-one years.
Those were measures of great substance. In 1946 we spent on old age pensions, on federal account, some $42,800,000. Today, following those amendments, we are spending $90,000,000 on old age pensions. That is only our share. When it is remembered that in addition to their supplementary payments

Social Security
the provinces pay 25 per cent of the basic pension, it will be appreciated that this represents a very substantial series of amendments.
It will be recalled that last year the basic old age pension was increased from $30 to $40. That placed us at the highest level for old age pension returns of any country in the world. At the same time we effected amendments to the Family Allowances Act eliminating the decreasing scale after the fourth child, which represented an additional financial obligation of between six and eight million dollars in the current year. We also provided that the qualifying period of three years should be reduced to one year. That was a substantial series of amendments, which one would want to consider in discussing this resolution. And concurrently with those measures, in addition to the initial steps that had been taken, increased provision was made for veterans through various amendments to the pension and war veterans' allowance legislation. This liberalization of pensions and allowances has supplemented the outstanding treatment and rehabilitation program which was developed by the Department of Veterans Affairs under the leadership of the late Senator Mackenzie, and which is now being carried on by my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg).
Those are recent amendments, Mr. Speaker. I have not dealt with the body of the existing program of social security; but I suggest that one must deal with the body of our program to appreciate this resolution in its perspective and its full purport. In the last two decades we have adopted advanced and mature lines of social progress. When I tell the house that in the coming fiscal year Canada will have allotted more than $800 million for social security measures, on federal account alone, I am sure I am making a statement which in itself will confirm all that I have said thus far to the effect that we have developed our social security program in a very thorough manner. When you consider what other countries are spending on social security and compare it with what Canada is spending, I am sure on serious reflection no one will doubt that we have indeed a program of the greatest proportions, of which we have every reason to be proud.
Tonight we have had some discussion about old age pensions. The introduction of our Old Age Pensions Act in 1927 has resulted in the federal government alone since that time spending $625 million. At the present time some 280,000 Canadians are receiving pension assistance. As a result of the amendments to which I have already referred, as I said a moment ago, we shall this year be spending on current account $90 million alone on old age pensions, not includ-

ing what the provinces are paying in respect of their 25 per cent or by way of supplementary payments.
As was stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the goal of the government is toward a system of contributory old age pensions. But as one who in these past two and a half years has had to give a good deal of thought to this matter, let me say clearly that I have used the word "goal" because I want to be fully honest with the house. We have not now in this parliament the power to enact a compulsory system of old age pensions on a contributory basis. As forecast in the speech from the throne, we are taking steps to acquire the power to amend the constitution of this country by our own agency. When that power has been acquired, discussion will inevitably arise with the provinces as to their attitude with regard to endowing the federal government with the necessary power to enact such a measure if, after the most careful analysis, it is thought that is the best course for Canada and for her aged citizens, and is the most effective way of bringing about what we all hope will even yet be a more perfect system for old age retirement.
Let me at once explain why I speak in this way. Recently in the United States we have seen agreements between management and labour with regard to pension schemes where the element of contribution has been completely removed. What will be the effect of those agreements upon schemes which the state may want to sponsor remains to be seen. Only last week I took advantage of my presence at the United Nations meetings to discuss with the representatives of two countries, including the United States, then-experience with regard to a great number of industrial pension schemes existing in those countries. It is amazing to find the number of noncontributory schemes that are in existence. It is much greater, I am sure, than the house at the moment perhaps realizes. What the tendency will be is a matter that we must look at clearly. It may be that a great section of our public, when it ascertains that there are to be these noncontributory schemes, may feel that a noncontributory scheme is the best thing for Canada. At the moment that is not my view. At the moment I believe in a contributory system, one that will put into the hands of the recipients the opportunity of building up a fund for his or her retirement period. But as I say, having made that assertion I must qualify it by pointing out the difficulties, such as the constitutional position for one thing, and, for another, the development of new schemes on a broad scale, much broader than perhaps many anticipated a few years ago. But in

spite of all this, my thinking at the moment suggests that, just as with unemployment insurance, so too with old age pensions, we may possibly be approaching the period when we can give active consideration to a scheme on a contributory basis.
But I want the house to appreciate fully that the position I am now taking is one by way of objective, as a goal, rather than a positive statement; because that can only be given after the fullest discussion with the provinces and with others concerned.


Joseph William Noseworthy: At the next election.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member wishes to introduce a political note, but I think the house will appreciate that I am trying to deal with this matter in a responsible manner in keeping with the way in which the resolution itself was introduced in this house.
Then there is the matter of unemployment insurance by which 3,350,000 workers now are provided with a reserve of well over half a billion dollars; the veterans' charter; the legislation providing for support for farm and fish prices. All these are important steps in providing social security for those in the nation who require it. In our family allowances measure we have perhaps the most effective single act of social security ever introduced by any country in any part of the world. We were not the first to introduce family allowances, but our level of family allowances is higher than that of any other country. Our system was the first to take on the character of full government participation without contribution from parents or guardians or from industry. We have the benefit of the experience of family allowance schemes in France, Belgium and Switzerland, where such schemes have been in existence for many years. Because we were so desirous of avoiding the use of family allowances as a means of depressing wages, we removed the contribution from industry in order that there could be no excuse or deliberate effort made to use family allowances as an occasion to depress wages.
In considering, as the resolution suggests, that we should formulate a program of social security that will be national in scope, surely this measure of family allowances has a great role to play. Last June-on June 1, to be exact-we made a payment to an individual parent representing the attainment of one billion dollars in family allowance payments since the period of inauguration of that particular measure. When it is remembered that family allowance cheques go out each month now to at least 4,100,000 children, representing 1,800,000 families, spending this year alone for that purpose the sum of $290 million, it
Social Security
will be appreciated that we in this country have embarked on a substantial social security program. Leaving out family allowances and the veterans' charter, and taking particularly unemployment insurance-the power for which came to us as a result of a constitutional amendment consented to by the provinces-and old age pensions, in those two measures we, within the provinces, have enjoyed, on the whole, a great measure of co-operation. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) say tonight that he was not advocating a system of centralized control or administration. Surely anyone who has given this subject much thought will agree at once with that proposition. For any federal state like Canada to try to centralize administration or even to assume full financial responsibility is not realistic and, I submit, not desirable. The moment we take away from the provinces or, in some instances, from the municipality, some responsibility in the matter of social welfare, to that extent I think we shall seriously prejudice the development of a system of social security in Canada. That is why, in so far as we can in health, in old age pensions, and in most of these other measures now in existence or developing, we must seek to have schemes that involve provincial as well as federal interest and federal action.
Another measure that I want to mention tonight as part of this program that we have now and that is developing is our national health program. This is by no means an insignificant measure. It is a measure which, when it was introduced, received, as one would expect, the full approbation of this house, as indeed it received it from all of the provincial governments in Canada but one who expressed themselves on it. That measure is an important one. It represents, as the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker) said earlier tonight, the determination of this government, or of this parliament, to expend within a period of five years from the date of the announcement of the program $165 million for the purpose of helping the provinces, where resides the primary constitutional responsibility for matters of health, to enable such provincial governments to accelerate their public health programs through campaigns for tuberculosis control; for crippling conditions in children; campaigns in connection with venereal disease; campaigns to encourage scientific research along medical lines; to encourage professional training; to encourage cancer control; to give impetus to hospital construction programs in this country. All of that is part of a program which serves as a pre-

Social Security
requisite tor a soundly constructed scheme along responsible lines for medical and hospital care.
If for any reason one wants to depreciate that program, let me refer right now to the words used by the American public health association a year ago when commenting upon Canada's national health program in the United States. I should make this observation. They have developed a system of health grants just like our own. Our grants on a per capita basis are greater than every grant which the federal government in that country provides for the purpose of assisting the state governments in the discharge of their responsibilities in the formation of health policies in the United States. That surely is a matter of great significance. The very fact that in the first year it was not possible for the provinces to utilize the full amount of money made available to them indicates the generosity and the imagination of those who were responsible for this national health program. Who were responsible? The program represents the joint endeavour of both the federal and the provincial governments.
My hon. friend properly asks us to seek further ways of effecting co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. That has been done, and particularly in this instance. Before we embarked on that program we called a conference of the provinces, and the Department of National Health and Welfare met with the responsible officials from the various departments of health of the provinces. We laid before them our ideas and we obtained their reactions. In every step since then we proceeded with the provinces in a co-operative manner, trying to make the scheme more effective as the result of such co-operation. Only this morning to the extent that time allowed I took part in a conference, which is going on tomorrow morning as well, with the mental health directors of the ten provinces of Canada who are sitting down with us in our department working out schemes based upon this program and certain projects that all of us have in mind for the future. That kind of co-operation is prevailing between ourselves and the provinces. I am happy to say that such co-operation is increasing in its intensity and I think in its consequential achievements.
With regard to this plan as a prerequisite, I will simply repeat what I said on another occasion in this house. This program provides the fundamental prerequisite of a nation-wide system of health insurance. The new services being developed, and the hospitals being built with funds now provided by the federal government, are hastening the moment when in

every province it will be possible to take further action toward hospital and medical care insurance, for which of course the federal government will provide assistance under satisfactory agreements for dominion-provincial co-operation.
The present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) shortly before the statement that I have quoted, which is mine, said:
It is up to the people and the government in each province to take the initiative in working out health insurance plans in line with their local conditions and their traditions.
That represents a carefully conceived and thought-out policy. It is based on the proposition on which this resolution itself is based, namely, that these schemes depend not on unilateral action but on co-operative action between the dominion on the one hand and the provincial governments on the other. A year and a quarter ago we had as our objective the building of forty thousand additional hospital beds in Canada. That was a project which some said was too great; it was said to be an impossible assignment or target, but because of the co-operation which we received from the provinces, and because of the financial assistance we made available to them, I am in the happy position of being able to say tonight that within the last year and a half this co-operative enterprise has resulted in the building of fourteen thousand additional hospital beds in Canada.
Now, sir, I should like to deal particularly with what I think may be considered as some weaknesses in the resolution that is now before us. With the proposition that the government should seek the co-operation of the provinces for the purpose of formulating a program of social security that would be national in scope and adequate in its provisions, I say unhesitatingly that that too is the view of the government. Not only is it our intention to continue that method of co-operation, but we have been doing that very thing. While in the last few months we may have resorted to different tactics by which to bring about certain achievements, the fact is that we subscribe fully to the terms of the resolution to the extent that I have read them. But, sir, we have a responsibility, a responsibility not only to ourselves but to the provinces and to others in the country, not to pass a resolution whose general terms are fully accepted by us, but to make sure that we have examined every implication involved in that resolution. I take second place to no one in this house in my desire to see a fully developed scheme of national security even on a more extended line than we now have in this country. But because that is my purpose I have to approach this in the

light of my responsibilities as the person and as the member of the government for the time being charged with bringing about the objectives of the resolution. The part I find some difficulty with is this:
And that will cover all citizens of Canada in every circumstance where the individual or the family is, for any reason, deprived of the opportunity of earning a living.
I do not think that, on careful analysis, we can agree exactly to that. Let me give some objections that come to my mind almost at once. First of all the words "all citizens" are used. We have many citizens of Canada who do not live in Canada. We have citizens who live abroad, some of them permanently abroad, whose domicile is still abroad, and who are enjoying social security benefits under other jurisdictions-or, if they are not enjoying social security benefits, are outside the reach of the government at home.
Is it intended that such individuals should be included? Let no one think for a moment that the persons who are legal citizens of Canada but whose domicile is abroad are few in number. The number is a very significant one, as my colleague the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley), I am sure, could indicate, if the question were directed to him.
Then, another objection I see to these very doubtful terms is that the resolution as a whole takes no account whatsoever of municipal responsibility. The three levels of government in this country are municipal, provincial and federal, and all three have their responsibilities. While in the first instance the responsibility of the municipality was more comprehensive than it is now, the fact is that municipalities still have their responsibilities in respect of these arrangements. Many provinces take the view that we are not encouraging sufficiently the assumption of responsibility by the municipalities in their particular areas.
But they have to be taken into consideration. There are many cases of hardship that can even at this time be best taken care of by municipalities. They are not cases of a type; they are individual special cases. In Great Britain, in New Zealand, in Australia, that local responsibility has not been taken away. In those countries, likewise, every citizen is not covered, in the sense that this resolution envisages, by the social security provisions to be found in those countries.
Then again-and I have to interpret the resolution very strictly, because of its implications-this resolution in its final terms does not take into consideration a citizen or individual who might himself be guilty of an act which would put him out of the wage-earning market, or the income-earning market; and 45781-31
Social Security
there are a few such individuals. A man could deliberately-and we have had such cases-dismember his two hands, and yet under this resolution he would be entitled to benefits. Are we going to say tonight that that kind of situation should be condoned by a legislative body?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friends laugh. But we are legislators. We are called upon tonight to pass a resolution; and our responsibility and our duty is to make sure that that legislation covers every case which at the moment of deliberation we are able to think of. It is my responsibility as Minister of National Health and Welfare to indicate what I believe to be some of the inadequacies and weaknesses in the resolution as at present drawn.
Another more serious objection is that the mover of the resolution uses the words "that will cover all citizens of Canada." But we have not made citizenship a condition for obtaining social security benefits. A child does not have to be a citizen under the Family Allowances Act in order to be eligible for the family allowance. An old age pensioner does not have to be a citizen of Canada to get an old age pension. A man does not have to be a citizen of Canada to be a beneficiary under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Yet this resolution would go farther, and would restrict not only future legislation but existing legislation.
It calls upon us to pass legislation, with the active co-operation of the provinces, provided it is given to all citizens of Canada. Let me repeat that we give social security benefits in this country in respect of the various acts I have mentioned, not on the basis of nationality, not on the basis of citizenship, but on the mere fact of residence; and this resolution does not take that into consideration.
The final observation I would make in this particular is to indicate, as I said at the outset, that there is no country in the world with a provision of this kind. Take a country where, it may be suggested, social security benefits are most comprehensive-and it has been suggested the United Kingdom is such a country; for the purposes of argument let us accept that suggestion. But in the United Kingdom there is no social security measure which provides social security assistance for all citizens of the United Kingdom in every circumstance where an individual or family is for any reason deprived of the opportunity of earning a living.
I say that to have a resolution couched in those terms-I was going to say "extravagant terms", but I will not say that, because the

Social Security
hon. member who is the author of this resolution is a responsible member of the House of Commons and usually approaches discussions of these matters in a serious manner. I will not use that word; but I am sure upon reflection the hon. member will find that the observations I have made are not without merit.
There is nothing further I can add except to say that, in a general way, so far as requesting the government to seek the cooperation of the provinces is concerned, we will continue to do so. That we are doing. I believe that what we are now doing will, in the course of, I trust, not too many months, be productive of good results.
Beyond that at the present time I cannot go, except to say that the government will make every effort toward expanding its program, in the light of what it believes should have priority, and in the light of what it considers to be its financial limitations- and that is something which we have to keep in mind. In the light of these things the government is not oblivious of the desirability of continuing to seek the cooperation of the provinces in expanding our social security measures.
One would not be thorough in his presentation if he did not again say that the basis of any social security system is the maintenance of peace in the world, that the productive capacity in a country should be maintained at a level whereby these things can be assured and continued.
It is true that Sir Stafford Cripps said the other day in the British House of Commons that there would be no interference with provisions for social security payments in that country. On the other hand, I can say with some authority that there are countries in continental Europe-and for fear of perhaps entering into a field in which I have no authority to make any public observations, I shall not name them-there are countries, represented by distinguished statesmen who have recently visited Canada, where very serious consideration is being given to reducing the social security payments, because of weaknesses in their productive capacity.
We do not want to be in that position; and it is because we do not want to be in that position that this government is doing all it can to make its contribution toward the preservation of peace in the world, doing all it can to extend its foreign markets so that our artisans, industrialists and farmers can sell their products, in return for which there will be guaranteed incomes to enable Canada to carry on in a responsible way these schemes of social security.

In speaking to this resolution I may say in all fairness and indisputably that the government that is now ready to seek the co-operation of the provinces has by its record to date given evidence of its determination to continue in the pursuit of that co-operation.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are intensely interested in the resolution presently before us. Perhaps one could leave it at that and at the same time leave the impression that we are going to support it. However, having said that, perhaps I should indicate that I personally have no hesitation in indicating my readiness to support the resolution. I was rather interested in the observations of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin).
In the first place, he took considerable time to dig up-perhaps I can use that expression -every conceivable type of condition that might, either now or some time in the future, arise under this particular resolution. If every piece of legislation brought before this house by the government were considered in the same way we would be unwise to pass any of it. During the course of years that I have had the privilege of occupying a seat in this house I have heard, not one but several cabinet ministers, when questioned rather closely with respect to sections of bills, say that it would have to be left to the courts to decide. Yet in connection with this particular resolution the minister went into great detail to indicate some real and many purely imaginary conditions which could be used as an argument for casting the resolution aside.
I believe I heard the minister go so far as to say that one might cut off both his hands in order to qualify under legislation that might be brought forward as the result of passing this resolution. I am not conscious of any piece of dominion government legislation in the field of public welfare, good as much of it is, under which I would cut off even one hand in order to qualify. I am sure that most Canadians feel the same.
I agree with the minister wholeheartedly, and the resolution agrees with him, when he states that the provinces should be consulted with respect to health measures. We have always been much opposed to centralization and we feel that under centralization this type of activity could not conceivably be effective. We feel that decentralization, with administration left in the hands of the provincial governments, would bring forward much more effective results than would otherwise be the case.
We agree with the second portion of the resolution which states that any security

scheme should be national in scope. It is well known that many parts of Canada are more favourably blessed from the standpoint of resources than other parts. We realize that those areas which are so blessed could provide a higher standard of health services than many other sections. But it is Canada we are dealing with. It is the health of Canadians we are concerned with. We are most desirous of seeing that any benefits that do accrue shall accrue to the people in those areas which from an economic or national wealth point of view are not as well blessed as other parts of the country.
The minister referred specifically to the latter part of the resolution and indicated that that was why the government could not accept the resolution. I think one of the most objectionable types of cases we encounter in Canada today are those which concern persons who because of physical incapacitation are unable to earn a living. Cases come to the attention of every one of us of persons under 70 years of age who cannot qualify for benefits under the Old Age Pensions Act, who have had to leave the labour market because of physical infirmities, who have nowhere to turn to except the municipal relief offices. Personally I do not think we have succeeded in any respect in the field of social security when persons are obliged because of incapacitation to seek municipal relief.
That is one reason why we have always urged that the Old Age Pensions Act be amended or a separate act enacted to permit these persons to qualify for benefits. I would go so far as to say that the government, in co-operation with the provinces, might consider this type of legislation before extending other types of legislation which we now have on the statute books and which provide benefits to other groups of people. I would be the first to say that, as far as our Old Age Pensions Act is concerned, we have still some distance to go before the payments are sufficient to guarantee a decent living for our people; but on the other hand those people are certainly much better off under the present rate of pension than those who are physically incapacitated and not eligible for anything. I think the minister might concentrate upon the solution of that particular problem as his next objective.
I would be the last one in the world to endeavour to take any credit away from the minister or the government for what has been lone in the field of national health. I think that most of that legislation has proved beneficial to many of our Canadian people. But t recall a time when many of us were pressing for that legislation, long before it appeared 3n the statute books of our country. I can recall when many hon. gentlemen who are 45781-311
Social Security
now sitting in the house ridiculed us day in and day out for suggesting that such a thing as family allowances was possible. It is significant that since 1945, when family allowances became a reality, we have not heard that type of criticism. We pride ourselves upon the position which we took and the part which we played in persuading the government to adopt that legislation and make those allowances a reality in Canada.
As I say, we are most grateful for the legislation that has been passed to assist the Canadian people in the field of public health. We anticipate more, but we do not feel that this resolution in its present form brings forward all the evil possibilities that the minister indicated during the course of his speech. As I say, we can be assured that with the co-operation of the provinces no minister would bring in a type of legislation that would permit many of the conditions which he referred to as being dangerous under the type of legislation that he envisaged following a resolution of this character. It could be said that the resolution is nothing but objective. It could be considered as an endorsation of much that the government has already done in the field of national health and social security. It could be a directive from the house to the government to proceed further with the introduction of other measures as and when such become possible.
May I say to the minister I feel that in the absence of a certain economic policy- perhaps I can put it that way-which would remove from our society the condition under which certain people find themselves unable to procure essential health services, the government is definitely under a moral obligation to pass the necessary legislation in order to fill the gaps.
I do not desire to occupy more of the time of the house. I agree with much that has been said by previous speakers, but at the same time there is a good deal with which I do not agree. I shall not take the time at the moment, however, to point out on what grounds I disagree. I repeat that we feel there is no danger in the passage of a resolution of this kind, because we are certain that the government is not going to negotiate any agreement with the provinces under which they will clash head on with many of the difficulties which the minister enumerated.


Joseph William Noseworthy: listened with a great deal of interest tc )he minister's remarks on this resolution. I was particularly interested in what he had to say regarding the so-called welfare state. I have noticed, as he has, that on the part of newspaper and magazine editors particularly there

Social Security
has been a great deal of criticism of the so-called welfare state. It has been quite evident in their criticisms that those editors were referring to the welfare state in the sense in which the minister interpreted it, and not in the sense of a completely socialistic state. A few days ago I read in a very popular United States magazine an editorial holding up the example of the Ford settlement with its employees as an illustration of capital welfare as opposed to the welfare state, and calling upon industry to institute such schemes of insurance in order to postpone the day when the state would take that action on behalf of its citizens.
I think there is a theory being propagated that is dangerous in a democracy. It is that government, as we have it in Canada, is something far removed from the people. I think it is time that steps were taken by editors generally and by those who influence public opinion, to point out that government in our country, and in all democratic countries, is not something removed from the people, but that government is a part of the people and the people themselves are a part of the government. I think it should be pointed out that in taking such steps to protect the welfare of citizens as are taken under social security measures the people are thereby doing collectively for themselves what a good many citizens could not possibly do individually. I can think of no more intelligent way of co-operating than by co-operation through the government whereby we collectively provide for those emergencies which the individual citizen in numerous cases cannot provide for himself. I can think of no more Christian way of meeting those difficulties than by doing it collectively through our government at the various government levels.
I was rather surprised at and disappointed by the objections which the minister raised to the acceptance by the government of the resolution. I have a very high respect for the intelligence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and it is for that reason that I was amazed at the piffling arguments which he put forth in objection to the resolution. Many of his arguments were such as no high-school class in this country would consider logical, and I suggest that they are an insult to the intelligence of the members of the House of Commons.
The minister quibbles about the use of the word "adequate" in the resolution. He knows full well that, before the resolution takes the form of law, the government, in consultation with the provinces, will be obliged to bring down a definite bill, and that the terms of that measure will be hedged around with

regulations to be made by orders in council He knows very well that the government is quite capable of seeing to it that the word "adequate", when translated into actual legislation, will be reasonable and will not involve the unreasonable difficulties to which he referred.
He asks us to oppose the resolution because it attempts to cover all citizens of Canada and there are some citizens of Canada living outside of the country who should not be covered. Surely his department, and the government he represents, can be depended upon to be sufficiently intelligent in introducing legislation and regulations to see thal that particular phrase in- the resolution is taken care of. He suggests further that the resolution does not provide for those residents of Canada who are not citizens oi Canada, and he tries to imply that, if we accepted the resolution, legislation would be introduced whereby residents of Canada whc are not citizens would not be entitled tc benefits under it. There again he is simply setting up a straw man. The validity of his objections is illustrated by his statement thal it is conceivable that some citizen might cu1 off his two hands in order to be eligible for compensation under this legislation. ] suggest that is pretty far-fetched. I cannol picture the minister going before the industrial workers of his own constituency and putting forth that argument as a reason foi not accepting this resolution.
The minister spoke of the cost of the present welfare projects of the government This resolution does not criticize the government on what it is doing. No one in this house wants to criticize the government or what it is doing. We recognize that the government has been moving in the righl direction, but our criticism is that it is moving too slowly. It has become a habit witl the Liberal government to withhold much-needed social legislation until just before ar election, and then to introduce that legislation on the eve of an election. That happenec in the last election, and in the election 01 1945. I think the members of this house should be concerned to see that we do no spend the next five years coasting along or the social legislation we have already, waiting until the eve of the next federal election foi the government to introduce the sort of legislation every political party advocated on th< hustings last June. I do not think there is : constituency in Canada in which a membei could get elected if it were generally knowi that he was opposed to the type of socia security visualized in this resolution. I repre sent a constituency which includes one of th< wealthiest municipalities in this country, anc I am confident that no man could get electee

in South York if it were generally known that he was opposed to the sort of social security legislation that is set out in this resolution. As a matter of fact, there were three candidates in that constituency in the last election, a Liberal, a Conservative and myself, and night after night all three of us were promising that if elected to parliament we would do our best to impress upon the government the need for just this kind of social security.
I am quite confident that if they are approached the provincial governments will co-operate in such legislation. The fact that one or two dominion-provincial conferences were unable to reach agreement is no reason for not making further attempts. The minister outlined the steps being taken by the government at the present time, the method of approaching one province at a time on one specific project. We do not want to wait another fifty years for the kind of social security legislation that was promised by the Liberal party thirty years ago. We want some steps taken at the beginning of this session so that such legislation may become effective within the next five years, during the lifetime of this parliament, rather than ten or fifteen years from now.


Mr. Irvin W. Siuder (Maple Creek):: The subject matter of the resolution now before the house, Mr. Speaker, is close to the hearts of many of us, and something we can all support if the mover and seconder will word their resolution in such a way as to make it possible for all the people of Canada to receive the benefit of anything this parliament may do in regard to social welfare and security.
For many years the dominion government has been trying to formulate a policy under which it could enact social legislation the benefits of which would be received by the people of every province. I do not believe any government of Canada has made more overtures, or has pleaded more with the provinces to enter into an agreement for the benefit of all the people of this country, than this government has done since 1945. The resolution asks that the government seek the co-operation of the provinces to bring about these beneficial conditions. I think it is about time the provinces should seek to co-operate with the dominion government in bringing about a condition under which all the people of the country will benefit from whatever steps may be taken. Time after time within my recollection there has been difficulty in connection with dominion-provincial agreements. Not only do I want agreement with respect to the health services of the country, about which the minister has spoken this evening; I also want agreement in regard to all the services affecting the
Social Security
people of Canada. To those who have been criticizing this government, I would suggest that they go to the provinces which thus far have refused to co-operate and preach this policy of co-operation, so that their people may obtain the benefits which will result from an agreement between all parts of the country.
It is impossible for a particular province to formulate a policy in regard to social services which will be permanent and of definite benefit to the people for all time. We know that from our experience in Saskatchewan; but let it be understood that the government of that province has been trying to do something, and I suggest that it be given all credit for that. It may be that it has been doing it in the wrong way, but at least the government has been trying to do something. The dominion government is endeavouring to benefit by the experience of the various provinces and of other countries, so that when it formulates a policy it will be permanent and of benefit to all the people throughout the land.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that in the last few years the Liberal government has listened more attentively to the criticism offered by the opposition than any other government in history. Strangely enough, however, the government that listened to that criticism and benefited therefrom is here in larger numbers today than ever before, while those who delivered that criticism without stint in the past few years are here in fewer numbers than ever before. So I suggest that the criticism offered by any opposition party will be well received by the government, and I believe the opposition parties will do themselves and the people in general a service by presenting resolutions of a kind which all the people can support.
A short time ago the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) dealt with the question of social services for all Canada. If what he has said is indicative of the feeling in the province with which he is closely associated, it would seem that prospects of co-operation in future are much brighter than they have ever been for some time. There has been some criticism of the suggestion by the minister that there may be some difficulties in the way of putting into effect the provisions of a resolution of this kind. Perhaps it was held up before us that some of the things he has offered as criticism are not well-founded. We learn as we go along-and we who are from Saskatchewan are in close association with some of the things that have happened there in this connection-things that we do not want any dominion government to have in its system of social services and which we want to prevent. This has

Social Security
nothing in particular to do with what was offered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Nevertheless, we could perhaps offer as an instance one little thing that happened in Saskatchewan in connection with social services. I should not like to have anyone tell anyone else about this, but they tell us out in Saskatchewan that, in connection with social services, the upkeep of the hospitalization plan is provided by contributions of the people; that is, there is a hospitalization fee in connection with the operation of that social service. They tell us that there is a law on the statute books of Saskatchewan to the effect that if anyone refuses to pay that hospitalization fee, he must either pay a fine or go to jail. I believe that is one of the things we should like to eliminate in this country of ours, in order that we would have nothing in connection with our social services that would lead one to believe that if one was not in a position to pay the required fee, or refused to pay it, a jail penalty would be imposed. We should like to have a social service that would be so comprehensive and be held in such high esteem by all the people of Canada that no one would need to attach a penalty of that kind to the law. With the co-operation of all the members in this house in what they may determine would be for the best interests of Canada, and in order that everyone regardless of where he is within this dominion of ours could obtain the benefits of the plan, we should like to associate ourselves with a resolution that would bring that about. In the meantime there are those people who now are under various social service schemes in connection with industry; and incidentally, perhaps those schemes could be enlarged in industry whereby the individuals who are now obtaining the benefits of what industry offers could go even further to make it possible that those people working in industry could all be sharers in industry and thus eliminate much of the difficulty not only in connection with the upkeep of their social services but also in connection with their whole manner of living as well.
When we compare ourselves with others anywhere in the world, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said, we should not be satisfied with having the best that there is anywhere. We are all interested in improving our system, and all would be willing to support a resolution that will make this possible. I would suggest to the opposition that they withdraw their resolution and put one before us that we can support, and as a result of which we will have a happier country in which to live.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. Does he know anyone

who has been thrown in jail because he would not pay this bill or could not pay it? If it is a case of someone not wanting to pay it but who is able to pay it, that is all right. But I do not think anyone was thrown in jail because he could not pay it.


Mr. Ferrie:: Nevertheless it is the law.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: But no one has been thrown in jail if he said he could not pay the bill.


Irvin William Studer: I do not think I said that anyone was thrown in jail. I said there was a law that made it possible for one to go to jail if he refused-and I used the word "refused"-to pay the hospitalization fee. Is that not right?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Yes. But no one who is in need is prosecuted, and no old age pensioner or anyone similarly circumstanced.


Irvin William Studer: I should not like to have written into Hansard what I know, but there are some people who have lived in Saskatchewan-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Let it be written in. The hon. member who has asked the question does not know.


Irvin William Studer: He should.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I think the hon. member wants to be fair.


Irvin William Studer: I want to be fair. I want to make it clear that no one may have gone to jail or may ever go to jail, but it is the law just the same.


William Scottie Bryce: You go to jail if you do not pay your taxes.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: I have followed this interesting debate with great care, Mr. Speaker. If it has proved anything, it has proved the correctness of the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) when he pointed out that the members of all parties in this house are sincerely interested in the basic tenet of this resolution, namely the expansion of social security in this country. Certainly no party has been in a position to give more complete and more concrete proof of this intention than has the Liberal party. I should like to compliment the minister on his fine though necessarily brief resume of the present social security system in this country, for which the Liberal party and the present government are almost completely responsible. It was somewhat amusing to hear the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) state that the Liberal government was in the habit of withholding its advances in social security until the time of an election.
Mr. Nose worthy: That is right.


John Horace Dickey: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has been in the happy position of putting in so many of these social security measures that it would be a physical impossibility to have avoided completely the possibility of a criticism of that kind. We are fortunate that we are not in the position of the C.C.F. party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is now eleven o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Tomorrow we shall move up the two resolutions in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), the one with regard to the Judges Act and the other with regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. Then the Prime Minister (Mr. St.
Business of the House Laurent) will move the resolution dealing with the appointment of a chief electoral officer. In committee we will study Bill No. 2, to amend the Supreme Court Act. Later we will take Bill No. 8, to amend the Exchequer Court Act, and then Bill No. 9, to amend the Department of Justice Act. At some stage we will move to go into committee of supply, and will call in five new departments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five?


Alphonse Fournier: It Is the only day in the week on which we can move to go into supply, having regard to these private members' days. Last week we could not even do that. I feel that we need a good many departments in if we want to make some progress with the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 4, 1949