1949-02-17

Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Last week the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) asked me this question:
Was the naval tug Glenevis, which was in collision with the Halifax-Dartmouth ferry in Halifax harbour this week, equipped with radar? Is there any shore-based radar available at that port? Was harbour craft No. 303, which was in collision with the North Dartmouth ferry in Halifax on the same day, equipped with radar?
The answer to all three questions is in the negative. So far it has not been considered necessary to install radar in these circumstances.



BUTTER SUBSTITUTES


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 22, to provide against the deception of purchasers or users of margarine, oleomargarine or other butter substitutes.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I explain this bill.


Mr. Sinclair:: Louder.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think even the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) will agree when I state the provisions of the bill, leaving out the preamble:
1.	No person shall colour margarine, oleomargarine, butterine or any substitute for butter so as to resemble butter.


An hon. Member:: Why?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I shall explain why in a minute.
2.	No person shall sell margarine, oleomargarine, butterine or other substitute for butter unless it is clearly labeled as such.
3.	No person shall supply such commodity for consumption in any hotel, restaurant or
other eating place where meals are supplied for a charge, unless on the bill of fare or menu or by some other means the purchaser or consumer is notified that such commodity is margarine, oleomargarine, butterine, or other butter substitute as the case may be.
4.	Every person who contravenes any provision of this act is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $500, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both fine and imprisonment.
Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is not merely to protect the dairy farmers but to prevent deception of the public.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 23, to amend the Criminal Code (pistols, air guns, motor vehicles, level crossings and the payment of fines).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us. We should use our best endeavours in the present session to remedy the evils covered by this bill, such as motorcar accidents, drownings, fires in homes, accidents at level crossings, and the slaughter of the innocents by hit-and-run drivers. Transportation should be a means to an end, not an end in itself. Nothing has added more to the comfort and education of the people than the motorcar, but, like every other invention of science, its use is one thing and its abuse is another. Warfare has turned into a curse, by their abuse, the many discoveries of science in physics, chemistry, biochemistry, medicine and other blessings to humanity.
In a news item in the Toronto Telegram of January 29 I noticed the headline: "Nine little victims, adult, await burial side by side." These people were the victims of a fire in New Waterford, Nova Scotia.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
618	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry



ALL JURORS TO BE FEMALE IN THE TRIAL OF FEMALE PERSONS

Thomas Langton Church: for leave to introduce Bill No. 24, to amend the Criminal Code (juries).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Thomas Langton Church: This bill is different from the one I introduced last year. Women comprised fifty-one per cent of the voting population in the 1945 election, and it is proposed that they be given jury duties, subject to the same qualifications as apply to male jurors. This provision appeals to me particularly from the point of view of the inspection duties of juries. If women were on the juries inspecting such institutions as the Mercer reformatory and the old Toronto jail in my constituency, the condition of these institutions would be much improved. I believe the matter is worthy of consideration.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. While (Middlesex East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or his parliamentary assistant. In view of the current T.B. testing of cattle in Middlesex county, is it the intention of the government to complete the tests in all the townships? If not, in what townships are the cattle not to be tested, and why not?


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: It
is my understanding that tests will be completed in all the townships of Middlesex county.



CARDINAL MINDSZENTY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frederic Dorion (Charlevoix-Saguenay):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Was Canada represented yesterday when the representatives of the civilized countries of the world expressed their condolences to His Holiness the Pope on the sentencing of Cardinal Mindszenty?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I did not receive notice of this question, which mentions action taken by the representatives of the various countries accredited to the Vatican. Canada is not represented at the Vatican; therefore no Canadian representative was present on this occasion.
[Mr. Church.)



CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM    INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE RESTRICTION OF IMPORTS FROM CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ronald Moore (Churchill):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of Britain's unfavourable balance of trade with this country, is the minister in a position to say whether the Canadian government expects action by the British government to reduce its unfavourable trade balance by restricting imports from Canada?


Righi Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The government does not expect such action.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: In view of the fact that the house may soon be debating the resolution on certain emergency powers, including price control, will the Prime Minister state when we may expect to have the report of the royal commission on prices?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I believe I did state that the information I had received from the printers was to the effect it would be available before the end of the month.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY INQUIRY AS TO CHOICE OF ROUTE THROUGH B.C. MOUNTAIN PASS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Matthews) asked me whether any decision had been arrived at with respect to the route of the trans-Canada highway through the province of British Columbia. I answered that I had not heard of any such decision. A communication has been received from Hon. Mr. Carson, Minister of Public Works for British Columbia, enclosing a plan of the proposed route through British Columbia. This plan shows the route to be the one commonly called the Banff-Big Bend route through the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. I am not sure that decision is definite as yet, Mr. Speaker, but that represents the recommendation coming to us at this time from British Columbia.



STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 16, consideration in committee of Bill No. 12, to amend the statute law-Mr. Garson-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 13-Maritime Freight Rates Act.
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Yesterday, when this section was being discussed, a number of questions were asked, and there seemed to be some misapprehension as to the exact meaning of it. I have communicated with the officers of the Canadian National Railways in connection with section 13 as set out in the act to amend the statute law, and I should like to make this statement.
The provision in the bill that through traffic between Canada and Newfoundland shall be treated as all-rail traffic when passing over the water route between North Sydney and Port aux Basques on the steamship now owned by the Newfoundland Railway is nothing unusual. It is the same practice as was followed with respect to the vessel service between the mainland and Prince Edward Island many years ago, when through rates were made via that service; the only difference is that the steamer service between the mainland and Prince Edward Island has been changed to a car ferry. It is not possible under present conditions to establish a car ferry between North Sydney and Port aux Basques; therefore the steamship service must be considered as a substitute for a car ferry service.
Under the circumstances it is quite proper for the through rates prevailing in the other maritime provinces to be extended through to Newfoundland via the steamship service on a basis somewhat comparable to the rates within the maritimes; in fact as soon as the Newfoundland Railway and its steamship service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques come under the provisions of the Railway Act, the provisions of that act will require the extension of reasonable through rates between the other provinces of Canada and Newfoundland.
The same situation exists with respect to the water service now carried on via the car ferry between Mulgrave and Point Tupper- that is, the rates between the rest of Canada and Cape Breton are on a through rail basis.
The reductions in the rates which will result from the taking over of the Newfoundland Railway and steamship service by the Canadian National is exactly the same prac-29087-401
Statute Law Amendment tice as has been followed with other railways taken over by the Canadian National. For example, when the railway from Matapedia to Gaspe was taken over, in accordance with the requirements of the Railway Act the rates were reduced from a combination over Matapedia to a joint through basis which was comparable with the main line of the Intercolonial railway for approximately similar distances.


Mr. McCulloch (Pictou):: What year was that?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not the exact date, but it was some time ago.
Under the bill the Canadian National Railways is required to file tariffs with the board of transport commissioners on March 31, assuming that confederation takes place on that date, and'assuming also that the lines of railway on the island of Newfoundland and the steamer service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques are entrusted to the Canadian National Railways on the same date. Such rates will have to conform to the general pattern of rail rates in the other provinces of Canada; otherwise they would be discriminatory. Discriminatory rates, either higher or lower than in the same general territory, cannot be maintained under the Railway Act. Therefore, as stated, the rates will follow the general pattern of the rates in the other provinces.
There is a great deal to be done in working out the details of these rates; therefore no quotations are available at the present time. But it may be stated that, from what has been done so far, the scheme of rates to and from Newfoundland compared with the rates to and from Halifax will result in substantial differences between the Halifax rates and the Newfoundland rates. If private steamship operators wish to continue to operate between Halifax and Newfoundland, and particularly St. John's, Newfoundland, the difference between the local Halifax rates and the Newfoundland rates should be sufficient to enable the steamship operators to carry on service at fair and reasonable rates.
On some commodities very low rates have been published from Montreal and points west to Halifax and North Sydney for furtherance to Newfoundland. These rates were established many years ago when there was a steamship line operating between New York and Newfoundland, and the rates to Halifax and North Sydney were established to meet competition via the port of New York. Combined with the local rates of the Newfoundland service beyond North Sydney or the private vessel rates beyond Halifax to Newfoundland, they resulted in very high rates.

Statute Law Amendment The through rates now proposed by the legislation to and from Newfoundland will be on a more reasonable basis, and the steamship operators at Halifax cannot expect the railways after the union to carry such extremely low rates to Halifax and North Sydney and thus result in the diversion of traffic from the through route of the Canadian National Railways.
There is nothing, however, in this act or the Railway Act to prevent other carriers, such as the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Dominion Atlantic Railway, from maintaining rates to Halifax via the route through Saint John and Digby for furtherance to Newfoundland, and in connection with steamship operators from Halifax providing competition with the joint through rates over the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. Nowlan:: I appreciate the courtesy of
the minister in making the statement he has made. Partly because of the difficulty in hearing him, and partly because it will take some time to digest the statement, I am not in a position at the moment to deal with it fully. With most of what he said I think we are in substantial agreement. I take objection, however, to one of the references made by the minister, if I understood him correctly. He said that the rates which were to be made in Newfoundland would be fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory; in other words, they are to be on the standard pattern of railroad rates. That is one of the matters directly dealt with by the Maritime Freight Rates Act, section 7 of which reads as follows:
The rates specified in the tariffs of tolls, in this act provided for, in respect of preferred movements, shall be deemed to be statutory rates, not based on any principle of fair return to the railway for services rendered in the carriage of traffic; and no argument shall accordingly be made, nor considered in respect of the reasonableness of such rates with regard to other rates, nor of other rates having regard to the rates authorized by this act.
If I understood the minister correctly his statement implies that the principle of the Maritime Freight Rates Act is to be whittled down by having whatever rates may be imposed in Newfoundland on a fair and reasonable basis. That matter was fought out many years ago. I understand that the statement read by the minister, and prepared by his responsible officials, cannot be at all derogatory of the statute, and that the statute still governs. But I want to take special exception to that principle enunciated by him.
As to the rest of what the minister said, I do not think it differs materially from what I suggested last night. My quarrel with this section is that it cuts down the application of 
the Maritime Freight Rates Act in the maritime provinces. If hon. members will look at section 4 of the act, they will find that preferred movements are defined by two subsections. Section 4(a) defines one as "local traffic, all rail." Obviously traffic can only move "all rail" into Newfoundland over the Canadian National Railways, because by this bill we are adopting the principle that the steamer between Port aux Basques and Sydney becomes part of the railway. That would be an "all-rail" movement, and in that way a preferred rate could be established over the Canadian National Railways, but certainly not over any other system.
The only other definition which is open, and which, I suggest, will be closed after this section is adopted, is section 4 (c): "Traffic moving outward, export traffic. . .''As the Prime Minister agreed last night, traffic moving today to St. John's, Newfoundland, is export traffic. After March 31 it ceases to be export traffic, because if the legislation which we have been considering here is enacted in the proper places, Newfoundland will become a province of Canada and there can be no export traffic to Newfoundland. There will then be only one way in which the Maritime Freight Rates Act can apply, namely, under this specially-designed section which applies to only one railway, and to traffic moving in one particular manner.
I suggest that this minimizes the effect and implication of the Maritime Freight Rates Act in the province. I suggest that, if necessary, this section of the Maritime Freight Rates Act should be amended so as to maintain the scope which exists today, by virtue of which freight moving over any of the railways in the province obtains the benefits of the act. I appreciate the fact that at the present time much of that freight moves from Halifax bywater. As the minister well knows, established shipping lines, such as Furness Withy and others, have been operating freight services there for many years.
Over the Canadian National Railways it will be possible to obtain a through all-rail rate, obtaining the benefits of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, from any point within the area to any point within Newfoundland. I suggest that this section be changed to apply to freight moving over the Canadian Pacific Railway, if you like, or over the Dominion Atlantic Railway, coming into Halifax, and that a through rate be provided so that if that rate is established it can be in competition with the one which will be fixed by the Canadian National Railways.
We know what will happen. The Canadian National Railways will apply and fix a through rate for goods moving eastward.

That is all to the good; but other carriers should be permitted to file through rates over any other system so that the accommodation of rail and water, if necessary, out of Halifax or out of Pictou or any other port, as mentioned by the senior member for Halifax last night, could be taken advantage of. Other carriers, if they desired, should be permitted to file through rates in competition. That will be prevented by the bill we are discussing at this time.
I do not propose to move an amendment; this is a matter of government policy and the government must accept responsibility for it. I suggest, sir, that they are reducing and belittling the effect of the Maritime Freight Rates Act within the maritime provinces. They are prejudicing those who are using other carriers, and they will reduce employment in Halifax and other districts which are served by the Dominion Atlantic Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway, and others. That is contrary to the principle which this house recognized many years ago when the Maritime Freight Rates Act was first adopted. At that time it was a matter of reducing costs to benefit shippers out of that area. I suggest in all deference that this section is so designed as to benefit the Canadian National Railways, to give that system a monopoly of traffic within the new province of Newfoundland, and to prejudice all those in other areas.


Mr. Isnor:: I wish to compliment the hon.
member who has just taken his seat on the way in which he has presented this subject to the committee. The Minister of Transport made an important statement, and I think we should have an opportunity of studying it; moreover, we should give the same opportunity to those who are interested from the competitive standpoint. Before I conclude I am going to suggest that the sponsor of the bill allow this section to stand until such an opportunity is given. I judge that that does not meet with the approval of all concerned, but I am going to urge it for the following reasons.
The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has said that the minister's statement indicates the creation of a monopoly, and I believe it does. The statement prepared by the officials of the Canadian National Railways presented one view and one view only. There must be competition if we are to bring about the benefits which Newfoundland and the maritimes expect from the Maritime Freight Rates Act. I do not wish to go into the question that arose at the time of confederation in relation to the maritimes. We do know that in the negotiations preceding confederation the question of transportation
Statute Law Amendment was given serious thought, because of the need of connecting the maritime provinces- the same question arises now in respect to Newfoundland-with central Canada in the way of trade. Instead of developing trade as we thought we would in the maritimes, the railway carried people who built up a large population in central Canada. The result was that in Ontario, for example, a population of three and a half million was built up within a radius of a hundred miles of Toronto. Because of that large market, industrial centres have developed in central Canada to such an extent that we in the maritimes are suffering under a handicap. The same situation may develop in respect to Newfoundland if we are not careful in dealing with the question of transportation to that new province. We hope to continue to have products in the maritimes to ship to central Canada, and we want the Maritime Freight Rates Act, and the benefits we derive from it, to be undisturbed. For that reason we believe there is a definite thought of monopoly in the statement presented by the Minister of Transport.
The shipowners who have been carrying on business between the maritime provinces and Newfoundland should still enjoy the opportunity to carry on that trade through the shipping business which they have built up. The statement made by the minister more or less eliminates water-borne traffic because of the monopoly mentioned by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. We should carefully study the effect that this is likely to have on the maritime provinces, particularly on the large shipping ports. May I emphasize the fact that Halifax depends to a very great extent on employment along its waterfront. I am concerned about it. Before this section passes the shipowners of Nova Scotia should be asked to give us their advice about it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I fear the hon. member is under a misapprehension as to what is being done. No increase is being provided in rates from any point within the preferred area to any point in Newfoundland. At the1 present time there are no through rail rates from Halifax to Newfoundland. There is a rail rate to Halifax, and then water carriage beyond that. Under this arrangement a through rate will be possible from points within the preferred area through North Sydney and Port aux Basques, treated as an all-rail rate. All hon. members know that the procedure provided in the Maritime Freight Rates Act to give the benefits recommended by the Duncan commission required that new tariffs be filed twenty per cent below what they would normally be,

Statute Law Amendment and this house votes a special appropriation each year to the amount of twenty per cent of the freight bill. What is being done here is that twenty per cent of the freight bill on traffic moving under the Maritime Freight Rates Act to Newfoundland will be borne by the federal exchequer, including that portion of the freight bill which covers the ninety miles between North Sydney and Port aux Basques. Twenty per cent of the freight bill from any point within the preferred area to Halifax will still be paid by the federal exchequer.
What the hon. member would like to have done, perhaps, would be to have the federal exchequer assume twenty per cent of the water carriage bill from Halifax to St. John's. That is a matter which was discussed with the delegation, and we could not agree to it. There is no control, other than that arising out of competition, over the amount of freight that water carriers take. We could not agree to pay out of the federal exchequer twenty per cent of the cost of water-borne traffic from Halifax to ports in Newfoundland. The other rail rates are not being changed in any way. It may be that having the ninety miles between North Sydney and Port aux Basques treated as rail movement "would make a rate which would be more attractive than a water-borne rate from Halifax to St. John's, but it would be merely for Port aux Basques and nearby operations, because a through rate all rail from any point in Canada to St. John's via North Sydney and Port aux Basques will be a rate that should be higher than a combination of the freight rate to Halifax plus a fair and reasonable water rate from Halifax to St. John's. On the rail portion, either within Nova Scotia or New Brunswick or within Newfoundland, the federal exchequer will reimburse the shippers twenty per cent to the railways, but it will not reimburse twenty per cent of the water freight from Halifax to St. John's or any other port, and it never has. So it is not creating anything different in that respect. As a factual result, it may be that because the ninety miles water haul between North Sydney and Port aux Basques is to benefit from the twenty per cent reduction, it will prove to be more effective for Port aux Basques than if there were a rail rate to Halifax and then water carriage from Halifax to Port aux Basques. But when you consider that these are two rail movements, water carriers from Halifax should be able to quote a very reasonable freight rate for their portion of the water carriage and still have the total remain under the all-rail rate.
.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I think the Prime Minister has forgotten one point, namely, competition in water-borne freight. As has been said, in Halifax we have four or five large shipping companies which have been doing a good business between the mainland of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Naturally we do not want those firms to be put out of business because of a monopoly in transportation. As was pointed out yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, the Canadian National has a long line from Halifax to Sydney to carry freight. And if freight is carried over that line it will not be beneficial to the merchants and users in St. John's and other sections of Newfoundland.
I believe that if freight from Halifax or other points in Nova Scotia is carried by water it will lessen the operating cost and bring down the rate. That is what we want- to create open competition from Halifax to Newfoundland as compared with a long rail haul. If we can have the assurance that there will be no interference with that competition and rate, that is what we want. In the meantime, while I am willing as a rule to take the word of the Prime Minister or of the Minister of Transport, I doubt whether either is as well versed in these transportation matters as the men who carry on the work. For that reason I ask that an opportunity be afforded to present the statement of the Minister of Transport to the shipping firms in Halifax.


Mr. Gillis:: I listened carefully to the Minister of Transport, and so far as I am concerned the statement he made was fair and reasonable. I cannot follow the argument of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings -I wish they would shorten the name of that constituency-or the argument of the senior member for Halifax, because this arrangement with Newfoundland is not changing anything.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, it is.


Clarence Gillis: It was in existence before the proposal to bring in Newfoundland was made, with the exception that the Maritime Freight Rates Act has been extended and made applicable to the ninety miles between North Sydney and Newfoundland, and to the railways in Newfoundland. That does not affect the port of Halifax at all; it does not do anything to that port which was not in existence before.
I understand the argument of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, because a section of the Canadian Pacific Railway, a privately-operated company, runs through that valley. And while these private companies argue that they do not want any entanglements with the government, they are

always willing to put their hands out for anything the government may be able to give them.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Competition.


Clarence Gillis: The senior member for Halifax says that this will be a great monopoly. If it is a monopoly, then he is arguing against a monopoly of his own government.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: That does not matter.


Clarence Gillis: Apparently he has very little faith in it. The Canadian Pacific Railway would be affected to only a very small extent. They still fall within the terms of the Maritime Freight Rates Act from the valley into the port of Halifax.


George Clyde Nowlan: No.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member is now arguing for these privately-operated shipping companies, and saying that they should have the freight cost offset by twenty per cent and brought under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. This competition about which he speaks is only camouflage; it is something like Duplessis' Union Nationale-take the mask off, and it is the Tory machine. This question of competition, and this argument against a monopoly, and all that kind of thing, is just a false face to cover up what the hon. member is really after, namely, to subsidize private shipping companies out of government funds. If they are not able to carry on on their own, in my opinion they should not be in business, and it should be handed over to the government.
Money used in connection with the Maritime Freight Rates Act comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Canada. We provide millions of dollars each year to make up the deficit of the Canadian National Railways. I believe the action taken by the government in this instance-and it has not been done in every case-in trying to maintain their own organization in competition with the Canadian Pacific Railway is a step in the right direction. While the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings is interested in getting something for the valley, and the senior member for Halifax is interested in the business done by the port of Halifax-I do not blame him for that; a good deal of grass has grown on the railway into that terminal in the past twenty years-


George Clyde Nowlan: What are you interested in?


Clarence Gillis: I am interested in my own end of the country. As I said a moment ago, I do not blame these hon. members for taking their stand and telling us what they want done. Nevertheless when they speak about competition, monopoly, and all that kind of thing, they do not make a good case.
Statute Law Amendment


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: You do not like monopolies?


Clarence Gillis: If the arrangement these two hon. members suggest is accepted, it will be applicable not only to water shipments from Halifax to Newfoundland, from the valley, but it will include everything that comes down from Quebec and Ontario. There is no argument as to the competition between the old obsolete railway from Halifax to Sydney and the modern shipping facilities from Halifax to St. John's. There is no competition there.
If the arrangement suggested by the hon. members to whom I have referred were to go through, it would mean that you might as well take up the rails between Halifax and North Sydney; it would kill that port, and I should not like to see that happen. There are three hundred miles of road down there, and a flourishing little seaport, both of which are kept up by the present arrangement. It would not be a question of establishing competition there; it would mean the scrapping of a great deal of essential material which was built and paid for by Canadians in that end of the country.
Apparently I have more faith in the Prime Minister than the senior member for Halifax has. The Prime Minister stated yesterday that the point raised by the two hon. members is one which would have to be dealt with by the board of transport commissioners. He said it would be dealt with, and the arguments advanced would be taken into consideration.
I know that in a debate on this bill affecting Newfoundland we have not the opportunity to remedy that condition. With the assurance given by the Prime Minister that the best possible arrangement will be made for all concerned, I am satisfied to let the case rest.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Apparently the hon. member for Cape Breton South missed the point entirely. He began his speech with an argument, and then proceeded to tear that argument to pieces. I just want to reply to the hon. member's reference to my confidence in the Prime Minister. I say to him that if on measures brought in by the Prime Minister he votes as I vote, I shall be quite satisfied.


Clarence Gillis: Every time the Prime Minister is right, I will support him.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: He is right more often than the hon. member thinks he is.


Clarence Gillis: He is right in this case.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: If the hon. member for Cape Breton South is sincere in his efforts to help his own particular section of the country and to improve that railroad, then he should support us in bringing about open competition. There is nothing like competition to improve a service and bring about what the hon.
624	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Statute Law Amendment member has been trying to bring about for many years. I ask the hon. member to get back of the maritime provinces in their efforts to keep all ports busy, not just one port. We shall then have the competition which will improve the service about which he has been complaining.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1 want to compliment the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings for bringing up this matter and placing it before us so clearly. He has been supported by the senior member for Halifax. I am in agreement to some extent with the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I am especially interested in seeing that all the ports in the maritime provinces are treated fairly. I agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South that since confederation eastern Nova Scotia has been handicapped, having regard to the amount of traffic that is handled, more than any other part of Canada. For many years we have been trying to get a crossing over the strait of Canso and to have the railroad serving eastern Nova Scotia reconstructed.
The whole situation has been changed in bringing Newfoundland into confederation, because this traffic will now be interprovincial. The maritime freight rates, for which we fought for so many years and at last obtained, and which are prized so highly in the maritime provinces, will now be made applicable to Newfoundland and to the water crossing from North Sydney to Port aux Basques. This is quite a concession to the shippers in Newfoundland, and I am in hearty agreement with it. I do not think the government could have done otherwise.
As has been pointed out, this is now interprovincial trade, and any traffic from Halifax or such points to Newfoundland will be on the same basis. Traffic from Halifax to points in Newfoundland should not be handicapped; it should receive the twenty per cent subsidy provided by the Maritime Freight Rates Act and made available via other routes. Otherwise it will be discriminated against in the future. I do not see how the government can avoid granting this twenty per cent subsidy to traffic between Halifax and other points and Newfoundland.
I compliment the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings upon presenting the case so clearly. I think the important statement which has just been made by the Minister of Transport should be allowed to stand so that we may have an opportunity to review it in relation to this entire traffic-unless the Prime Minister is able to give us assurance that the maritime freight rates subsidy will apply to all traffic, and there will be no discrimination created when Newfoundland

enters confederation, and all receivers of goods will benefit.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think we are confusing the two things that are before the committee. I am surprised that the hon. member for Cape Breton South should intimate that his famous railroad is dependent upon outward traffic rolling down toward Sydney. I always had some suspicions that the steel and coal industries of Cape Breton were substantial factors in the maintenance of that railroad.
As I say, there are two things before us. There was the suggestion made originally by myself and by the senior member for Halifax that these rates should apply from Halifax to St. John's, that traffic between those points should come within the scope of the freight rates act. I suggest that the hon. member for Cape Breton South is wrong, and I suggest also, with deference, that the Prime Minister is wrong, in saying that no change has been effected by this amendment. It may be that both are technically correct, that the Canadian National Railways are simply being extended over ninety miles of water. But if the right hon. gentleman will look at section 4-I would not want to set myself up as an expert on the interpretation of statutes as opposed to the Prime Minister, especially in view of his standing before the bar-I think he will find that the preferred rates come within one of two classifications. First, there is the local traffic, all rail. Certainly this is not local traffic, all rail. Second, there is traffic moving outward, export traffic. Certainly this is not export traffic. Therefore I suggest to the hon. member for Cape Breton South and to the Prime Minister that the situation is changed and that they must distinguish between the problems now before the committee.
There is the matter of compensation for freight moving from Halifax or other ports to Newfoundland, and there is the further matter, I suggest, of the interpretation of section 4. I contend that the Prime Minister was not correct when he stated that the Maritime Freight Rates Act would apply to goods moving over the Canadian National Railways to Halifax. Goods would have to be shipped direct to Halifax locally and then be reshipped, because the provisions apply only to local traffic, all rail, and export traffic. '
It is not export, and if it is to be local, all rail, you would have to consign it to Halifax and then reconsign it to St. John's. I think that is correct. This traffic will be restricted to traffic over the Canadian National if the benefits of the Maritime Freight Rates Act are to apply. I suggest that if that principle is to be maintained, section 4 of the Maritime

Freight Rates Act should be amended by striking out the words "export traffic'' so that the benefits of the act will apply in so far as Halifax, Digby or other ports are concerned.
Whether or not the government wishes to extend that provision is a matter of policy for which the government must assume responsibility. But I state with deference, and I think the Prime Minister almost accepts my contention, that if it is not done, the benefits of the Maritime Freight Rates Act will be lost in relation to all shipments moving to Newfoundland except those moving over the Canadian National, unless they are first shipped locally to Pictou or Saint John or Halifax and then reshipped. Of course that would create an impossible situation which I do not think it is the intention of the government to bring about.


Thomas Langton Church: The question of maritime freight rates is not a local question. I remember back in 1922 when I first entered this house I proposed a national fuel policy under which all coal would be mined under the British flag. At that time boats were coming into Toronto harbour from Swansea, Wales. My suggestion was that coal should be mined in Wales, the maritimes or Alberta. A select committee of the House of Commons was appointed and it considered this motion for three days. The committee heard evidence for weeks and reported favourably. The discussion of this matter continued from 1922 onward. In 1925 the late Minister of Justice, Mr. Lapointe, took steps to have the Duncan commission appointed to go into all these involved questions.
My proposal was a system of bonuses, subventions and subsidies to cure the ills from which the maritime provinces were suffering at that time, but my proposal did not commend itself to the house. As I understand it the present maritime freight rates will not apply to Newfoundland, because it ceased to be a dominion in 1933, as my leader said last evening. What was that system of bonuses, subventions and subsidies that I proposed? 1 believe such a policy would cure all the ills from which all the provinces are suffering. In that connection I say freight rates should not be made a political question by one province at the expense of the others. That is the difficulty we have had in this house with railway rates of all kinds. We have had them dealt with by professors and such whose only knowledge of freight and freight rates was what they gained by looking out the windows as they traveled on our railways.
In my opinion the government should fully implement the recommendations of the Duncan commission which was appointed in 1925. There was a debate on parliamentary and constitutional reform, and a committee of
Statute Law Amendment this house presided over by the present Mr. Justice Carroll inquired into these matters and made a report. One or two of the mari-timers supported the policy I advocated. The late Mr. Logan, who was later appointed to another place, and Mr. Carroll were the only two members from the maritimes who supported my program which was designed to initiate a national fuel policy with particular application to the maritimes. At that time there was a very large body of public opinion in the province of Ontario which sympathized with the maritime provinces. They wanted to use that coal, and they needed it.


The Chairman:: Order. I think the hon. member is getting away from the section under consideration.


Thomas Langton Church: After union the present maritime freight rates will not apply to Newfoundland, I repeat, unless there is a special agreement covering that point. The water rates will continue to apply, I suppose, but I was referring to the recommendations made by the Duncan commission in support of my proposal for a dollar a ton bonus, so that millions of tons of coal could be moved from the maritimes to Ontario.
Will the present bonuses, subventions and wartime rates for freight extend to Newfoundland? I say they will not, unless after union there is some special agreement. I believe there will have to be a new arrangement with respect to freight and passenger rates and all the other things which were mentioned the other evening. I believe it is only sound policy for us to do everything within our power to aid the maritime provinces along the lines laid down by the Duncan commission.


Mr. Williams:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened as well as I could from back here to the discussion that has been going on, and from what I was able to hear and understand it seems that the great advocates of private and free enterprise are now interested in getting some government subsidies for some section of a private enterprise railway as well as private enterprise shipping. It seems to me that is a great contradiction. If private, free enterprise is the strong and virile factor they would have us believe it to be, for the life of me I cannot understand why it should not stand on its own feet. After all, this is a government-owned institution that is contemplated, carrying freight down in that area; and I think it would be extremely foolish for the government to subsidize one of its competitors. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, since we are discussing railway matters, I am particularly interested in that section of

Statute Law Amendment railway which runs through the main street of the city of Oshawa in my riding. I want to see that stretch of railway picked up by somebody, I do not care who does it or where they take it.
All I want to say is that I think the government is perfectly consistent in following the course the minister has outlined, thereby looking after the interests of the institution for which it has the responsibility.


George Clyde Nowlan: Is the hon. member prepared to state that he is opposed to the principle of the Maritime Freight Rates Act? If so, is he speaking for his party in making that statement?


Arthur Henry Williams: That is the trouble with sitting back here; people do not speak loudly enough. They blame it on the acoustics of the chamber, whereas if they would only speak as well as they can one could hear and understand much better what is going on.


Mr. Graydon:: They can hear you in the galleries all right.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: I do not want to take sides in any discussion as to the advantages or disadvantages of these various routes, but in fairness to the hon. member for Halifax I do want to say that I do not pretend to know what rates the water carriers charge from Halifax to St. John's. In our discussions with the Newfoundland delegation, however, we assumed that they took lower rates for comparable mileage than the railway companies take. I do not know whether or not that is so. If it is so, the argument I submitted is valid.
With respect to the remarks of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, with much of what he said I agree, but I think there is this confusion which perhaps does not exist in his mind but which may exist in the minds of those reading his remarks. From what he said one would be inclined to understand that the maritime rates applied to export traffic the whole way. That is not so. They apply to export traffic originating within the select territory and only with Tespect to the portion of the journey made over a railway; that is to say, in the case under discussion, only to Halifax. You can bill something from any point in the select territory to a point outside Canada and it is export trade, but the rate the carrier charges is the total of the rail rate plus the water rate, and the Maritime Freight Rates Act applies only to the portion of that charge which is the rail rate. That will not be changed in any way here. If something is going from the select territory today to any port in Newfoundland, the portion of the rate


that represents the rail journey to Halifax will still get the twenty per cent.


George Clyde Nowlan: Will the Prime Minister say under what section that comes?


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: It is local. It is all rail and it gets the benefit of the maritime rate, provided it originates within the select territory.


George Clyde Nowlan: Would it not have to be billed local to Halifax, and then re-billed from Halifax on? It would not be billed all rail from Diamond Junction, for instance, to St. John's, Newfoundland; it would have to be billed local to Halifax and then re-billed to St. John's.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In my view that would have to be local all rail, and the railway companies would collect from the federal exchequer 20 per cent of the rate for the operation from Diamond Junction to Halifax and 20 per cent of the rate from St. John's to the ultimate destination in Newfoundland.


George Clyde Nowlan: Then the words "all rail" have no significance at all?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The words "all rail" have the significance that that portion of the rate borne by the treasury does not apply to any part of the haul that is not for rail transportation. If it does not work out that way, the hon. member can have the assurance that it will be.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Will the Prime Minister allow the section to stand until tomorrow? It is very doubtful whether we will get through the entire bill today. I feel we should have the opportunity of having expert opinion on this matter.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps we could make this compromise. We will let the section stand for the moment and proceed with the remainder of the bill. If we get through the bill today, we can go back to section 13, but I hope we would not have to have any more discussion on that section.


Percy Chapman Black: Before this section passes, I should like to get some information from the Minister of Transport in relation to the steamship Kipawo. This boat was privately owned and operated under a subsidy on the bay of Fundy. During the war, it was handed over to the dominion government for the naval service, after which it was sold by war assets to Newfoundland. As I understand, the boat has been operated out of Newfoundland since then. Can the minister tell the committee whether the ownership of the Kipawo now reverts to Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no provision in section 13 or any other section of the agreement to cover the point raised by my hon.

friend. I remember the interest which he had when the matter came up before. He was particularly interested in the ferry service which existed at one time from Parrsboro to Wolfville, via Kingsport, I think. During the war years, this service was stopped. There is no objection to a group of people making an application for a subsidy for such a service, if that is what my hon. friend has in mind. I am sure the maritime commission would give consideration to such an application. At the present time, there is no application before it. Under a section which deals with freight rates and does not deal with ferry services, I doubt very much whether it would be possible to meet the position of the member for Cumberland.
I have dealt with this question before, during the consideration of my estimates. I think I gave a reason then why it was not possible to re-establish the service. I understand there is a road going around the basin of Minas which tourists may use. Alternatively, they could use the ferry between Digby and Saint John. If my hon. friend knows of a group of people interested in establishing a ferry service, I can assure him the maritime commission will give their application the usual consideration.


Percy Chapman Black: I was interested in ascertaining whether the ownership of the Kipawo would now revert to Canada or remain the property of the province of Newfoundland.


Lionel Chevrier: As I do not know the corporation or group of people owning the Kipawo in Newfoundland, I cannot answer the question, except to refer to the section of the agreement which covers the Claren-ville boats. Certainly, it does not cover the Kipawo.
Section 13 stands.
Section 14 agreed to.
On section 15-Immigration Act.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I should like to say a word about this section of the bill since it deals with the Immigration Act as well as the matter of domicile in so far as lawful admission into Newfoundland is concerned. The reason I mention that at this time is this: I believe the people of Newfoundland have the right to know something which frequently we in this house do not know, and that is the degree to which orders in council have been passed ratifying the unlawful or illegal entry of people into Canada. I should like to raise the question whether or not there are in existence any secret orders in council or orders in council under the Immigration Act, which will become the law of Newfoundland upon the admission of that country to union.
Statute Law Amendment
I mention particularly the act as it stands, chapter 93, wherein the rights of persons to enter Canada are provided, and wherein the reasons for prohibiting people from entering Canada are stated. Section 3 of the Immigration Act provides that:
No immigrant, passenger, or other person, unless he is a Canadian citizen, or has Canadian domicile, shall be permitted to enter or land in Canada, or in case of having landed in or entered Canada shall be permitted to remain therein, who belongs to any of the following classes, hereinafter called "prohibited classes":
Then the various prohibitive classes are set forth. Among those particularly designated are the persons covered by subsections (q) and (r).
These subsections read as follows:
(q)	Persons guilty of espionage with respect to His Majesty or any of His Majesty's allies.
(r)	Persons who have been guilty of high treason or treason or of conspiring against His Majesty, or of assisting His Majesty's enemies in time of war, or of any similar offence against any of His Majesty's allies.
The minister has certain powers which are set forth in section 4 of the act. The minister may issue a written permit authorizing any person to enter Canada or, having entered or landed in Canada, to remain in this country without being subject to the provisions of this act.
Section 18 of the act provides that any decision made by a board of inquiry shall be final, except that the minister may, of course, subject to section 4, allow prohibited groups or persons belonging to any of those groups to enter Canada.
The situation to which I have reference today relates to the entry into Canada, illegally and unlawfully, of certain individuals who came in some time prior to the 13th of September, 1948. Those people came into Canada under forged passports. They are not in the position of refugees who, fleeing from political persecution, seek refuge and then afterwards, being found within the country, are granted within the provisions of section 4 a written permit authorizing them to be in the country. In one or more cases these persons come within the qualifications of prohibited persons by reason of conviction within their own country, and of coming in under false, fabricated and forged passports.


Mr. Garson:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the matter which is before the committee now is whether section 15 of the act should be considered and passed. With all deference, I think the remarks that my hon. friend is now making have no strict relevancy to this section. Plenty of opportunity will be given him, I

Statute Law Amendment understand, to express an opinion upon the point he is raising, but I suggest that this is not the proper time.


John George Diefenbaker: This section to which I
am referring brings the Immigration Act into effect and makes it applicable to Newfoundland.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It does nothing of the
kind.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It does nothing of the kind.


John George Diefenbaker: I will read the section. It is as follows:
For the purposes of the Immigration Act, chapter ninety-three of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, domicile in Newfoundland prior to the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, shall be deemed to be domicile in Canada . . .


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman-


John George Diefenbaker: May I continue my argument on the point of order?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: This Statute Law Amendment Act provides for the necessary changes to make the statutes applicable to Newfoundland. What I am trying to do is to find out- and I think the people of Newfoundland have a right to know-how many secret orders in council were passed by the executive; and in this case I say that, illegally and without any justification under the law, this order in council was passed. I am trying to find out how many of these are today applicable and will be applicable to the new citizenship of Newfoundland when it joins Canada. I submit that, after all, the orders in council that are still applicable to the facts at issue will apply to Newfoundland.
My question at this time is this. To what degree will the secret orders and secret laws -vestiges of the Star Chamber-be in effect and applicable to Newfoundland when Newfoundland is finally admitted to confederation? I start with that question because I think it is one of material importance, the answer to which should be known not only by all those in this house but also by Newfoundland. I want to know the degree to which the exercise of executive power, in this case without any legal justification whatsoever, shall apply to Newfoundland.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask whether my hon. friend has finished his remarks on the point of order? Is that the end of the argument?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If it is, I would point out that the section before us does not make the Immigration Act applicable to Newfoundland. It merely provides that, for the purposes of the Immigration Act, domicile in Newfoundland prior to a certain day named shall be considered to be domicile in Canada, and that the expressions "land" and "enter" include lawful admission into Newfoundland under the laws of Newfoundland. That is all it provides. It does not make the law of Canada applicable to Newfoundland. My hon. friend's point of order is therefore not well taken, in my opinion.


William Ross Macdonald: I should point out that, under standing order 58 (2), all discussion in committee must be strictly relevant to the clause under consideration. As the Minister of Justice has pointed out, the whole Immigration Act is not being discussed at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that in saying I bow to your ruling, as I always do, I am not denied the opportunity of saying to my hon. friend that I can realize this is one subject which he did not want discussed at this time.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: The hon. member is quite wrong. He knows that there have been no secret orders in council. He knows there have been no orders in council that were illegal. He also knows that there will be ample opportunity for him to examine the whole matter. But this is not the time to do it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: For the sake of the record, I should like to say that I have no desire whatever to prevent this matter from being discussed. But in a house of this sort I believe it is better to discuss a subject at the proper time.


Mr. Abboif:: We must observe the constitution.


John George Diefenbaker: That statement of course is quite unjustified. I rose to a point of order. I received an adverse ruling. I accepted your ruling, Mr. Chairman. As to my hon. friend, the Minister of Justice, I would say to him that the rules here are somewhat different from those of the house whence he came.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall section 15 carry?


Mr. Lockhart:: Will the movement of persons from Newfoundland to any part of Canada be entirely free, just the same as the present movement from one province to another?


Mr. St. Laureni:: Exactly the same.


Mr. Miller:: Will that word "domicile" be interpreted under the laws of Newfoundland as they are today or under the laws of Canada? Will there be a provincial or a dominion interpretation?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As my hon. friend will see when we reach subsequent sections of the bill, it will be interpreted differently, depending upon the section. For example, when you come to citizenship, the domicile that is required in Newfoundland is one year. In Canada it is five years. When we come to that section my hon. friend will see that we will be submitting an amendment to the text of the bill to make the new domicile five years for the purpose of Newfoundland and Canada, in order to have it uniform all across the country.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Douglas Charles Abbott: May we revert to section 6,
which I believe was held over last night? Someone wanted to ask some questions.
On section 6-Civil Service Superannuation Act.


Mr. Xnowles:: I wished to ask a few questions yesterday but the Minister of Finance was not able to be here at the time. Perhaps he could answer them now. I should like to know the precise basis upon which we take over responsibility for Newfoundland superannuated civil servants. I would break my question in the main into two parts. First of all, what is our responsibility, and how will we discharge it, with respect to civil servants who are already retired? My second question will then be obvious. What is our responsibility, and how will we discharge it, with respect to government employees in Newfoundland who now become federal government employees but have not yet retired?
When the minister is answering my question, I should be glad if he would give some indication as to the rates of pension as between Newfoundland and Canada. Thinking again of the first group, the people who are already retired, are the pensions they are now receiving of the order that our own superannuated civil servants are receiving? Will they be brought up to what we are paying? That is rather the wrong phrase to use because some of them are very low. Will uniformity be established with respect to those who are now retired? The same thing applies to those who are still working. Will they be on a basis comparable to the set-up in Canada?


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I reply first to the question as to what the position will be with respect to the Newfoundland civil servants who are retired prior to the date of union. The agree-
Statute Law Amendment ment of union provides that their pensions will continue to be paid by the province of Newfoundland, and they will be considered as retired provincial civil servants.
The section that we are now considering is designed to give effect to term 39 of the terms of union. Perhaps it would be well if I were to read that, Mr. Chairman. It reads as follows:
39. (1) Employees of the government of Newfoundland in the services taken over by Canada pursuant to these terms will be offered employment in these services or in similar Canadian services under the terms and conditions from time to time governing employment in those services, but without reduction in salary or loss of pension rights acquired by reason of service in Newfoundland.
(2)	Canada will provide the pensions for such employees so that the employees will not be prejudiced, and the government of the province of Newfoundland will reimburse Canada for the pensions for, or at its option make to Canada contributions in respect of, the service of these employees with the government of Newfoundland prior to the date of union, but these payments or contributions will be such that the burden on the government of the province of Newfoundland in respect of pension rights acquired by reason of service in Newfoundland will not be increased by reason of the transfer.
(3)	Pensions of employees of the government of Newfoundland who were retired on pension before the service concerned is taken over by Canada will remain the responsibility of the province of Newfoundland.
This is a fairly complicated matter, as hon. members will appreciate, and during negotiations with the Newfoundland delegation an attempt was made to draft a term of agreement which would provide in detail for the way in which the pensions of public servants transferring to the service of the government of Canada would be dealt with. After a great deal of study it was found to be feasible to include a term only in the rather general language which I have just quoted. That was so because of the many variations between the Newfoundland pension scheme and our own. To illustrate, some of these variations include such things as:
(1)	The Newfoundland scheme is noncontributory.
(2)	The pension, under the Newfoundland scheme, is based on the average salary of the last three years' service, and the Canadian scheme is based on the average of the salary of the last ten years of service.
(3)	In certain cases in Newfoundland a credit is given for longer service than is actually performed.
(4)	The rate of computation of the Newfoundland pension is different from the Canadian rate.
(5)	War service is treated differently under the Newfoundland scheme from the Canadian scheme.

Statute Law Amendment
I give these as an illustration and not as a complete list of variations between the Newfoundland scheme and our own scheme. The experience of the law officers of the crown in drafting section 6 of the bill which is now under consideration was somewhat similar to their experience in drafting term 39. Several attempts were made to draw amendments to the Superannuation Act, our Canadian statute, which would deal in detail with all matters affecting the pensions of transferred public servants. It was found that this could not be done without the most precise information in each case, and more precise information than we have at the moment. As a result of the study it was believed that in general Canada's undertaking in the provisions of the term which I read a moment ago will be fully carried out if the Superannuation Act is made applicable to the transferred employees. Some variations will be made necessary of course by the terms of union. Moreover, in some cases, particularly in the cases of employees who may retire shortly after the transfer, it may be necessary to fix a specific amount in order to give effect to the terms of union.
Subsection 1 of section 6 which is before ;he committee defines the employees to whom it applies in accordance with term 39. Subsection 2 authorizes the governor in council to take the action just indicated by regulation. Subsection 3 is an administrative section and provides that payments received from Newfoundland under term 39 of the terms of agreement shall be credited to the superannuation account. Payments of superannuation to transferred employees will be made out of the superannuation account.
Under term 39 Newfoundland is bound to reimburse Canada where Canada pays a pension to transferred employees by paying either an amount equal to the amount of pension for his Newfoundland service or an amount equal to the contributions that he would have been required to make if during his Newfoundland service he had been in the Canadian service.
When all eligible employees have joined the Canadian service and all the facts are known, it is expected that it will be necessary for us to make detailed amendments to the Superannuation Act. But until that has happened it is really impracticable, if not impossible, to prepare such amendments. The amendment which is now proposed in this section is merely transitional to put it in the power of the government of Canada to carry out its obligations under term 39. The pensions which will be paid to former Newfoundland civil servants who become pensioners under the Superannuation Act will be paid of course under the same rate of pension as if they had been in the employ of


the Canadian government throughout the whole term of service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The most helpful sentence in what the minister has just said is the suggestion, almost the assurance, that when all Newfoundland civil servants have been taken into the pension set-up there will be an overhaul of the Superannuation Act. If that takes place it will be one more of the advantages of the confederation of Newfoundland with Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a pretty good act now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says, "it is a pretty good act now." I grant that it is in many respects. But, as he knows from information that was placed on Hansard yesterday by one of his parliamentary assistants in response to a question of mine, there are a great many Canadian retired civil servants and their widows whose pensions are pitiably small. I hope that the experience of bringing in these Newfoundland people, when it calls for a revision of the Superannuation Act, will result in some consideration of all these people in Newfoundland and in the other nine provinces who are in these low brackets.
I shall try not to stray over the line and to talk on this matter of raising the superannuation benefits of our own employees, because I realize that that is not the subject now before us, and the minister and the committee know my concern about it anyway. But I did note in what the minister said just now a comment with reference to one particular class of Newfoundland civil servants. I was wondering about this group as he was going along, and he answered my question. He said that in the case of Newfoundland employees who would come into the Canadian civil service and then retire shortly afterwards-he may have said within a year or two but that was the impression I got-it might be necessary to fix, under the amendment that we are now passing, a sum to provide pensions for these people. I take it that the reason it might be necessary would be out of simple justice, namely, that otherwise the amount of pension that these people would have would be far too small.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; I am sorry if I misled my hon. friend. I simply meant that in that event it might be necessary to fix rather arbitrarily an amount to be paid into the superannuation fund with respect to that particular employee. There will be-or should be-no difficulty in establishing the pension to which he is entitled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My optimism has led me up the wrong path again. I thought there was something in it for the poor government civil servant who, when he would retire, would

find that his pension was $20 or $30 a month, such as some retired civil servants receive now. That is what I thought he meant; so I urge upon the minister that when these people come in, just as soon after April 1 as possible, consideration should be given to the plight of superannuated civil servants from British Columbia to Newfoundland, particularly those in the lower brackets.


Mr. Green:: Is it the intention that superannuation benefits of a civil servant employed in Newfoundland will be the same as those of a civil servant employed in British Columbia?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right. We will make no difference between our civil servants in any province. And, provided they come into the civil service of Canada-that is, provided members of the former Newfoundland civil service are taken over and come into the civil service of Canada-they acquire all the rights of Canadian civil servants. On superannuation they will receive Canadian superannuation at Canadian rates under the superannuation act. Perhaps a rather difficult adjustment will be necessary, between the dominion of Canada and the province of Newfoundland, in their respective contributions to the superannuation fund. However, that is a technical and mathematical matter which need not concern the civil servants, particularly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister spoke about the possible overhauling of the superannuation act after all these Newfoundland people come in.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My only reference was with respect to the amendments necessary to make the act properly applicable to Newfoundland.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Granted. My question is this: Is that just a suggestion the minister is now making as something which will probably take place, or was there any kind of commitment given to the Newfoundland delegation that that would be done?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It had nothing to do with the Newfoundland delegation. It is purely a matter of domestic management for ourselves. But my officers who are charged with the responsibility of administering the superannuation act inform me that, when all the facts with respect to the incorporation of Newfoundland civil servants are found, it will probably be necessary to make some special amendments to the superannuation act in specific terms in order to carry out our undertaking under the terms of union.


Mr. Bentley:: There are in Canada at the
present time a certain group of veterans of the armed services who have been or are civil servants, and who feel they have been excluded from having their time in the
Statute Law Amendment services included in their government employment for superannuation purposes. I am not going to discuss the matter further, because I believe they have sent in a report which is being studied by a departmental committee. However, is there a comparable group in Newfoundland, and how are they being treated?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot say. I
have not any information at the present time on the subject. All I can say is that, with respect to superannuation privileges, those Newfoundland civil servants who are veterans will be treated as other Canadians. I mentioned that among the variations between the Newfoundland pension plan and our own was a difference in the method of treating veterans. Newfoundlanders, when they become Canadians, will receive the benefits of Canadian law in that respect.


Mr. Hazen:: Will any of the services which have been carried on by the Newfoundland government be discontinued by the dominion?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is perhaps a little difficult
to answer that question. The officers of the two governments have been examining existing services in Newfoundland to see which of those services will be taken over by the dominion and which will probably be continued as provincial responsibilities. It might well be that there are some existing provincial services which would be merged with the dominion service; I should think that extremely likely. However, I should not like to make any specific answer at the present time.


Mr. Cockeram:: How many civil servants
are there in Newfoundland at the present time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not that information at hand; but I can get it readily and give it to the hon. member before the discussion on the bill is concluded.


Mr. Pearkes:: Reverting to the question
asked by the hon. member for Swift Current, is it not an instance of the disadvantages of the Canadian system being applied to exmembers of the armed forces from Newfoundland? This applies particularly to the recipients under part V of the Militia Pension Act as compared with the recipients under part IV, as a result of which the recipients under part IV have credit for their overseas service while those under part V have not?
Could the minister say whether those same distinctions apply in Newfoundland and, if so, whether the recipients under a regulation corresponding to that under our part V of the Militia Pension Act are again to be handi-

Statute Law Amendment capped by confederation, or whether the government is considering now amending the regulations under part V so that they will conform with those under part IV.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This section does not relate to the Militia Pension Act. The pensions we are here considering are those under the Civil Service Superannuation Act. My colleague the Minister of National Defence is not in the chamber at the moment, and I do not know what his view would be with respect to the Militia Pension Act which, as my hon. friend knows, is on a basis somewhat different from the Civil Service Superannuation Act.


George Randolph Pearkes: I raised the point only
because it was raised by the hon. member for Swift Current.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought the hon. member for Swift Current was referring to war service by veterans constituting service in the civil service of Canada under the superannuation act-at least that was my understanding of the point he made.


George Randolph Pearkes: It is exactly the same thing.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Will the pensions paid to Newfoundlanders be charged against contributions already made by Canadian civil servants, or will that be a special vote?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There will have to be a special vote by the House of Commons of the amount necessary to put in the superannuation fund an amount appropriate to cover the pensions of the Newfoundland civil service.


Thomas John Bentley: Over and above the other sum?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It will have to be a special vote.


Howard Charles Green: How much will it be?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has not yet been possible to estimate it.


Howard Charles Green: In approximate figures?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I gave a figure the other day. I am speaking from memory, but I believe my estimate for the first year was something in the order of $2 million. I do not wish to be held to that, but I believe that was the figure I mentioned. It will be a reasonably substantial sum.


Mr. Brooks:: Did I understand the minister to say that any civil servant retired now in Newfoundland would be paid by the provincial government of Newfoundland?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: With respect to any civil servant who will be retired within the next
year, does the federal government pay the full amount of the retiring pension, with no contribution?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. The terms of union, which I quoted before the hon. member entered the chamber, provide that a Newfoundland civil servant who becomes a Canadian civil servant will, upon retirement, be paid the Canadian superannuation at the rate provided in the superannuation act, and the cost of that pension will be divided between the two governments. Broadly speaking, the Canadian government will pay a contribution to cover his service in the Canadian public service, while the Newfoundland government will pay an amount to cover his service in the Newfoundland civil service.


Howard Charles Green: The minister mentioned an amount of $2 million to be paid this year. Will there be payments each year in the future, or is that payment of $2 million final?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know that I can give my hon. friend a definite answer at the moment, but speaking generally I would think that in a subsequent year when all the civil servants have been taken into the Canadian service and it is possible to assess their service in Newfoundland and decide what proportion we shall pay here a further lump sum will have to be voted. It may take six months or a year to make that assessment, but after that I would think that the contribution would be the regular one that we vote each as the government's share.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister an estimate of what that second payment will be?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told that it has not been possible as yet to make an estimate.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister not give an approximate figure?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told that the major portion would be included in the $2 million figure that I gave, but I caution again that that is only an estimate. As hon. members know, this pension business is a terribly complicated thing mathematically and actuarially. A good deal of basic data is required, and then when you have that data you must make many actuarial calculations before an amount can be finally arrived at.


Howard Charles Green: How do the salaries compare at the present time?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I understand that in most cases they are somewhat lower in Newfoundland.


Mr. Lennard:: If the rates in Newfoundland are lower than in Canada will the Newfoundland civil servant be required to make up any back contributions?
fMr. Pearkes.]


Douglas Charles Abbott: The obligation will be upon the government of Newfoundland to make the contribution, as the Newfoundland system was not a contributory system. As I understand, they do not have a superannuation fund as we do, the pensions being voted each year out of current revenues. Under those circumstances it was necessary that the contribution should be made by the Newfoundland government.


Alan Cockeram: May I ask the minister first if there has been a pension fund in Newfoundland and if contributions have been made by the employees?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There has never been a contributory pension fund of any kind in Newfoundland. I am informed that the government pays the pensions out of current revenues.


Mr. Case:: This discussion, of course, has regard to future conditions that will arise when union is completed. Will there be any financial obligation on the part of Canada to Newfoundland before March 31? Will these amounts be included in our budgetary plans for the next fiscal year?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It will all be after March 31. As I explained the other day, when final steps have been taken it is my intention to bring in special supplementary estimates showing the amounts which it is expected will be spent in the public service in Newfoundland during the fiscal year commencing April 1. While I am on my feet I should like to correct an answer I made to the hon. member for Vancouver South in connection with the $2 million figure. That figure related to our contribution to the unemployment insurance fund and not to the superannuation fund. I am informed that no estimate can be made until more is known about what civil servants will be taken over and until Newfoundland decides which of the two options she will exercise. Those options are provided in article 39 of the terms of union. Newfoundland may make a contribution to Canada in respect to the service of its employees or it may reimburse Canada for the pensions of those employees. The amount which it will be necessary for Canada to pay into the fund will depend to a large extent upon which option is exercised.


Howard Charles Green: Has any estimate been made of the amount that would be involved in each plan?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It has not been possible to make an estimate. That was one of the terms of union to which the Newfoundland delegates attached a great deal of importance: that the public servants of Newfoundland
Statute Law Amendment would have their position protected and be taken into the public service of Canada without prejudice to their pension rights. Naturally we could not have two classes of civil servants in the country; they must all be treated in a comparable fashion. Therefore the Newfoundland civil servants who come over to our service will get the Canadian rates of pension, but the Newfoundland government will have to decide which of these two options it wishes to exercise in making its contribution. One may be slightly more advantageous than the other, although it is hard to say at the moment. I am told that that would depend upon the number of civil servants affected, the length of their service and so on; but, generally speaking, the feeling of the Canadian government was that we should be fair and generous in this particular field.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is there a Canadian pension fund comparable to the unemployment insurance fund, or are all contributions paid into the consolidated revenue fund?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The superannuation fund is a special fund set up under the superannuation act, and it is from that fund that the pensions are paid.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 16 and 17 agreed to.
On section 18-Militia Pension Act.
George Randolph Pearkes: I do not want to embarrass the minister by repeating the question I asked a few minutes ago on the other section, but I ask him to note that under the Militia Pension Act certain members of the permanent force were let out of the service before they had completed their normal term of service. They were retired to pension, but had they stayed in the service a few more years they could have retired under Part IV. Under Part V they are not in the same advantageous position as those who had retired under Part IV, should they enter the public service of Canada.
I do not know whether they have anything comparable to our Part IV and Part V in Newfoundland and I should like to ask if consideration has been given to amending Part V of our Militia Pension Act in order to make it comparable to Part IV. I urge that it would be to the advantage of Canadian ex-service personnel and Newfoundland ex-service personnel if that could be done so that the conditions of Part IV would apply to all those who seek service in the public service of Canada.

Statute Law Amendment


Douglas Charles Abbott: As far as I am aware no consideration has been given an amendment such as that to which my hon. friend refers. I am not as familiar with the provisions of the Militia Pension Act as he is, or as I am with the superannuation act, which comes more directly under my jurisdiction. But I shall consider the suggestion he has made and I shall bring it to the attention of the Minister of National Defence.


George Randolph Pearkes: I ask the question because I brought the suggestion to the attention of the Minister of National Defence during last session, and he mentioned that it was receiving consideration at that time. If possible I should like to know what has been the result of those deliberations.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall bring my hon. friend's point to his attention.


Alan Cockeram: Can the minister tell us how many men come under the Militia Pension Act, and also what the cost of this is likely to be?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid that to have these questions answered the section will have to stand until the Minister of National Defence is here, because I have not that information. They have sent to ask if he can come down, and I understand he will be here in just a few minutes.
Section stands.
On section 19-Old Age Pensions Act.


Howard Charles Green: I had hoped to ask the Prime Minister a question in reference to section 19. I wonder if it could stand, too?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before it is allowed to stand I want to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It is a question of a legal nature, not with regard to the substance of the old age pension question. The minister is smiling; perhaps he was hoping I would do the other.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Which other?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Talk about the substance of old age pensions, or the lack of substance. My question is this. In some other sections of this act which the Minister of Justice is piloting through the house there are references to the effective date of April 1, 1949. For example, in section 18, with which we were just dealing, that is the case. There is no such reference in section 19. It simply says that for the purposes of the Old Age Pensions Act residence and presence in Newfoundland shall respectively be deemed to be residence and presence in Canada. By the provisions of the last section of the bill, this act does not come into effect until midnight
[Mr. Pearkes.1

of March 31 of this year. Perhaps the minister sees my point. Is there any danger after March 31 of an applicant for old age pension in the province of Newfoundland claiming that residence in Newfoundland prior to March 31, 1949, was residence in Canada, and finding that this section does not say so? Please note that the preceding section talks about service or domicile, or something of the sort, in the forces of Newfoundland prior to April 1, 1949. It does not say that in section 19, and my fear is that later on somebody in the minister's department may say, "Well, residence in Newfoundland is residence in Canada from and after the date this act came into effect, but not necessarily so prior to that date". It is no longer proper in this house to say that one is not a lawyer, but the fact is I am not; nevertheless I suggest that it might have been wise to say "residence before or after April 1, 1949" or something similar.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Under the Old Age Pensions Act certain consequences flow in favour of the applicant for an old age pension by virtue of his residence or presence in certain places. He has to be resident and present in certain places in order to get a pension. The meaning of section 19 is that on and after March 31, the date on which it comes into effect-and that is the effective date of the union-residence and presence in Newfoundland shall be deemed, for the purposes of the act, to have all the consequences that residence and presence in Canada would have. I think my hon. friend has answered his own question by very astutely, for a layman, looking at the last section of the act and discovering the date it comes into effect; because if the act comes into effect on March 31, as there stated, it is not necessary from a drafting point of view to repeat that in section 19.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I answered my own question, the minister has now raised a doubt in my mind. From what the minister says it is perfectly clear that on and after April 1, 1949, residence in Newfoundland will, for the purposes of the Old Age Pensions Act, be residence in Canada. But I am concerned about the person who two years from now will be seventy, who will apply for old age pension and say, "I have had twenty years' residence in Canada, eighteen years in Newfoundland prior to confederation and two since." I thought the understanding was that such a person would qualify. I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare is here now, and I would ask him if that is not the case.


Mr. Marlin:: There is no doubt about that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree with the minister that under the terms of union there is no doubt as to the intention; but in what he has

said just now the Minister of Justice has made it clear to me at least that residence in Newfoundland after April 1, 1949, is residence in Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The act comes into effect on March 31. If the vote taken in the house the other day, for example, had gone the other way, there would be no union at all. Once this amendment is made to the act, however, it provides that the residence which has taken place prior to the application being made can be residence either in Canada or in Newfoundland, either of which will be equally effective for the purpose of securing a pension for the applicant.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister is satisfied, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare makes it very clear that is what is meant, I need not worry about it unless the problem comes up. But I am still puzzled as to why it was not written into section 19 as it was into section 18, where there is something similar.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will look at section 18 he will see that it is a provision to add to section 53 of the Militia Pension Act subparagraph (gg), and it has to be read along with the preceding part of the paragraph. If my hon. friend checks it up I think he will find there an answer to his question.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I was just wondering if another layman might give a legal opinion on this. Does not section 19 merely state that for the purposes of the Old Age Pensions Act Newfoundland will be a part of Canada?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Mr. Martin:: That is to say, if a Newfoundlander lived in Canada for two years and had lived in Newfoundland for eighteen years, we would add the two years to the eighteen spent in Newfoundland. After the passage of this act, for the purposes of the Old Age Pensions Act residence in Newfoundland is deemed to be residence in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: When this section was called I asked that it stand because the Prime Minister had left the chamber. Since then the Minister of National Health and Welfare has come in, as well as the parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister, and I shall be glad to ask my question now so the section may pass.
During the discussion the other day, there was a suggestion that an attempt should be made to provide for old age pensions commencing on the 1st of April, if that were at all possible. Some of us suggested that the Canadian parliament could make provision for retroactive payments, subject, of course, to the government of the new province of
Statute Law Amendment Newfoundland making some similar provision. I think there is a way in which that can be done. In any event, I should like to ask the minister to give careful consideration to the matter because I believe everyone in this house wishes to see old age pensions payable in Newfoundland on the 1st of April, just as family allowances are to be payable.
Section 3 of the Old Age Pensions Act is s. * worded as to make it possible to bring about that result, subject to the provincial government of Newfoundland passing an old age pensions act and providing that the pensions shall commence on the 1st of April. Section 3 reads as follows:
The minister, with the approval of the governor in council, may make an agreement with any province for the quarterly payment to such province of the total of the amounts the government of Canada is under sections eight and eight A of this act authorized to contribute-
These are the words I stress.
-in respect of pensions paid during the preceding quarter by the province pursuant to any provincial statute, to the persons and under the conditions specified in this act and the regulations:
It will be noticed that the dominion can pay if the province has authorized payment. There is no restriction upon the dominion making these payments for a prior period.
Sections 8 and 8A of the act would seem to me to contain no provision that would prevent these payments being made as of the 1st of April. I would ask the ministry to give very careful consideration to the question whether, if the government of Newfoundland passes an act calling for payments commencing on the 1st of April, Canada can make her contribution likewise commencing on the 1st of April.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can assure my hon. friend
that, not only will there be no delay, but there will be a great desire on the part of this government to enter into an arrangement with the new province of Newfoundland to make payments under the Old Age Pensions Act at the earliest possible date. If it can be done the 1st of April, it will be.


Brooke Claxton: Supplementing my colleague's answer, I should add that the matter received very serious consideration during the negotiations. The situation was examined from every possible point of view. It does involve serious difficulties which the hon. member will appreciate. This government will do everything to overcome those difficulties, but the question is, can they be overcome legally without getting this arrangement out of line with the other provinces?


Howard Charles Green: That is what worried me the other evening. The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence seemed to take
63G

Statute Law Amendment the position that no provision could be made for retroactive payments because the other provinces might claim there had been uflfair-ness. I do not think there is anything in that argument. I do not believe any of the other provinces would claim there had been unfairness. I do suggest that, as the Old Age Pensions Act reads today, it is possible for Canada to provide for the payments to start on the 1st of April. I believe that should be the only test. If it cannot be done under the present act, that may be a reason for not making the payments retroactive. I do not believe it is a good reason, however, since the Old Age Pensions Act could be amended as it is being amended by section 19 of this bill. I do ask the minister to give further consideration to this question.


Peter Francis Martin: My answer was as complete as possible. We are anxious to enter into an arrangement with Newfoundland as quickly as possible.


Mr. Nicholson:: I was interested in the comments the Prime Minister made when this matter was dealt with before. He admitted it would have been possible for the commission of government in Newfoundland to provide for the payment of old age pensions immediately. I would imagine, if these details had been discussed with the delegates from Newfoundland, financial arrangements satisfactory to the people of Newfoundland could have been made. I am sure this type of legislation would be very popular with the people. I cannot see any good reason why the commission of government was not prepared to pass the necessary legislation to enable payments to start on the 1st of April. Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of National Defence indicate why that procedure was not followed?


Peter Francis Martin: I can only say that the government of Newfoundland will have to speak for itself. I cannot make myself any clearer. I have said that the government will be anxious to enter into an agreement with the provincial government of Newfoundland, as it then will be, at the earliest possible moment. We are anxious that the old age pensioners of that province receive at the earliest possible date the benefits which the act provides. Seventy-five per cent of the pension is to be borne by this government.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the minister indicate what attitude the delegates took during the discussions? For what reason were they not prepared to proceed?


Peter Francis Martin: I do not think it would be proper for any of us on this side to say what is the policy of the government of any province.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, for once I find myself in agreement with the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Peter Francis Martin: We have agreed many times.


Gordon Graydon: I am speaking of this afternoon. I do not see how the minister could give any other answer than the one he gave with respect to the attitude of the government of Newfoundland; after all, we cannot speak for the Newfoundland government. But that does not touch the point that ought to be considered. This government can say what it would do, if it is not too timid.
When an agreement is entered into with the provincial government of the new province of Newfoundland, will this government be prepared to make payments to the old age pensioners provided that is the desire of the Newfoundland government and provided that government is prepared to pass the necessary legislation to make these payments retroactive? The government can answer that question because it is a subject within the jurisdiction of this government.
I do not want to repeat all I said before, but perhaps I can put some of it more clearly. We all know that the machinery of government sometimes operates slowly. I am quite sure there is no one who understands that mechanism better than the present administration, so they will understand what I am driving at. First of all, the setting-up of the provincial government is one thing; to have a provincial constitution set in operation after the 1st of April is another. To have a provincial election is one thing and to have a provincial cabinet is another. The setting-up of the necessary offices and administrative detail enters into the question of old age pensions.
So long as this government sees fit to have on the statute books a statute that calls for means tests and all that kind of thing, may I say, as one who has at least observed how slowly the machinery of government sometimes operates, that I think it may be a long time before the pensioners of Newfoundland will find their first old age pension cheques in the post office box. That is the thing that bothers me. I can understand that at the moment perhaps this government can do little in the way of hastening the date when the first cheque may be given. But they can overcome the disappointment, the discouragement and, if I may say so, the injustice, by making retroactive to April 1 the payments under the Old Age Pensions Act to every one of Newfoundland's senior citizens who is entitled to the old age pension. This government and the provincial government of Newfoundland will be largely forgiven for the delay, provided the old age pensioners know that, when that cheque comes, it will be a cheque covering the whole period from the
February n. 1949
day Newfoundland entered confederation until the day the cheque arrives.
One other matter which was raised in this debate, and I think in a previous one as well, was that perhaps some other parts of Canada might be offended because Newfoundland old age pensioners were to get a retroactive payment. I do not think anyone anywhere in Canada will quibble over a matter of that kind.


Mr. Mitchell:: The hon. member has changed his position since yesterday.


Gordon Graydon: I do not think the minister understood our position anyway.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think the hon. member understood it either.


Gordon Graydon: There are many other things I might say about the agreement. I think we should take it for granted that Canada is prepared to see that the old age pensioners of Newfoundland are given retroactive payments to April 1. Despite what the Minister of Labour may say about it, I think we on this side of the house at least can guarantee that there will be no opposition to such a course.


Howard Charles Green: I think there would be great value in the government's giving an assurance that Canada is prepared to make these payments retroactive to April 1. If Canada gives that assurance, it is much more likely that the new government of Newfoundland will pass the necessary provincial legislation. For that reason, if for no other, I hope that the government will come right out and say whether or not it is prepared to make these payments retroactive.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Peel has been, I am sure, intentionally helpful in what he has had to say, and for that reason I greatly appreciate his remarks. The same applies to other members. I can only repeat what I have said twice already, namely, that the government does not require any additional legislation to enter into an agreement with a province with a view to providing the benefits under the Old Age Pensions Act. As this is a matter that does not involve action by one government alone, but presupposes an arrangement between the federal government and a provincial government, I am sure hon. members will agree that I can do nothing more than say that just as soon as the government of Newfoundland asks for an agreement to provide old age pensions this government will enter into such an arrangement.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister if he is favourable to the proposal I have just made in the committee?
Statute Law Amendment


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think I can answer the question any more clearly than I already have.


Gordon Graydon: I think the minister could because all he has said is that the government is prepared to enter into an agreement with Newfoundland once a provincial government has been set up. But that is not what I asked of the government. I wanted to find out what the government's policy would be on the proposal that I have made to make these payments retroactive to April 1. There is no harm in the government, if they favour the proposal, saying that if Newfoundland were willing, the government is willing. That is all I asked the minister to do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have said that.


Gordon Graydon: I do not think the minister has.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the section carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Henry Golding: Section 18 stood.
On section 18-Militia Pension Act.


George Randolph Pearkes: I had asked the minister a question and I think he said he would get the answer later. That would be satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 20-Pension Act.
Thomas John Bentley: It is a pity that in the bill these statutes have been drawn up in alphabetical order, because this section and section 50 are similar. The former deals with pensions and the latter with the war veterans allowance. I notice that section 20(3) reads as follows:
A British subject resident and domiciled in Newfoundland at the time of enlistment who served in the naval, military or air forces of His Majesty or in any of the naval, military or air forces of any of the countries allied with His Majesty during world war II shall be deemed to be a member of the forces for the purposes of section eleven of the Pension Act . . .
There is a similar paragraph in section 50 of this act dealing with war veterans allowance. What this means is that Newfoundland veterans who were imperial veterans, and will be up until the time of union, are now to come under the benefits of Canadian pension and other legislation applying to veterans. I have no quarrel with that. I am glad of it. It should be that way. But it seems to me that the government should now go a step further and proceed to include, for the purpose of this section and other parts of the veteran legislation, those imperial veterans who at present are excluded simply because they did not actually live in Canada the day before they enlisted. If the government is

Statute Law Amendment not generous in this regard, and if the imperial veterans who have had long years of residence in Canada between the wars- and some before world war I-are not included, they will feel discriminated against.
I think this opens up a way for the government to make a generous gesture. The Minister of Veterans Affairs should give us some assurance that the government is considering action of that kind.


Mr. Gregg:: I think the hon. member's conclusion is slightly overdrawn. This section 20, for purposes of pension, places those who served in Newfoundland on exactly the same basis as those who served in Canada, whatever their home or origin may have been.


Thomas John Bentley: That is true. But the fact remains that up until April 1 of this year they were imperial veterans.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, no.


Thomas John Bentley: Oh, yes. The veterans of world war I were imperial veterans, and there are veterans of the same class who live in Canada.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Those who served in world war I were, for the most part, serving on behalf of Newfoundland just as those who in world war I served on behalf of Canada. Those who served in world war II were Newfoundlanders who served in British units but could not perhaps be classified exactly as what we have always referred to in Canada as imperial veterans.


Howard Charles Green: I think the hon. member for Swift Current has raised a good point, and I hope there will be an opportunity to discuss it further when we are dealing with the War Veterans Allowance Act. I have understood, from the terms of union and also from the proposed arrangements which were submitted by Canada to Newfoundland in October of 1947, that the veterans of Newfoundland were to be placed in the same position as the veterans of Canada. I thought that was the underlying principle. I submit that that is not being done by the present legislation. For example, subsection 1 of section 20 refers to sections 45, 46 and 46 A of the Pension Act. Subsection 2 deals with section 11 of the Pension Act, and subsection 3 also deals with section 11 of the Pension Act. As far as these sections of the Pension Act which are referred to are concerned, perhaps this amendment is all right. But take for example section 21 of the Pension Act which provides for a meritorious service pension. As hon. members know, a veteran unable to qualify for pension directly by reason of his disability having been caused by war service, if he has meritorious


service, is still able to get a pension under section 21. The same is true of the widow or the dependents of a veteran who was unable to qualify directly under the provisions of section 11.
This new section 20 is not going to be of any help to a veteran of Newfoundland in getting a meritorious service pension. It looks to me as though he is just out of luck when it comes to qualifying for a meritorious service pension. Therefore that veteran is certainly not being put on the same basis as he would be if he were a Canadian veteran. Another example will be found in section 33 of the Pension Act which provides for payment to a veteran's parents who are in need. The qualification there is that it must be the parents of a member of the forces. I would have thought that a member of the forces, as defined in the Pension Act, should have been extended to include members of the forces of Newfoundland as well as members of the forces of Canada. If that had been done, the parents of a Newfoundland veteran would have been eligible under section 33. Another example is the dependent brother and sister, which comes under section 34 of the Pension Act. The act reads that the dependent brother and sister of a member of the forces can get a pension under certain conditions. Because a member of the forces is not defined to include a Newfoundland veteran, his dependent brother and sister cannot qualify under section 34. I have not had time to go through the Pension Act carefully but I have no doubt that there are other instances in which the veteran of Newfoundland is not going to be in the same position as the veteran of Canada simply because the amendment to the Pension Act is restricted to these sections which are referred to in section 20 of the bill before us.
If the intention is that the Newfoundland veteran shall become to all intents and purposes a Canadian veteran, then section 20 had better be withdrawn and the law officers of the crown had better work out some sort of an amendment which will make the Newfoundland veteran in effect a Canadian veteran. Without going into it carefully, I think it might be done by defining a member of the forces as including a member of the Newfoundland forces.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will look at the explanatory note of section 20 he will see that this amendment is required by term 38 (a) of the terms of union. By comparing term 38 (a) of the terms of union with this section 20 he will discover that-


Howard Charles Green: Actually it should be 38 (b).


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In any event, whether it is
(a) or (b), the instructions from which the law officers of the crown work in a case of this kind are the terms of the agreement which was reached between three sovereign governments. That is a circumstance which hon. members should not overlook. Ordinarily, when a government brings down a bill, there is room for the persuasive powers of the opposition to convince the government that it has taken the wrong position and that it should modify the terms of the bill which is before the house. But where you are implementing an agreement reached between governments, the Canadian government in fairness to the Newfoundland government, which is one of the parties to this arrangement, must in all honesty carry out the provisions which have been agreed to. If hon. members will make that comparison they will see that section 20, which is approved by the pension commission, is reflecting exactly the conclusion reached by the delegates when here as set out in term 38 of the terms of union. It completely fulfils that requirement. These are our instructions. That is all we can draw the bill to. We have an agreement. Our task is to draw a bill which carries into effect the terms of the agreement. I suggest that we have no power to vary it.


Howard Charles Green: May I follow up my point? If this section stands as it is submitted to the committee today the result will be that there will be two kinds of Canadian veterans, namely, the veterans in the nine provinces who get all the benefits of the Pension Act and the veterans in Newfoundland who get only some of the benefits of the Pension Act. I am sure that we do not want that condition to exist in our pension legislation. The Minister of Veterans Affairs and his parliamentary assistant have both said, if not vocally at least by nodding their heads, the intention is that the veteran of Newfoundland is to be treated in exactly the same way as the veteran of Canada. Frankly I would be amazed if that were not the intention of these two hon. gentlemen and in fact the intention of every hon. member.


Mr. Mulch:: That is the contract.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Justice takes
the stand that there is an agreement between the three governments and therefore Canada must comply exactly with that agreement. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is sitting behind the Minister of Justice. He says that the intention of the Canadian government was to treat the Newfoundland veteran in the same way as the Canadian veteran is treated, and the terms of union are open to that interpretation. I admit that on this point they
Statute Law Amendment are not as clear as they should be. That is why when opening my remarks I asked whether it was the intention that the veterans in both dominions should be treated in the same way. The terms of union contained in term 38, which are applicable, read as follows:
38. Canada will make available to Newfoundland veterans the following benefits, on the same basis as they are from time to time available to Canadian veterans, as if the Newfoundland veterans had served in His Majesty's Canadian forces, namely. . .
Paragraph (a) deals with war veterans allowances. Paragraph (b) deals with pensions and reads as follows:
(b) Canada will assume as from the date of union the Newfoundland pension liability in respect of the first world war, and in respect of the second world war Canada will assume as from the date of union the cost of supplementing disability and dependents' pensions paid by the government of the United Kingdom or an allied country to Newfoundland veterans up to the level of the Canadian rates of pensions, and, in addition-
Mark these words:
-Canada will pay pensions arising from disabilities that are pensionable under Canadian law but not pensionable either under the laws of the United Kingdom or under the laws of an allied country.
I suggest that, in view of the wording of that term and the stand taken today by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the amending legislation should be such that the Newfoundland veteran would get exactly the same treatment as the Canadian veteran. That certainly is not done under section 20 of the bill.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not propose to enter into a legal argument; but I reaffirm that not only is it the intention of the government that the Newfoundland veterans shall be treated in every respect, both in general and in detail, as Canadian veterans, but that this point was also discussed fully by the two delegations in conjunction with the officers of the Department of Veterans Affairs, including our own legal representatives. I was assured definitely that the points the hon. member has made, and others in the same category, could be worked out in exactly the way he and I desire they should be worked out.


Howard Charles Green: It is not a matter of how it can be worked out. It should be set out definitely in the legislation, so that anyone who reads is can understand it. I submit that, if this section 20 contains the only amendments to the Pension Act, Newfoundland veterans will be ineligible for meritorious pensions, the parents of Newfoundland veterans will be ineligible for the benefits set out under section 33, and dependent brothers and sisters of Newfoundland veterans will be ineligible for the benefits in section 34. And there may

Statute Law Amendment be other benefits from which they are excluded, simply by reason of the way in which this amendment to the Pension Act has been drawn.
I do urge upon the ministry seriously that they do not try to stand on their present amendment and say, "It is good enough; we can get around the difficulty later in some fashion or other." I suggest that they ought not to take that attitude, but that they should go right back and have the law officers of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Justice go through the Pension Act with a fine-tooth comb with a view to making whatever amendments are necessary to make the Newfoundland veteran in effect a Canadian veteran.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: During the consideration of pension legislation in conjunction with the delegation from Newfoundland, the intention was clearly expressed, and has been reexpressed here today, of making the position of the Canadian Newfoundlander, as he will be after he becomes a Canadian, exactly the same as that of other Canadians. We examined this carefully and in detail with the pension commission itself, which, as my hon. friend knows, has in the interpretation of the Pension Act the powers of a high court-


Howard Charles Green: That may be; but they make mistakes.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I am sure they would be the first to admit it. However in committee we did have the advantage of their opinion, and also had advantage of legal opinion from our own department. We have been assured that it will be possible to make operative, the undertaking made in section 38 of the agreement with the changes proposed here. In other words, the best advice we can get is that these changes are all that are necessary to make the Canadian Pension Act fully operative so that there shall be no distinction between the Canadian who was born and all his life has been living in what is now Canada and the new Canadian who will become such as of March 31 this year.
That is the intention of the legislation; that is the agreement. I shall not argue on legal grounds with my hon. friend-I have tried it once or twice with varying results. However, that is our advice; that is our conviction, and that is the intention of the agreement. If it should prove that my hon. friend is right, and that at some later date some further changes are required, they will be sought.


Howard Charles Green: What is the objection to changing the definition of "member of the forces" as it appears in section 2 (1) (i) to include


service in the Newfoundland forces? The definition now reads:
"a member of the forces" means any person who has served in the naval, military or air forces of Canada since the commencement of world war I.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I think the reason is that there is a desire not to confuse terminology but to make application of benefits to Canadian forces to all intents and purposes identical to the Newfoundlander who served in the Newfoundland forces. That is after March 31 it would place him in the same position as the Canadian who served in the Canadian forces. In order not to confuse terminology, it was not done. Our opinion is that it is not necessary, to make it operative; and if it is not necessary, I submit it is useless to clutter up the act with it.


Thomas John Bentley: The explanations of the minister and his parliamentary assistant are most encouraging; and their words on Hansard will no doubt carry some weight. But they would not carry weight in a court of law, because they are not written into the act. I am only a layman in legal matters; but, in listening to the hon. member for Vancouver South who is a lawyer, and having sat with him in the committee on veterans affairs, I am pretty sure he is right in this instance. Yet, where this section states that it applies to certain sections of the Pension Act, it must automatically exclude other sections.
If it was the intention of the government to do those things which the minister and his parliamentary assistant have said it is their intention to do, then why could it not be done in the act and thereby be given the force of law so as to remove any shadow of doubt some of us might have. Because certainly what the hon. member for Vancouver South has said is going to take place. No matter what the future intention might be, if this passes, changes will find opposition. And when the opposition comes, it may be some time before it can be overcome. Newfoundland veterans brought in under the act may be affected.
Why could not the law officers of the crown or other legal gentlemen discover a way of including them, without having to mention only some of the sections in which they are included? Why could not the whole dominion act have been made to include Newfoundland veterans?
When we reach section 50 we will find the same difficulty. In that section certain portions of the War Veterans Allowance Act will be given force of law; and, as those sections are cited in the bill, it automatically follows that the other sections are excluded. What I suggest would be a simple procedure; and I notice the hon. member for Vancouver South nods his head in agreement.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think there is any doubt that the amendment as drafted carries into effect exactly those conclusions reached by the delegation, as set out in term 38 of the terms of union. However, in order to remove any possible doubt which may be in the minds of hon. members opposite, I suggest that at the dinner recess we check with the pension commission. The section could be allowed to stand in the meantime, so that we would have an opportunity to give that assurance to hon. members. I think it will be found that the section as drafted is adequate.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid the section as drawn was drawn to meet the narrower interpretation of term 38(b), which provides-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


Howard Charles Green: I do not say that that was done intentionally, but I think that the law officers who drew up section 20 merely read term 38(b). Taking the more narrow interpretation, they have drawn up the section accordingly.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That can easily be resolved because we will double-check the matter.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not think there is much that can be added to what the hon. member for Vancouver South has said. The marginal note opposite page 8 reads:
Section 11 of the Pension Act provides pensions generally in respect of military service.
The cases which the hon. member has mentioned are not general cases; they are particular cases. We who have served on the veterans committee for many sessions recall that we had to bring up these particular cases under section 20 and section 34. As the hon. member for Vancouver South says, many other sections are involved. This indicates to me, as it must indicate to all hon. members of this committee, the necessity of having a veterans committee. If this matter had been brought before the veterans committee these complaints would have been cleared up. I am not satisfied with the statement of the Minister of Justice that this section covers all the cases that have been mentioned.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I said that it covered the agreement reached by the delegates and they were supposed to cover the whole field.


Howard Charles Green: It may be that the Newfoundland delegates did not realize the different provisions of the Pension Act. No doubt section 11 of that act is covered, as is set out in the explanatory note read by the hon. member for Royal, but there are other disabilities not arising from service, such as pensions to a dependent parent or a brother and sister.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The hon. member's suggestion is that they should be specifically mentioned.
Statute Law Amendment


Howard Charles Green: My suggestion is that a general clause should be written into the Pension Act saying that the Newfoundland veterans will get the same deal as the Canadian veterans. That is what we are all aiming at and it certainly is not achieved by section 20.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I assure my hon. friend that the Newfoundland delegation studied every phase of the Pension Act.


Thomas John Bentley: If that is the case, will the minister or any of those who attended the meetings say that the Newfoundland delegation did not question any of these items? Is this the result of tough bargaining on the part of the Canadian delegation?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It can hardly be suggested that there is tough bargaining in connection with an agreement the preamble of which says that it is giving everything we have. If that is tough bargaining we certainly were not on the tough end.


Thomas John Bentley: I did not suggest that; I simply asked a question. I am pointing out, as I pointed out before, that in the way this bill is written certain sections of the Pension Act are excluded, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: And denied.


Thomas John Bentley: The parliamentary assistant was not present when I pointed them out. What he and the minister have said is most helpful and we appreciate it. However, the fact remains that their words on Hansard do not have the force of law. If this got before the courts their words would not have any effect. In the way the bill is written there are certain sections of the Pension Act which would be automatically excluded by the inclusion of this section.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I am glad the hon. member has given me an outline of what I missed when I answered the telephone. The fact remains that the difference between us is not one of intent, it is one of belief. We have consulted the law officers of the crown and we have accepted their advice, but you do not believe them. If what hon. gentlemen across the way are saying is proved to be correct and we have not achieved what we set out to achieve, then I am sure the necessary provisions will be inserted. But at the moment we believe we have done what you wish us to do.
Section stands.
On section 21-Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.


George Randolph Pearkes: Will paragraph (ii), which refers to time served on active service in the naval, military or air forces of His Majesty raised in Canada or Newfoundland, apply to
642	HOUSE OF
Statute Law Amendment the man who left Newfoundland to join the Royal Navy?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The effect of this whole section is that any Royal Canadian Mounted Police recruit in Newfoundland may apply service in the military forces or the civil service of Newfoundland toward his pension.


George Randolph Pearkes: It is not clear.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The section reads:
"service" means time served in the force and includes for the purpose of making contributions under this part and of computing pensions, allowances or gratuities
(i)	time served in the civil service or the permanent naval, military or air forces of Canada or Newfoundland;
(ii)	time served on active service in the naval, military or air forces of His Majesty raised in Canada or Newfoundland during time of war; and"
He can get credit for time served in the civil service of either Canada or Newfoundland or in the permanent naval, military or air forces of Canada or Newfoundland, and in addition he can get credit for time served in the naval, military or air forces of His Majesty raised in Canada or Newfoundland. The purpose of this section is to bring the Royal Canadian Mounted Police recruit in Newfoundland on the same level as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police recruit in Canada in respect of pension.


George Randolph Pearkes: Perhaps I had better put my question in another way. Would the Newfoundlander who joined the Royal Navy at the outbreak of war or during the war be entitled to these benefits?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I see the hon. member's point and I will check it up.


Mr. Drew:: This wording is of particular importance to Newfoundland because of the large number of Newfoundlanders who enlisted in the Royal Navy. This section would impose real limitations if they were not included.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William Henry Golding: Before the committee rose we were considering section 20.
On section 20-Pension Act.


Thomas John Bentley: I believe the minister was going to give us an explanation of this section.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The Minister of Justice is unavoidably delayed for a few minutes, so I would ask that this section stand for the time being.
Section stands.


On section 21-Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.


George Randolph Pearkes: I had asked some questions of the Minister of Justice before the committee rose for the dinner recess, and I would request that this section stand also.
Section stands.
Sections 22 to 31 inclusive agreed to.
On section 32-Bank of Canada Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the reason for the increase to twelve directors of the Bank of Canada? In other words, what is the set-up of that directorate?


John Ewen Sinclair: Could this section stand until the minister is in the house?
Section stands.
Section 33 stands.
Sections 34 and 35 agreed to.
On section 36-The Transport Act, 1938.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would the minister explain this?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let it stand.
Section stands.
On section 37-The Penitentiary Act, 1939.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is it the intention of the government to use the penitentiary at Dorchester, New Brunswick, as a penitentiary for Newfoundland, just as it is used for the other three maritime provinces?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The Minister of Justice will be here in a few moments. This might be allowed to stand.
Section stands.
Section 38 agreed to.
On section 39-The Veterans Land Act, 1942.


George Randolph Pearkes: Could the minister say
whether the same restrictions that apply in Canada with respect to the size of the area required before a veteran can get a loan under the Veterans Land Act will apply in Newfoundland? Will it be necessary for the veteran in Newfoundland to have an area of at least three acres before he can obtain a loan? Would the minister explain, also, whether it will be necessary for the veteran to own property before he can get a loan on any fishing equipment he may desire to obtain?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The answer to the first question is that the provision with respect to the size of the small holding will be the same as in Canada.

Statute Law Amendment


George Randolph Pearkes: That is three acres?	Mr. Knowles: That might be changed soon.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes. In Newfoundland certain benefits have been granted by the government in connection with commercial fishing, but where those have been less than our act provides the veteran will have an opportunity to make application to move it up to the terms of our act.


George Randolph Pearkes: Are there any cases where the arrangements in Newfoundland have been more beneficial to the veteran than those in Canada? If so, will the Canadian veteran get the advantage of the Newfoundland arrangements?


Milton Fowler Gregg: We have not had an opportunity to investigate the matter in detail, but my impression is that the provisions under their commercial fishing plan were not in excess of our own.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 40-The National Physical Fitness Act.
Thomas Langton Church: This does not apply to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, which have rejected it. I think this is simply a political organization, and many parts of Ontario and Quebec are strongly opposed to it. In addition I notice that recently some of these people toured the whole dominion and then had a meeting here in Ottawa, at which they accomplished nothing at all. I think this whole thing is very unfortunate.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 41-The Family Allowances Act, 1944.
Mr. Wright:: What will be the position of families who have moved into Newfoundland during the past three years? Will they receive the family allowances immediately or will they be required to have three years' residence in Newfoundland after confederation takes place?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will be the same situation that applies in Canada today.


Percy Ellis Wright: If a family has moved into Newfoundland within the last two years, after confederation is completed will it mean that this family will have to be there three years from the date of confederation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Moving there from where- Canada?


Percy Ellis Wright: No, from Europe.


Peter Francis Martin: The act will apply just as it does to Canadians at the present time. The three-year residence requirement is still part of the law of the land. Unless they have been there for three years they cannot qualify.
29087-41J


Paul Joseph James Martin: Government policy will be
disclosed in due course.


Mr. McKay:: Could the minister give us
any estimate of the number of children who will qualify for family allowances and, if so, what it will probably cost the federal treasury?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am afraid I cannot say offhand how many children will qualify, but I can say that the estimate-and it can be no more than an estimate-of family allowance payments to Newfoundland, which will be paid forthwith at the first opportunity after confederation becomes a fact, is $8,400,000. Those are the estimated payments.


Eric Bowness McKay: Is that for a full year or for one month?


Peter Francis Martin: That is for the rest of the year. The end of the fiscal year is March 31, and I assume confederation will be effective as of that date.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 42 agreed to.
On section 43-The National Housing Act, 1944.
Mr. Timmins:: I would like the minister to explain this section.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As acting minister of reconstruction I can say that the only purpose of this section is to change the terms of the National Housing Act to define a Newfoundland veteran. He is now defined as a resident of Newfoundland at the time of enlistment, who served in the armed forces raised in Newfoundland or in the United Kingdom.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Does the minister know
whether any housing plan is being carried on in Newfoundland at the present time? Is there any plan that will be co-ordinated with our National Housing Act? What is being done for the veteran there now in the way of housing?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a very ambitious
housing project at St. John's partially completed. I have had the pleasure of inspecting it within the last two weeks, and the houses are well built. They are not rental housing, however; they are built for sale. A few of the houses are rented, but the purpose of the development is to build houses for sale. I know Mr. Mansur of Central Mortgage and Housing has discussed the future of that project with its sponsors in Newfoundland, but I do not know what has been the outcome of the discussion. I believe arrange-

Statute Law Amendment
ments are being made so the National Housing Act may assist in the completion of that project.


Mr. Johnston:: I should like to ask the minister a question about the National Housing Act. I believe he is well aware that there is no clause in the National Housing Act that protects the veteran in the other provinces of Canada against financial loss or inferior workmanship in his house. The minister probably knows that I am referring particularly to the case of the veterans out west. I do not want the same thing to happen in Newfoundland.
It has been brought to my attention today by telegram that foreclosure proceedings are being taken against the veterans in Calgary. Possession of their houses is being taken away. It seems to me that, in view of the experience not only in Alberta, but in Nova Scotia, Vancouver and Winnipeg, where veterans have put into these projects every last cent they have, only to be faced with foreclosure proceedings, we should not permit the same thing to happen in Newfoundland.
Last year when we were talking about this question, as the minister will recall, I asked him whether the National Housing Act afforded sufficient protection to forestall the very thing that is taking place. If my memory serves me correctly, he informed me that the act sufficiently protected the interest of these veterans. I now ask him most sincerelj whether the veterans will be properly protected, and their houses properly built according to the plans and specifications.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend talks in broad generalities. Will he give me five instances where veterans have been dispossessed of their houses through foreclosure of the mortgage under the National Housing Act?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, I will. Just before I left Calgary, foreclosure proceedings were taken against a man named Hamilton. By airmail letter today, I was informed that the Manufacturers Life was taking similar proceedings against a number of other veterans under the National Housing Act. The understanding is that proceedings will be taken against them one by one until they are all closed out. The minister knows that; he was in Calgary.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is talking about an integrated project that got into trouble. Veterans who were not wards of the government, but who themselves made contracts with the builder, got into difficulties through the bankruptcy of the contractor. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is lending its good offices to straightening out the trouble. The Central Mortgage company was
fMr. Howe.]

not a principal in the matter in any way, shape or form and, therefore, any action taken is certainly not taken by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I do not know what relation this has to the bill now before us.


Charles Edward Johnston: It comes under the National Housing Act, does it not?


William Henry Golding: I should point out that a general discussion on the housing act relating to Canada as a whole should not take place under this clause. This pertains to an agreement with Newfoundland.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am speaking of the National Housing Act as it applies to Canada and, particularly, as it will apply to Newfoundland. The minister went on to point out-


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member will please confine his remarks to the clause now before the committee, which deals with the Newfoundland veterans.


Charles Edward Johnston: This deals with the National Housing Act of 1944, and I am speaking about the National Housing Act. It is true that an integrated housing plan comes under the National Housing Act. There are three parts to the act, and the integrated housing plan comes under the first part. The minister has just pointed out that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation did not have any contractual obligations with the builders. May I point out to him-


William Henry Golding: I think my hon. friend will agree with me that the National Housing Act, 1944, is before the committee only in so far as it applies to Newfoundland. The hon. member should confine his remarks to that.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am speaking about it as it will apply to Newfoundland. By way of illustration, I have cited what has happened in the rest of Canada. I am asking the minister if he will be so good as to see that the veterans in Newfoundland are not treated in the same manner as the veterans in the rest of Canada. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I think that is in order.


William Henry Golding: I think it would be in order for the hon. member to ask that question, but not to enter into a general discussion of the housing act as it applies across Canada, and the various ramifications of it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not want to be at all stubborn about the matter, but that is not my point. If we are going to allow the National Housing Act to function in Newfoundland as it has functioned in the rest of Canada, I think it is wrong. I am asking that the act be so framed that the veterans in Newfoundland

will not be subjected to the unfair treatment our veterans received under the National Housing Act.


Thomas Langton Church: This particular section of the bill applies to the National Housing Act, 1944. It describes who is entitled to the benefits of that act. Subsections 1 and 2 of section 43 read as follows:
(1)	in any of the naval or military forces of Newfoundland or, having been recruited in Newfoundland, in any of the naval, military or air forces raised in Newfoundland by or on behalf of the United Kingdom, or
(2)	in any other naval, military or air forces of His Majesty and at the time of his enlistment therein was domiciled in Newfoundland, shall be deemed to be a veteran for the purposes of section four B-
I am surprised that more has not been done for the veterans. Some improvement has been made recently, I believe, so far as this act is concerned. What we need in the province of Ontario is a better suburban service. In some large cities there is only a ten-minute interval between trains, and we would be getting some place if we had that in Ontario. Today we are getting nowhere.


Douglas King Hazen: This would appear to be an amendment to the National Housing Act. I am not clear about it because it does not state it is an amendment. Is it intended to be an amendment to the act or is it supposed to be a statute by itself?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If you read the title of the bill you will find it is, "An act to amend the Statute Law." They are all amendments.


Douglas King Hazen: Some of the sections state that certain sections of certain acts are amended and other sections are repealed. This does not state that. Section 42 of this bill states that:
Subsection one of section three of the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944, chapter forty-two of the statutes of 1944-45, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
In the wording of section 43 of this bill there is no statement that the National Housing Act is amended "by inserting the following." If you will turn back to the other sections you will find that wording is used, or some similar wording. Is there some particular reason for doing it in this way?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is a new section to the act, as I understand it. It is amended by adding this section. Nothing has been repealed here.


Douglas King Hazen: You are amending it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are just adding another paragraph.


Douglas King Hazen: You are amending it by adding another paragraph.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.
Statute Law Amendment


Douglas King Hazen: It does not state that. It does not state that this is a new paragraph added to the housing act. Perhaps there is some other explanation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps my hon. friend is right and it should state that a new section is being added. If he will allow the section to stand,
I will examine that aspect of it.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: The same thing applies to other sections.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have another question I should like to ask, and it is similar to the question I asked with reference to section 21. It refers to the man in Newfoundland who left there at the beginning of the war, went over to England and there enlisted in the Royal Navy. Is he or is he not entitled to this benefit? This paragraph reads:
... at the time of his enlistment therein was domiciled in Newfoundland.
Actually he had left Newfoundland in order to go over to England. He enlisted in the British army or the Royal Navy while in England. Actually he was not living in Newfoundland then; he was not resident in Newfoundland. This paragraph also contains the expression "recruited in Newfoundland." We should have uniformity in terms. In section 21 the language used is "raised in Newfoundland." We are using a great many different terms which vary slightly in meaning.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My recollection is that this description of a veteran in Newfoundland is exactly the same as that given a veteran in Canada. For the purposes of the National Housing Act, 1944, I think the definitions are on all fours. But since the section is to stand, I will call the matter to the attention of the Minister of Justice.


George Alexander Drew: There is just one thing I should like to emphasize in that connection. When the section is under review, a distinction might be made between recruited in Newfoundland and having served with the navy, army or air force of the United Kingdom, and simply having served with those forces; because naval veterans were practically all reservists in the Royal Navy in the first world war, and perhaps would not be recruited in the ordinary sense of that word or in the strict meaning of the word.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to call the matter to the attention of the minister. .


Arthur Leroy Smith: The word
"domicile" is used in several sections in this amending act. I wondered if any search had been made to find out whether or not Newfoundland might have a statutory domicile. We have been proceeding on the basis that it is a broad word that we all understood

Statute Law Amendment fairly well. But-as is the situation in some other jurisdictions-has examination been made to find out whether or not there is a statutory domicile there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I understand, after confederation "domicile" will mean domicile by Canadian law. My hon. friend is wondering if there may be a broader definition of domicile in Newfoundland?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes, or a
narrower one.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to refer the matter to the Minister of Justice.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I think the matter might be looked into.
Section stands.


William Henry Golding: Will the committee be kind enough to turn to section 33, Canada Shipping Act, 1934. The minister is here now.
On section 33-Canada Shipping Act, 1934.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain that section?'


Lionel Chevrier: That section can be divided into three parts. First, the masters and mates holding certificates of that type in Newfoundland will be entitled to a Canadian certificate of the same kind. Then, as an alternative to that, certificates of competency now held by masters and mates in Newfoundland may be exchanged for our own, or a statement on the face of the certificate approved of by the officers of the Department of Transport will be indicative of competency in those classes. Finally, there will be some of course who will not have any certificate, particularly those who operate schooners of more than ten tons gross engaged in the coasting trade. They will be required to pass a sight test and the prescribed oral test that every other individual in Canada must pass at the moment. I am referring now to section 118B of section 33. That is almost in the same language as the present act. The ten tons gross mentioned in the section is the minimum size of a vessel in which experience has to be obtained to qualify. This was done at the request of the people of Newfoundland who wanted to be assured that those who operate coasting craft without masters' or mates' certificates should, if they so desired, be able to obtain certificates of service on passing the prescribed examination.


Douglas King Hazen: May I ask if section 305 is a
new one? That levies a duty of two cents a ton.


Lionel Chevrier: That is a national revenue
matter. That part of the Canada Shipping
	'

Act comes under the Department of National Revenue. I am unable to answer that question.


Douglas King Hazen: May the section stand until we get an answer?


Mr. Young:: Must sailors now sailing under Newfoundland regulations carry a discharge book?


Lionel Chevrier: At the present time they
must.


Rodney Young: They must?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; so I am informed.


William Henry Golding: Shall the section
carry?


Douglas King Hazen: I would ask that the portion of section 33 at the foot of the page, section 305, stand until we get an explanation.


Lionel Chevrier: All that is being done there is the addition of the word "Newfoundland."


Douglas King Hazen: It is not a new duty?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Howard Charles Green: In the future will the qualifications be the same as in the past for the men on Newfoundland vessels, or will there now be a stricter examination?


Lionel Chevrier: Those who do not have certificates as masters or mates will be required to pass prescribed examinations under the regulations as they exist in the department.


Howard Charles Green: Will that make much of a difference in Newfoundland?


Lionel Chevrier: No. I am told that it will not.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
John Ewen Sinclair: I would ask the committee to revert to section 32, in order to permit me to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
On section 32-Bank of Canada Act.


John Ewen Sinclair: The change from eleven to twelve was merely to accommodate one Newfoundland director. At the present time there are two from Ontario, two from Quebec and one from each of the other provinces of Canada. This amendment raises the number to twelve for the inclusion of a Newfoundland director.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Henry Golding: Section 36 was allowed to stand. I would ask the committee to turn to that section.

On section 36-The Transport Act, 1938.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I should just say a word with regard to this section. Strictly speaking, it would not have been necessary to include this section in the act at all, because part II of the Transport Act says that its operation will not come into effect until it is proclaimed by the governor in council; and really until it is proclaimed it does not affect anyone. However, in order to reassure the people of Newfoundland, it was thought that it would be better to include this particular section which takes out of the operation of part II of the Transport Act transportation by water.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is the point. I was wondering why it was included.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It should not be included at all, but the delegates at the conference felt that for greater certainty they would prefer to have it there and we put it there.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
George Alexander Drew: While the section has passed, there is a point which I should like to place before the minister in connection with section 33. At the bottom of page 13 of the draft bill it will be found that No. 305 is given to a section which relates to levies on ships entering certain ports, and the words "or Newfoundland" are added. Unless this is a new section there is something missing in the section before us. Unless this is a new section a provision should be added that some other section is stricken out.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps the hon. gentleman was busy on something else a moment ago when I said that the duty and the levy part of the shipping act is a matter for national revenue and not for transport; therefore I am not familiar with the details. At first glance my reply to the hon. member for Royal was that the only change was the addition of the words "or Newfoundland". I am not in a position to give any further details on it because it does not come under my jurisdiction.


George Alexander Drew: The importance of the point I am making is that, unless this is a new section, there is obviously something lacking from the whole of section 33. If 305 is not a new section of the act, then obviously there should be a provision that some section of the earlier act be stricken out and this be substituted. On the other hand, if it is a new section it is not in conformity with what the minister has explained. It is one or the other. I think it should stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not think it is necessary to have the section stand. There has been a mistake in the printing. If the minister and others will follow me they will find that t.he
Statute Law Amendment paragraph ahead of 305 is a short paragraph which begins with the figure 2 in parentheses. That is the paragraph which explains what is to be done with 305. In other words, the line down the left-hand side of the page should be cut off just above the paragraph numbered 2 in parentheses.


Lionel Chevrier: Does that answer my hon. friend?


George Alexander Drew: I think that is the explanation. I think the placing of the line was misleading.


Lionel Chevrier: If there is any change it will be approved of.


George Alexander Drew: If there is any change it should be reopened.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I saw that not because I am a lawyer but because I am a printer.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Henry Golding: Will the committee turn to section 21.
On section 21-Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is the minister going to give us an explanation of this section?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The point was raised by members of the opposition that the definition of service for Royal Canadian Mounted Police recruits as set out in section 21 would not include a man who had served in the forces which were not raised in Newfoundland. These are the facts. Under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, which was passed by this house in May 1948, there is a part V which relates to all of the new members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police taken on staff. This part V has not yet been proclaimed but it will be in due course. In part V, section 91, subsection 1, paragraph (j), subparagraph (ii) will be found these words:
Time served on active service in the naval, military or air forces of His Majesty raised in Canada during time of war.
What is being done for the Newfoundland recruits of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is to apply to them the identical language which is applicable to the Canadian recruits. My hon. friend may still argue perhaps that, because time is not recognized in the case of those who enlisted elsewhere and served in the forces and then later became recruits in the mounted police in Canada, that is a very poor reason for not recognizing it in the case of Newfoundland. I have checked with the officials of the mounted police. They tell me they are satisfied that this wording will cover the cases which they expect to encounter; but they say that they have no desire to exclude anyone who has served, and if both of these sections-that is

Statute Law Amendment the one which is already in the act relating to Canadian recruits, passed in May, 1948, and this one which is now before us-can be permitted to stand as they are for a year, we can see whether they will exclude anyone.
My information is that in both world war I and world war II the British had recruiting depots for both naval and military personnel, and the great likelihood is that the bulk of those who served in the British forces would be coming into the forces through these depots. In any event, we have carried out exactly the arrangement which was made, which was to extend to the Newfoundland recruits the same status which the Canadians have.


George Randolph Pearkes: A Newfoundlander who left Newfoundland and served in the Royal Navy and came back would receive the benefits of this section?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. To come under either the Canadian section or the Newfoundland section, he would have to serve in naval, military or air forces of His Majesty raised in Canada or raised in Newfoundland. My information is that the great bulk of all Canadians and all Newfoundlanders who served in His Majesty's forces were raised in their respective countries.


George Randolph Pearkes: This is a very important point, Mr. Chairman, because there were a great many men who left Newfoundland and who served in the Royal Navy during both the first and the second world wars. There were also a large number of men who left Newfoundland and served in British units of the army in both world war I and world war II.
I think the history of the service of Newfoundlanders bears me out in that. I do not want to see these men who were Newfoundland born and bred, who went overseas and served with the Royal Navy or with the British army and then returned to their homes in Newfoundland, excluded from the benefits of this section. What the minister has just said indicates that they would be excluded unless they served in forces raised in Newfoundland or in Canada. I imagine that must mean the Royal Canadian Navy or the Canadian Army, or that they had joined through some depot in Newfoundland which transferred them from Newfoundland to units of the British navy or the British army. I submit that there were a great many who left Newfoundland under their own arrangements. They proceeded to the United Kingdom and there joined up immediately after they reached the United Kingdom. I want to make quite certain that that type of man will receive the benefits herein outlined. I gather the minister said that they would not.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think that my hon. friend's statement regarding those service personnel who were raised in Newfoundland or in Canada was exhaustive. I do not think they would necessarily be in depots, as he has suggested. It is to be noted that this wording is not to be applied in relation to the granting of any pensions for their service. It is to be applied to new recruits, new volunteers in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police either in Newfoundland or in Canada who say, upon enlistment in that service, "I have some service in the navy"-or the air force or the army, as the case may be-"and these are the circumstances of my service. I want to get credit for this service towards my mounted police pension".
The officials of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police tell me they anticipate no difficulty at all in taking care of the problem in connection with the recruits who come to them. If any difficulty does develop, I do not believe there would be any disposition on the part of the government for one moment to stand on the retention of those words. My only suggestion is that we might let them stand the same for Newfoundland as they are for Canada for the period of a year; then if we found any difficulty presenting itself we could change the wording-and I am sure my hon. friend would agree it should be changed equally for both of them.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is this not the time to do it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We have no amendment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act before us at the present time. To be frank, I do not mind stating that I got in touch with the draftsman during the dinner recess, and asked him if he would have any objection to striking out the words "raised in Canada" or "raised in Newfoundland" as the case might be. He said, as all draftsmen do, "Well, I should like to look at all the sections of the act to make sure that we would not be getting into any trouble by doing so."
As to the merits or substance of the case, however, I must say that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have no desire-why should they?-to raise these matters, because they are looking for good men to serve with them, and they are prepared to recognize service in His Majesty's forces.


Arthur Leroy Smith: But they cannot do it unless the statute says so.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They expect no difficulty at all; and I think they are fairly close to the subject. As a matter of fact the official to whom I was speaking had served with Newfoundlanders in the navy, and he told me he was under the impression that the great bulk of them had been raised in Newfoundland.

He served with them, and he said he did not think there was any objection to this wording. However, if anything develops, we shall have no objection in the world to changing it. But I do not think anything will develop.


George Randolph Pearkes: The minister says he has no objection. That being so the simplest way would be to amend this subsection by deleting the words "raised in Canada or Newfoundland" so that the subsection would read:
Time served on active service in the naval, military or air forces of His Majesty during time of war.
I so move.


Brooke Claxton: That cannot be moved.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The amendment is out of order, because it affects the revenue. I suggest the amendment should not be offered in this way, and that we should not extend to veterans or those who have served in Newfoundland something which is not extended to those in Canada who served in His Majesty's forces.
The law as it stands now provides that in order to obtain these benefits under the section a man must have served in His Majesty's forces raised in Canada, and the proposed amendment suggests that it be extended by addin-: the words "in Newfoundland". I do not think it is competent for a private member to suggest any further extension, because quite obviously it would involve an added charge on the revenues of Canada. Surely that is perfectly clear.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Henry Golding: We now turn to section 37 dealing with the Penitentiary Act.
On section 37-The Penitentiary Act, 1939.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: 1 asked the minister if the penitentiary at Dorchester, New Brunswick, would be used as a penitentiary for Newfoundland, as it is being used for the other three maritime provinces.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This section carries into effect paragraph XVI of the memorandum, which states:
For the time being it is understood that Newfoundland will continue to operate its own penitentiary and prisoners sentenced by the courts of Newfoundland to terms of imprisonment of two years or more may be incarcerated therein subject to the rules and regulations laid down for the management and control of the institution by the provincial authorities. Maintenance of such prisoners will be paid by the Canadian government on a per diem basis at a rate to be mutually agreed upon between the Canadian government and the provincial government.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will a separate penitentiary be maintained in Newfoundland, or will the one at Dorchester, New Brunswick, be used for that province?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The memorandum speaks for itself. It says that for the time being it is
Statute Law Amendment understood that Newfoundland will continue to operate its own penitentiary. Hon. members will understand that in bringing the administrative machinery of two countries together, as we are doing here, some things can be put into effect almost immediately, while it takes some time to merge others.
The law officers have gone through no less than five hundred federal statutes to see which of those required the type of consequential amendments set out in this bill. Of that five hundred there are perhaps about two hundred which we hope may be proclaimed into effect by March 31.
There are a number of others however which will have to wait for some time. For example, there is the matter of weights and measures, where we have to have inspectors for checking purposes before we can proclaim our weights and measures act as taking effect in Newfoundland. Under this heading of penitentiaries the position is, as I have said, this is the best information I can give because, as the hon. member will see, this memorandum is a statement of those points of agreement between the two countries not sufficiently of a constitutional nature to form part of the terms of union, but upon which it was necessary to have an agreement of a less formal character. The position is that, for the time being, until Canada and Newfoundland both see how they are going to proceed, Newfoundland will continue to operate its own penitentiary.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I should like to make a suggestion which I think may be of some assistance in drafting. About the middle of section 37 we find these words:
-or for a term of years, not less than two, shall be sentenced to imprisonment in the place operated by the province of Newfoundland at St. John's for the confinement of prisoners.
My first suggestion is that it should contain the words "at the city of St. John's", because I am sure there must be parishes named St. John's in Newfoundland, as there are in other parts of Canada. You must do better than that. You must imagine the position of a judge about to sentence a prisoner. The only thing he can do under this section is to sentence a man to so many years in the place operated by the province of Newfoundland at St. John's. That is a rather unfortunate way to handle it. I have never been there but I imagine there are a number of places of confinement at St. John's. I am quite sure that at the city police station-I think St. John's is a city-they would have places of confinement, although temporary it is true. I assume that what is meant here is some sort of jail which is maintained at St. John's, Newfoundland.
650	HOUSE OF
Statute Law Amendment
The two points I am raising are going to be helpful to the minister so he will know exactly what is being done when people are sent to a jail in Newfoundland. Perhaps I could raise the second point and the minister can take cognizance of both points, or either.
I read again:
-at St. John's for the confinement of prisoners, and shall be subject to the statutes, rules, regulations and other laws pertaining to the management and control of that place of confinement.
Surely that is surplusage. I do not see why it is needed at all because, if it is a penitentiary under the Penitentiary Act, then obviously it is subject to all the rules presently in force in the Dominion of Canada and applying to penitentiaries. For instance, we do not have a set of rules or a statute dealing with Dorchester apart from Stony Mountain or Kingston or St. Vincent de Paul. I ask the minister to reconsider the drafting of this section. I would suggest that he eliminate the latter part which I think is surplusage and simply identify the place of confinement so that the judge might say, "I sentence you to serve so many years in the prison on State street," or wherever it may be in the city of St. John's.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I want to thank the hon. member for Calgary West for giving us another example of his friendliness in the suggestions he has made in connection with this bill. They have been most helpful. The gentleman who drafted this bill is an extremely skilful draftsman and I am inclined to think that he cast it in its present form-


Mr. Matthews (Kootenay East):: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may I ask the minister to speak a little more loudly. We cannot hear him and we are interested in what he has to say.


William Ross Macdonald: I think if there was less talking in the chamber we would be able to hear the minister.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I was thanking the hon. member for Calgary West for the useful suggestions he has made in connection with this bill, and I was going on to say that the gentleman who drafted this bill is a most skilful draftsman and I am rather inclined to think that he cast this particular section in the form in which you find it because of the necessity of meshing in with some of the Newfoundland provisions. It will be noted that the section starts out with the words:
Notwithstanding anything in the Penitentiary Act, 1939,-
It would appear that it was intended to eliminate this, for the time being at any rate, from the operations of that act. The member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) has made very
(Mr. Smith (Calgary West).)

worth-while suggestions, and perhaps while another section is being taken up on which some of my colleagues can speak I can get in touch with the draftsman and lay these proposals before him to see how he views the suggestions of my hon. friend. Out of fairness to him I would not like to disturb his handiwork without giving him an opportunity to express his opinion.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am merely trying to find clarity in the bill because we all know that in the administration of justice you must dot your "i's" and cross your "t's" rather carefully. When a criminal is to be sentenced we do not want a writ of habeas corpus or certiorari to let him out on purely technical grounds. I mentioned this when we were dealing with this matter. There is no mention in this amending statute of the Criminal Code. There is reference to the Fugitive Offenders Act; there is reference to the Penitentiary Act; there is reference to the Judges Act; but there is no mention of the Criminal Code.
Following the question that I then asked him, I wonder if he has made any inquiry about this one thing. Under our Criminal Code there are provisions with respect to speedy trial which may be held on election before a county court judge, as they are called here, or a district court judge, as in the western provinces. I find no provision under the judges section for the appointment of officers with the jurisdiction I am discussing. I do not want an attempt made to administer criminal law in the province of Newfoundland without there being the proper machinery for its administration.
No doubt men will elect to have speedy trials and if there is no means or method of granting them speedy trials we will be up against a stone wall. 1 realize that no doubt the superior court judges will have all the powers of a district court judge, but they in turn may be confined to various matters in the province. I want the minister to be sure that we are not trying to do something without having the necessary machinery with which to do it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend raised this point or a similar point on Wednesday at about six o'clock. I had the floor and was in the midst of giving an explanation when at six o'clock I had to stop. This is a very important point and I think it would be wise for me to review briefly the remarks that I made on that occasion, and then complete them as I was then unable to do. My hon. friend said this:
When the minister introduced the resolution I asked him whether we were going to have references made, and whether a study had been made of all the statutes.

That was the first part of a very pertinent observation by my hon. friend in the early part of the discussions. He wanted to know whether there was going to be just some general clause authorizing appropriate amendments to be made, or whether there would be separate sections in this present omnibus bill specifically amending each section in each act which required amendment. I told him then, and this is a most important point, that we were following the proper method of bringing down specific amendments to the sections of the various statutes in order to achieve that clarity which he very properly said should be a desideratum. Then he said:
His answer was that that had been done. I wonder if the minister is sure about that. I accepted his word completely, of course.
But he still had doubts.
For example, I am thinking of the jurisdiction given to the different courts.
In reply I said:
If the hon. member will turn to page 9 of the terms of union he will see this:
and I referred him to the item near the bottom of the page, "Continuation of laws", pointing out that it was a term of the union that all the laws in force in Newfoundland should continue therein as if the union had not been made, subject nevertheless to being repealed, abolished or altered by the parliament of Canada or by the legislature of the province of Newfoundland, according to the authority of the parliament or the legislature as the case may be. That is to say, all the Newfoundland laws would continue; but we must remember that before Newfoundland comes into confederation the laws of Newfoundland cover all subjects, including many which now will come within federal jurisdiction; these would be continued, unless we now repeal or amend or change those laws of Newfoundland which come within federal jurisdiction. Amongst those would be the criminal law, as to which my hon. friend is deeply concerned. In the terms of union, turning over to page 10, there is a provision that by an act of the parliament of Canada or by proclamation the laws of Canada can be brought into force on a date or dates to be fixed by this act or proclamation. That is what we propose to do with the Criminal Code and all these other federal statutes. As I have said, no less than five hundred federal statutes had to be examined, and there will be upward of two hundred'or more in respect of which we will issue a proclamation. Until that proclamation is issued those laws will not be in effect in Newfoundland at all.
The purpose of the present bill is to go through these various federal statutes which we propose to bring into force by proclama-29087-421
Statute Law Amendment tion, tidy them up, and put them in shape to be applied to Newfoundland by inserting in the proper sections the appropriate references to Newfoundland, so that before we proclaim them they will be in proper shape to be made applicable to that province, and to all parts of a federal state which include Newfoundland.
This omnibus bill will cover all the statutes that require consequential amendment with three notable exceptions, one of which I had mentioned just before six o'clock the other evening and two of which I shall mention now. The one I mentioned was the Income Tax Act. We thought it was much preferable that a statute which imposes taxes upon the people should have the amendments made to the act itself rather than as sections of some omnibus bill, to the end that people who may be concerned about how much they have to pay in taxes will always have the assurance that if they go to the Income Tax Act and its amendments all the law relating to that subject will be there. Another is the amendments to the Criminal Code which are now in course of preparation and which will be laid before the house shortly, which bill will include some consequential sections relating to Newfoundland. The third one is the Bankruptcy Act, and the amendments there will be introduced in a complete revision of that act which will be brought in this session, probably in the Senate in the first instance.
As far as the court set-up is concerned, I shall deal with it in general terms. The Supreme Court of Newfoundland is the high court there, and is much the same as the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island. It is divided into trial and appellate divisions, but there is just the one supreme court. There are no county courts in St. John's; the difficulty in adapting the federal statutes which we now propose to make applicable to Newfoundland, in so far as they call for the exercise of discretion by a county court judge, has been successfully overcome, we think, by conferring county court jurisdiction under such statutes upon the judges of the supreme court in Newfoundland. Various sections scattered through this omnibus bill containing the words, "the judge shall be a judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland" are there for that purpose. If you took the trouble to compare such a section with its counterpart applicable to the province of Ontario, you would find in some cases that in Ontario it would be the county court, in Saskatchewan the district court, to which the sections applicable to Ontario and Saskatchewan would refer.
Then in Newfoundland they have a number of stipendiary magistrates who exercise in that province the jurisdiction which in

Statute Law Amendment other provinces is exercised by police magistrates, magistrates and justices of the peace.
The other night my hon. friend made a reference to a set of figures at the back of this omnibus bill, $333.33, which certainly on their face looked mysterious, as payment to three district judges of the admiralty district of Newfoundland; and he wanted to know whether these men would exercise any criminal jurisdiction. As my hon. friend knows, the admiralty court is a branch of our own federal exchequer court, and our original proposal in relation to the admiralty court of Newfoundland was that one of the judges of the supreme court there would exercise admiralty jurisdiction as an appointee of the admiralty division of our exchequer court for a salary of $1,000 a year as a supplementary to his salary as a supreme court judge.
But the chief justice of the supreme court in Newfoundland said that all three judges of that court were well versed in admiralty, were trained in hearing cases in admiralty, and they would prefer that the admiralty work of that division of the exchequer court should be divided among three rather than centered in one. Inasmuch as it was proposed to give the one judge $1,000, we are dividing this sum into three so each judge will be paid $333.33 per year.
My hon. friend raised one other point in connection with the Official Secrets Act, the Juvenile Delinquents Act and other acts of that character.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Secret commissions.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: 
Arthur Leroy Smith: We must keep in mind that the minute union occurs Newfoundland has lost a great deal of its jurisdiction in many matters, one of which is the criminal law. It goes in the twinkling of an eye; it does not last a second after union has taken place. What I have in mind is that either the gentleman the minister mentioned or someone else should be able to assure us that at that second there is no hiatus between the incidence of the criminal law and the administration of it.
The minister mentioned that during this session there would be some amendments to the Criminal Code, some of which might have specific reference to Newfoundland. My hope is that we in this parliament will have our statutes referring to Newfoundland in such shape that, the minute union takes place, we will have the gown of our criminal law ready to drop into place.


James Herbert Matthews: The hon.
member for Calgary West has been dealing with this section from the legal point of view, but there is in my mind another question upon which I should like some information. Is this particular prison in St. John's, Newfoundland, a federal penitentiary or a provincial jail?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I was not a member of the group carrying on these negotiations, but I would refer the hon. member to the memorandum-I am sure he has a copy of it-

entitled "Statements on Questions Raised by the Newfoundland Delegation". If the hon. member will turn to page 10, at the top of the page, item xvi, penitentiaries, he will see:
For the time being it is understood that Newfoundland will continue to operate its own penitentiary-
From that statement I gather that the delegates on both sides were agreed there was a penitentiary and that was the penitentiary to which they were referring.
May I say that the application of Canadian federal law to Newfoundland will be by this proclamation to which I referred. I have not directed my mind specifically to this particular problem, but I feel quite safe in saying that the laws of Newfoundland will remain as they are until this proclamation we issue makes our federal statutes applicable. The very formidable task which our law officers, in collaboration with the law officers of Newfoundland, have in examining all the relevant statutes which might have some application to Newfoundland to make sure we proclaim no federal laws that are inappropriate or not within federal jurisdiction and, secondly, that we do not overlap any provincial laws but make certain that the provincial counterparts are repealed, will take some time to accomplish. We must also take pains to see that there is no part of the field which is not covered. We must also avoid this hiatus mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary West. I am not very much concerned about the hiatus because, as I conceive it, the law of Newfoundland will remain the law of Newfoundland until we proclaim our law. If our proclamation is properly drawn, no difficulty will be experienced.
The hon. member for Calgary West says he wants us to take great care. I do not think we can take any greater care than we have already taken. We have put the very best man we have on this task. He has devoted a long time to this study and has been in the closest collaboration with the law officers of Newfoundland. We have not achieved perfection, because it is not human to be perfect; but, subject to human frailties, we have done about as good a job as it is possible for human beings to do.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the section carry?


Douglas King Hazen: Just a minute. I thought the minister intended to make some inquiry of the gentleman who drafted the section.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will make inquiries.


Douglas King Hazen: I think the section should stand, having regard to the point raised.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. We had better let it stand.
Section stands.
Statute Law Amendment
On section 20-Pension Act.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall this clause carry?


Howard Charles Green: No.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think a word of explanation is due on this section. On checking with the same draftsman, Mr. Driedger, and with the chairman of the Canadian pension commission, Mr. Melville, we find that the statement I made to the house before the dinner recess is quite correct, and that it bears out the statement made by my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs. If my hon. friends will look at Bill No. 12, page 8, paragraph (31 they will find it reads as follows:
A British subject resident and domiciled in Newfoundland at the time of enlistment who served in the naval, military or air forces of His Majesty or in any of the naval, military or air forces of any of the countries allied with His Majesty during world war II shall be deemed to be a member of the forces for the purposes of section eleven of the Pension Act, if the disability in respect of which the application for pension is made is not pensionable by virtue of subsection one or two of this section.
There is a similar reference in subsection 2 of section 11 of the Pension Act. I am informed both by the draftsman and by the chairman of the pension commission that the entitlement under section 11 of the Pension Act carries with it not only the general rights of pension but all of the specific or ancillary pension rights to which my hon. friends, notably the hon. member for Vancouver South, referred before the dinner recess. So that when my colleague said that the intention of this government had been to extend to the Newfoundland veterans the full privileges to which the Canadian veteran is entitled, that statement is exactly correct. It is also true that that provision was made in the terms of union. As hon. members will recall, I told the house that the law officers of the crown, in drafting this Bill No. 12, had regarded-and quite properly, in my opinion-as their instructions the terms of union, and had produced the first draft of it, which was submitted to the pension commission. The pension commission thought there should be some change in wording, which was accordingly made. What we have before us here is the product of the consultation of those two authorities, and both of them assure us that it gives complete coverage in accordance with the intentions of my colleague, in accordance with the terms of union, and in accordance, I am sure, with the desires of the members of the committee-


Howard Charles Green: I think there is one weakness
in the position taken by the Minister of Justice,- and it is this. He says the draftsman* in the Department of Justice and the chairman of the pension commission both say that this amendment is all right, and therefore it
654	HOUSE OF
Statute Law Amendment is all right. In fact, that is his argument. In my opinion, that is not the position that should be taken by a minister of the crown. A minister of the crown must himself stand behind those amendments, as must the house.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, I do.


Howard Charles Green: Just a minute.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I stand behind them one
hundred per cent.


Howard Charles Green: I would ask the minister to
wait until I finish. With regard to this amendment to the Pension Act and with regard to the amendments referred to by the hon. member for Calgary West, the minister has taken the attitude that the draftsman is a fine draftsman; therefore everything is all right and we must not question his work. Time and again in the special parliamentary committee on veterans affairs we have seen amendments to the Pension Act brought in which have been passed by the counsel of the department, by the chairman of the pension commission, and by everyone in the department who has considered them. Yet we have found them to be full of holes. I am sure that this is just another such case.
Section 11 of the Pension Act refers to disabilities attributable to or incurred on service. As I pointed out today, section 21-which is the meritorious service pension section-does not deal with that kind of pension at all. It deals with a pension which is based on meritorious service. The same argument applies to pensions to a dependent parent and to a dependent brother or sister. I cannot see why there should not be an amendment making it absolutely clear that these pensions which are not based on disability arising through service are to be available for the veterans of Newfoundland. It is just slipshod drafting, and now the government will not even take the trouble to set it right.


Brooke Claxton: It is not slipshod drafting at all.


Howard Charles Green: The government are asking us to take their assurance that everything will be lovely, that the pension commission will interpret this amendment in the way it should be interpreted, and that nobody need worry. That is not good enough for the veterans of Newfoundland any more than it would be good enough for the veterans of Canada. I am sure that if there were a special committee on veterans affairs it would never be satisfied with the amendment that is now brought down. Once again I urge the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Veterans Affairs to put in a clear-cut amendment so that the veteran in St. John's who 

reads the act will know exactly what he is entitled to, and will not need to be referred back to some draftsman in the department.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think that my hon. friend, quite unintentionally, has been most unfair to the draftsman. There is nothing slipshod about any of this work. I do not know about these other cases of which my hon. friend speaks. They may not have been done by this gentleman. But I would put him up against any draftsman in the whole of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Surely this house is not just
dependent on the draftsman.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Just a minute; I would ask my hon. friend to be patient until I finish. We are not simply standing behind the draftsman or simply invoking his skill or talents as a draftsman; that is not the only reason for our stand. But my hon. friend is the one who is attacking this section. We say it is quite adequate, and we stand here as responsible ministers and quote the responsible head of the pension commission and the draftsman, who also say that it is quite adequate. They say that they have been acting under it for some considerable time and have been so interpreting it.


Howard Charles Green: They have not yet acted under it at all.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, not under this, but treating entitlement under section 11 as carrying with it these other benefits under these other sections of the act. If my hon. friend says that is not correct, in the face of the responsible statements that are being made to that effect, I think he owes it to the committee to get up and give some demonstration of the accuracy of his statement. We are committing ourselves on Hansard if you like, and making a statement of government policy, which .is also contained in the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada, as to exactly what we propose to do. I do not see how we can be any more specific.
It may be that my hon. friend detected some note of caution in my remarks when I said this afternoon that it was necessarily the duty of the law officers, when they were drafting a bill to carry into effect the terms of union between the two countries, to go to these terms of union to find the basis of the bill that they were drawing. That is all I said. I did not indicate any more than our contention that the bill which the committee has before it carries into practical and effective application the terms of union. My colleague then rose and told the committee exactly what the arrangements and understanding were. The terms of union are before the committee. Hon. members can read the

sections which relate to veterans' pensions. In the face of all that, I do not think it is reasonable for my hon. friend to say or to intimate that this is a piece of slipshod drafting. If you submit it to any group of competent lawyers who are skilled in draftsmanship I am sure they will tell you that it is nothing but a very good piece of draftsmanship.


Howard Charles Green: I refer the minister to section 21 of the Pension Act. He is apparently taking the position that the section under which all pensions are granted is section 11, that it is the foundation for all other pensions. I shall read section 21, paragraph 1:
The commission may, on special application in that behalf, grant a compassionate pension, allowance or supplementary award in any case which it considers to be specially meritorious, but in which the commission has decided that the applicant is otherwise unqualified to receive such an award or supplementary award under this act.
That expressly takes out of consideration any award under section 11.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Why does it?


Howard Charles Green: Because it says "otherwise unqualified". Section 21 is applicable to a man who cannot qualify under section 11. I do urge that at least the minister include in this amendment "for the purposes of sections 11 and 21".


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We do not want to appear in any way stubborn in this matter, but we have checked with the law officers in the first place a bill which we regard as satisfactory and adequate to achieve the purpose in hand. My hon. friend, in the diligent exercise of his duties, for which I wish to compliment him-it is what he should do- raises this question. We go back on the strength of the representations which he has made. We check with the draftsmen who drew the bill. We get the chairman of the pension board and check with him. We check with the minister and with the parliamentary assistant.


Howard Charles Green: He does not know much about it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We confer and we come back and we say to you on our responsibility as ministers that the objections you raise are taken care of. In the face of all that, we have the right to be taken as acting with some degree of good faith and responsibility.


Thomas John Bentley: I am not going to take the same position as a lawyer would because I am not a lawyer. I am just a simple sort of citizen and I like simple language. I am willing to take the minister's word that the draftsmen and the chairman of the pension
Statute Law Amendment commission meant what they said when they said that this section covers all the objections which were raised before the recess by myself and by other hon. members. If that is so, will the minister tell me why simple wording would not have covered it? Veterans either in Newfoundland or in Canada are not all lawyers, but we do like to understand as clearly as we can the legislation which affects us. If this section is supposed to cover all the objections that were raised, why could it not have been worded something like this and be done with:
A citizen of Newfoundland who is a veteran of the armed services will be taken to be a veteran as defined in all Canadian pension legislation and entitled to all the benefits therein contained.
If that were done I would have no doubt about what was meant. Why should not a lawyer be in the same position as myself and also have no doubt about simple language?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend has asked me one of the most embarrassing and difficult questions that a layman has ever asked a lawyer, and to give a proper reply would take a much longer time than is available at the moment, and it would try the patience of hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Especially a lawyer.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right. My hon. friend must remember-and I am sure he knows this -that pension legislation is exceedingly complex. That is the point he has just made. So far as the present problem is concerned, our task is to fit into this complex statute a new group of pensioners whom we are bringing into Canada from another country. I am not going to take up the time of the committee to attempt to answer my hon. friend's question. There is a good answer to it but it would take a much longer time than the committee would care to listen.


Thomas John Bentley: I would listen for a long time to get it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: These men who spend their lifetime drafting statutes are not the fools that people take them to be; and if there were simpler ways of doing these things I am sure that they would use them. Remember this, they have to make sure not only that people understand the law but also that no one who wishes to misunderstand it can misunderstand it. That is one of the things that have to be taken into consideration. It is a much more difficult task than a layman thinks it is. If it were as simple as my hon. friend's suggestion, I think I would offer him a job as a draftsman right now.


Frank Exton Lennard: If the statutes were as simple as the hon. member for Swift Current would
656	HOUSE OF
Statute Law Amendment wish them to be, the lawyers in this country would have nothing to do. That is one very good reason why the statutes are so difficult to understand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is very ungenerous.


Frank Exton Lennard: I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs if additional commissioners will be appointed to administer the act in Newfoundland. Will they necessarily be Newfoundlanders and will they be veterans of either of the two great wars?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The additional load brought about by applicants for pensions in Newfoundland will be carefully considered, and if it is necessary to increase the number of the present pension commissioners it will be done. In doing that I can assure my hon. friend that the need for a close understanding of veterans problems in Newfoundland will be kept in mind.


Frank Exton Lennard: The minister means, then, that Newfoundland will have its proportion of any additional commissioners who are appointed.


Milton Fowler Gregg: In increasing the number of present commissioners, that will be carefully considered.


Mr. Ferguson:: It is refreshing to see the Minister of Justice going over the laws that are to become effective in Canada. That is entirely different from the war years, when orders in council and new laws were passed without any discussion. Fortunately, through the recent efforts of a very bright lawyer, Mr. John Hamilton of Toronto, the court of appeal of Ontario showed quite clearly that some of the laws made by order in council without discussion should be repealed at the present time. It is found that the fines and penalties imposed are not holding up. Certainly these laws should be discussed thoroughly before they are made effective in the new province.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Is it the general practice of the Department of Veterans Affairs to employ veterans?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 43 and 44 agreed to.
On section 45-The War Service Grants Act, 1944, and The Veterans Rehabilitation Act.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: We note from the terms of union that sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act will be extended to Newfoundland veterans of the second world war. In looking at section 6 of the Veterans Rehabilitation Act we find reference to allowances


while awaiting returns from business, allowances where there are rehabilitation grants, and the time within which application may be made. This last subsection is as follows:
(3) Except as hereinafter otherwise provided, no allowance may be paid under this section unless application therefor is made by the veteran within twelve months after the date of termination of the war or the date of his discharge, whichever is the later date.
I do not see how, in view of this time limitation, that subsection can be made to apply to Newfoundland. We know the war has now been ended for some three years. These persons could not possibly make application for benefits under that subsection within the time limit specified, unless some amendment were made to the act-at least, that is the way it strikes me.
Then section 7 refers to allowances during vocational or technical training, and the time limit within which the application is to be made is, to use the words in subsection (2):
No allowance may be paid under this section unless application therefor is made by the veteran within twelve months after the date of termination of the war or the date of his discharge, whichever is the later date.
I do not see how that section can apply to a Newfoundland veteran. Frankly I do not see the benefit of these sections, or why they are included in the bill.
Then, section 8, which deals with allowances where veterans are undergraduates, sets a time limit of one year and three months after discharge.
It is possible that what the Minister of Justice said a few moments ago is true, namely, that the drafting of the act has been done carefully, and that there are no mistakes. But it does seem obvious to me that if we are going to limit the time for application to twelve months after the close of the war, or to one year and three months, and say to a Newfoundlander, "You will receive the benefits of this act if your application is made within that time", we will not have accomplished anything. I should like to have an explanation of this, and would ask to be told how these sections can apply to veterans of Newfoundland.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Again this reverts to the governing paragraph 38, which has been discussed at some length, to ensure that every item is carried out on the same basis as for Canadian veterans. As I said the other evening, there are some exceptions, particularly in respect of a veteran who may have been in hospital since the close of the war. I said at that time that, like those taking university training, there would be very few who would be able to take advantage of the other sections. But the sections to which the hon.

member has referred are inserted by the draftsman to carry out the intent of section 38 of the terms of union.


Howard Charles Green: In the terms of union we find in section 42 reference to the merchant seamen of Newfoundland. I would point out to the minister that there are certain defects in the provisions now made for these men. These provisions are of particular importance to Newfoundland, because the men of that dominion have been men of the sea. I do not think there can be any doubt that a much larger proportion of Newfoundlanders have taken to the sea than would be found in any of the nine provinces in Canada.
On December 29, 1948, order in council P.C. 5983 was passed which, at long last, did provide some help by way of rehabilitation for Canadian merchant seamen. However, it does not go far enough. For example, a merchant seaman cannot qualify for vocational training unless he is under thirty years of age. This means that a man of twenty-two or twenty-three years who joined the merchant navy in 1939 is now ineligible for this training. To me this is an unnecessary and unwise limitation.
I cannot see why the age limit should have been inserted, particularly in view of the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of Transport have wide discretion in either granting or refusing such vocational training. Now that we have before us the question of what is to be done for the merchant seamen of Newfoundland, I suggest that that thirty-year qualification be removed, and that merchant seamen be permitted to take vocational training no matter what their age, if it is considered that such seamen can benefit from the training offered.
There is a further restriction which states that the applicant must apply by July 1 of this year; otherwise he is not eligible for training. I cannot see the reason for that provision, either. Many of the men of the Canadian merchant navy are away on their ships, possibly in the Indian ocean or across the Pacific, and may not return for many months. Yet, unless they are back in Canada and have made their applications before July 1, they are ineligible for this vocational training. I submit that restriction should be removed from the order in council.
I have one further complaint to make about the present provisions. As a matter of fact, I have several other complaints, but at the present moment I am pressing only one of them. It is that these merchant seamen have not been given any educational training rights. While they are permitted to take
Statute Law Amendment vocational training, for some reason or other they are not allowed to take educational training. I know of several young men in Vancouver who served in the merchant navy, men who were under fire and who served on ships which were sunk. Yet these men cannot qualify for educational benefits. In the same classes, however, are army men who did not get out of Canada, but who do qualify for educational training-a situation which I say is most unfair. It has never been just. Now that we are dealing with a large number of merchant seamen from Newfoundland, I suggest that this injustice should be rectified.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the section carry?


Howard Charles Green: I should like a statement from the minister.


William Ross Macdonald: Before the minister makes a statement I think I should point out to the committee that a .general discussion at this time on the questions that have been raised would be out of order because that particular act is not before the committee and the committee could do nothing about it.


Howard Charles Green: I submit that the questions I have asked are not out of order at all. They may have been asked under the wrong section, but I do not think they have. We are dealing with the rehabilitation act and if the chairman will refer to the explanation opposite page twenty of the bill he will find a reference to the terms of union having to do with merchant seamen. Those terms bring up the very points that I have raised. If the discussion is not in order under section 45 of the bill it would be in order under section 47. As a matter of fact I think it is in order under both sections.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is a bill containing consequential amendments to make our law applicable to Newfoundland for the purposes of carrying out the terms of union. Surely that does not open up all the subject matters covered by that law. If it did, we could sit here for months discussing everything covered by all these acts. The only thing before the committee is whether this particular section shall be amended as stated in the bill. We are not discussing the propriety of the policy.
We have not raised objections before because we did not want to be technical about the matter, but as a government we have not much choice because we have entered into an arrangement with Newfoundland and have agreed to a contract known as the terms of union. In order to implement that, we require amendments to certain sections of our statute law. The only question that is really before us is: Are we to amend them or not?
658	HOUSE OF
Statute Law Amendment This provision has been brought down to amend the sections, but I submit that that does not open up the subject matter of every one of these statutes.


Howard Charles Green: Section 42(2) of the terms of union deals with vocational training as applied to merchant seamen, and rehabilitation is dealt with in section 45 and also in section 47 of the bill. The explanation opposite section 47 points out the various enactments which give these rights. The enactment to which I have been referring is a particular order in council and I submit that I am in order in asking the Minister of Veterans Affairs why a change should not be made in the order in council along the lines I have suggested.


William Ross Macdonald: The work of the committee is, as I understand it, to consider whether these acts and the order in council to which the hon. member has referred should be made applicable to Newfoundland. I do not think that allows a discussion of each and every act referred to. As the Minister of Justice has pointed out, if it did, we would make no progress whatsoever. As I stated before, if hon. members think that some particular act which is now to be applied to Newfoundland is wrong or improper and should be changed, this committee can do nothing about it because that act is not before the committee.
I think the work of this committee is to decide whether an act as it now stands, good or bad, should be applied to Newfoundland. Buty>
in my opinion, to go further than that would be going beyond the powers vested in the committee.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that the minister be allowed to make a statement at this point.


William Ross Macdonald: I had not intended to stop the minister but I thought I should point out what I thought was the proper procedure for the committee.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Within your ruling, Mr. Chairman, with which I heartily agree, I would say to my hon. friend that the terms which apply to Canadian seamen will apply to those of Newfoundland, and the order in council to which he refers and which extends those benefits to Canadian seamen will also apply to Newfoundland, even if amended.


Rodney Young: I take it from your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that the question we have to decide is whether we are in favour of applying this section to Newfoundland. Whether it is good or bad must necessarily have some bearing upon whether we are in favour of applying it to Newfoundland. The hon. member for Vancouver South has pointed out that we do not think it is good enough for Canada and


that is why we do not think it is good enough for Newfoundland.


Clarence Gillis: This is a matter we have been kicking around for a long time. I am not going to repeat anything the hon. member for Vancouver South has said because I agree with everything he said. This is not the first time he has made this statement in committee and in the house. I agree with the ruling of the chair that there is not much we can do with the section at this time. In view of the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has stated that no veterans affairs committee will be set up at this session, he should before the house rises make a statement on this question of merchant seamen.
They have had a terribly raw deal. There are not many of them and it would not cost a great deal of money to apply to these merchant seamen the benefits given to veterans who served in the armed forces. To class the merchant seamen who served during the war as just ordinary seamen working for a private company is shabby treatment when we consider the contribution they made to the war effort. This is not good enough even for the Newfoundland seamen. Before we go to the country for re-election this is one mistake that should be remedied. The provisions of the act should be changed in order to remove this injustice. I am not arguing the merits or demerits of the act; I am merely associating myself with the hon. member for Vancouver South.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 46-The Canadian Citizenship Act.
Mr. Fraser:: The suggestion to be added reads:
A person who was a British subject on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine and
(iii) was domiciled in Newfoundland on the said first day of April; is a Canadian citizen.
A British subject domiciled in Canada must wait five years before he can become a Canadian citizen.


Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West):: I have an amendment to move which covers the point my hon. friend has in mind, that a British subject should be required to be domiciled in Newfoundland for the same length of time as in Canada, that is five years, before he would automatically become a Canadian citizen. The amendment I wish to move is, first, that the words "had Newfoundland domicile" be substituted for the words "was domiciled in Newfoundland" in line 42 on page 19; second, that the words, "Newfoundland domicile" be substituted for the words "domicile in Newfoundland" in lines 9 and 10 on page 20; third, that the words "and

Newfoundland domicile means domicile in Newfoundland for at least five years," be added after the word "Canada" in line 12 on page 20. The effect of that amendment would be that a British subject who had been residing in Newfoundland would require to have five years' residence before automatically becoming a Canadian citizen.


George Randolph Pearkes: The same draftsman?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I guess it was the same draftsman the hon. member for Vancouver South was talking about. 1 want to direct a question to the Secretary of State. The citizenship forms from A to O are, I understand from court clerks, rather vague, and in many cases they have difficulty in discovering which form they should use. I wonder if those forms could be checked over, perhaps by the same draftsman, to see if some corrections could be made, or if they could be made simpler so they may be understood by these court clerks, who are very intelligent people. I wonder if the minister has had any complaints in that connection.


Colin William George Gibson: No, I have had no complaints, but I shall be glad to have the matter looked into. Of course those forms do not come up for consideration under this section-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know they do not.


Colin William George Gibson: -but I shall be glad to do as my hon. friend suggests, and see if any improvement can be made for the benefit of those applying for citizenship.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Those forms will have to go to Newfoundland, and I thought they should be as simple as possible so they may be easily understood.


William Ross Macdonald: Would the committee like to carry the amendment and then discuss the section as amended?


Mr. Jaenicke:: No, Mr. Chairman; I want to speak to the section first. Under the citizenship act a natural-born Canadian citizen includes one who has been born on a Canadian ship. In this section there is no provision for anyone born on a Newfoundland ship. Does not the Secretary of State think provision should be made to cover such person? As I read the section, a person would not be included as a natural-born Canadian citizen who was born on a Newfoundland ship.


Mr. Irvine:: It will become a Canadian ship now.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: But he is already born.
Statute Law Amendment


Clarence Decatur Howe: 1 do not think there is any such thing as a Newfoundland ship, because I do not believe there is a Newfoundland registry.


Mr. Adamson:: The amendment makes even more pertinent the question I want to discuss; that is, the status of a woman who married a foreigner prior to January 1, 1947. Under our citizenship act a Canadian-born woman who married a foreigner, other than a United States citizen, prior to January 1, 1947, loses her Canadian citizenship and status. If she marries a foreigner after that date she retains her Canadian citizenship. During the war a great number of women- and I propose to speak to the minister about this-married Norwegians and citizens of Holland and other countries, and these women have lost their Canadian citizenship. Recently in the United Kingdom an act was passed, which I presume would apply in Newfoundland as well, making the national status of a married woman retroactive. In other words, if a citizen of the United Kingdom married a Norwegian or a citizen of Holland, she retained her United Kingdom status and citizenship, and presumably the same applies to a Newfoundland woman.
We are going to have an anomaly here. This is a question I hope to bring up later when we discuss our own citizenship act, but it has a direct bearing on these women in Newfoundland. Any Newfoundland woman who married a foreigner prior to January 1, 1947, will find herself deprived of Canadian citizenship because of the non-retroactive nature of our legislation. I feel that at least the position should be clarified at the present time, so that women who were married to foreigners prior to January 1, 1947, will be able to regain their Canadian citizenship, just as the women of the United Kingdom have been enabled to do.


Colin William George Gibson: The hon. member is quite right. If a British subject married a foreigner and acquired the nationality of her husband she did lose her status as a British subject. That has caused a certain amount of difficulty, and consideration is being given at the present time to bringing forward amendments to our citizenship act dealing with some aspects that we have come across since the act came into force on January 1, 1947. I do not think the difficulty would apply in the case to which my hon. friend refers, that of a resident of Newfoundland. If, as he says, she regained her British citizenship under the terms of the British citizenship act, then at the time Newfoundland comes into confederation she will be a British subject already.

Statute Law Amendment


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am very glad to hear the minister make that statement, because many Canadian women who married foreigners prior to that date are now in great distress. Take the case of a Canadian woman who married a Norwegian airman and now wishes to return to Canada. She finds herself blocked by all the regulations and restrictions that we place on immigrants coming to Canada. There are some Canadian-born women who are back in this country under temporary permits and who, unless the law is changed, may be forced to return to Norway or some other foreign country even though their husbands may have died in the meantime. So I am glad to hear the minister say consideration is being given to this situation.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 47 agreed to.
On section 48-The Explosives Act, 1946.
Douglas King Hazen: Will the minister explain this section?
Mr. Gar son: I think it is fairly selfexplanatory. It reads:
A licence or permit issued under the act of Newfoundland relating to the manufacture, storage, importation and sale of explosives . . . shall be deemed to be a licence or permit issued under The Explosives Act, 1946 . . . for the purposes stated in the licence or permit, as the case may be.
In other words, they have a Newfoundland licence now subsisting. That will be accepted under our act as a licence for the manufacture or storage of explosives under the Canadian statute. My information is that the existing licences in Newfoundland will carry them through the present licence year.


Douglas King Hazen: These licences are granted only for a year, are they?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, or for a definite licence period.


Douglas King Hazen: Would there be two authorities that could grant licences?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, no. The dominion will be granting the licences from now on, after our laws go into effect. In the meanwhile, the people of Newfoundland have paid something to the Newfoundland government for a licence. If this provision were not enacted, we would be guilty of trying to make the people pay double for this licence period by making them get a new Canadian licence.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 49 agreed to.

On section 50-The War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946.
George Alexander Drew: There are two or three points about section 50 that I think should be taken into consideration. First of all, there is the wording of section 50. It now reads:
For the purposes of paragraphs (b) and (c) of section four and section nine of the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946, chapter seventy-five of the Statutes of 1946, His Majesty's Canadian forces include His Majesty's forces raised in Newfoundland-
For the purposes of what I wish to mention in that respect, I need not go further with the quotation.
In section 49, there is a noticeable difference in the wording which, it seems to me, has some meaning. In subsection one of section 49, we read,
in any of the naval or military forces of Newfoundland or, having been recruited in Newfoundland, in any of the naval, military or air forces raised in Newfoundland by or on behalf of the United Kingdom . . .
From the the reading of those words in section 49, it would appear that a distinction is drawn between recruited and raised. It would appear that the word "raised" relates to the forces and not to the individuals and that, consequently, unless the forces were raised in Newfoundland the individuals who left Newfoundland to serve in those forces could not be included in the wording of section 50. I think the minister will see the point I am making. The word "raised" in section 49 relates to the forces and not to the individuals. If that is correct, then the individuals recruited by or on behalf of the United Kingdom in forces raised outside Newfoundland would not be included in the provisions of section 50. I am sure the minister has my point quite clearly in that respect and, that being so, I will pass on to the next point I wish to make in regard to section 50.
This relates to a very special type of provision for veterans. It is not a provision relating to the length of service, the extent of injuries or anything of that nature. It was a special provision enacted some years ago to deal with those cases of ageing veterans for whom no other provision was made in the various acts. The expression used at the time was that it was a provision for burnt-out veterans. In other words, it was to take care of ageing veterans who, for various reasons, were incapable of earning their livelihood. Instead of placing them in the ordinary position of dependents on state support, special provision was made which had regard to their military service.
It seems to me that, no matter what may be said in other provisions regarding veterans, this special provision on behalf of the

so-called burnt-out veterans should apply to all veterans whether they served in the armed forces of Canada, the armed forces of Newfoundland, which will become a part of Canada, or the armed forces of the United Kingdom. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is well aware that this subject has been placed before him at different times, not only by the Imperial War Veterans Association on behalf of its membership, but also by the Canadian Legion, who have urged the inclusion of the imperial veterans. It is appropriate to discuss this subject at this point because this section could now be amended so that it would include, in respect to those veterans now in Newfoundland who would be affected by the provisions of the war veterans allowance, all the imperial veterans as well as the veterans who would be included under this provision as it is now drafted.
I recognize immediately that a point could be made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs that, if this section were amended to include imperial veterans as well as the veterans of the Newfoundland armed forces or veterans of the forces of the United Kingdom recruited in Newfoundland, there would be an inconsistency between the provisions of this act as it applies to those veterans living in the new province of Newfoundland, and those veterans living in the other nine provinces of Canada. I recognize that, and therefore I concede immediately that, if the minister were to concur in my recommendation, it would be necessary to decide at the same time that there should be a similar amendment so the war veterans allowance would apply not only to the veterans of the armed forces of Canada but also to all imperial veterans in Canada.
I raise this question now and urge the acceptance of the amendment, recognizing that it would also properly call for an amendment to the general act to apply to these veterans throughout the whole of Canada. I believe that is a step which should be taken. It has been recommended by the Canadian Legion and the Imperial War Veterans Association. I do not wish to repeat unnecessarily what I have said, but I urge that the distinction be recognized between this provision and many of the other provisions relating to veterans where the force in which they served is the guiding factor, and the length of service or the nature of the wounds they received has some bearing on the consideration given. I repeat that this is a special provision for ageing veterans which is intended to avoid the necessity of those veterans being dependent upon other societies
Statute Law Amendment or the state, and recognizing the special type of service they have rendered to the state.
I believe that, under such circumstances, the imperial veterans who have come to Canada, who have become citizens of this country, and who find themselves unable to work because of war exhaustion in addition to the effects of age, should receive this allowance. I believe the imperial war veterans in Newfoundland, which will shortly be a province of Canada, should also receive it. I urge consideration of this matter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word about this section. As a member of the veterans affairs committee of last session, I am very glad to see that, in the new leader of the opposition, I have a new recruit for my party. I had the privilege of urging this very action before the veterans affairs committee of last session. I did not think that I would have an opportunity to speak on it now, but apparently it is in order.


William Ross Macdonald: I cannot agree with the hon. member that the discussion is in order at this time. I did not stop the leader of the opposition-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Are you going to stop me?


William Ross Macdonald: -and I have no intention of stopping the hon. member for Fraser Valley. I should point out, however, that the discussion is not in order.


George Alexander Drew: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member for Fraser Valley, but I wish to question the statement that this discussion is not in order. It is certainly within the competence of the government, if they see fit, to make the amendment I have suggested with regard to Newfoundland veterans, and then at a later date to make the amendment with regard to veterans now in Canada. I am relating my remarks to this section as it relates to Newfoundland, and the only way that I referred to the Canadian veterans was in stating that, if this amendment were to be made in regard to imperial veterans in Newfoundland, it would certainly also have to be made with regard to veterans in the rest of Canada. But I submit that the suggestion that this section be amended to include imperial veterans is certainly in order.


William Ross Macdonald: Perhaps I should have qualified my remarks in the way mentioned by the leader of the opposition. The discussion, however, is out of order if it relates to an amendment of the War Veterans Allowance Act. That act is not before the committee for consideration at the present time. As the leader of the opposition has stated, if
662	HOUSE OF
Statute Law Amendment an hon. member suggests an amendment to the section which is now being considered, namely, section 50 of this bill, it is in order. But I want to tell the hon. member for Fraser Valley again that I did not rise for the purpose of interrupting him, but rather merely to point out that in my opinion a general discussion on the War Veterans Allowance Act at this time is not in order.


Mr. Herridge:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I am sorry I cannot agree with your ruling in this respect. I thing' it is over-generous. I believe we are passing a bill to give to Newfoundland present legislation in Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In my opinion, the amendment submitted by the leader of the opposition is definitely out of order. A good many members on all sides of this house have advocated this principle with regard to Canadian veterans but have not taken part in this debate because they considered they were out of order in discussing that question at this time. I contend, Mr. Chairman, that if the leader of the opposition and others are permitted to discuss this amendment on that basis, we shall have an open discussion actually related to changing the present Canadian legislation.


An hon. Member:: Something which is not before the committee.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I believe the hon. member for Fraser Valley only wanted to show his keen desire to follow my leader.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I guess I am not going to get a chance around here at all. Any time the leader of the opposition is not out of order, I am not either. He was not ruled out of order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The hon. member will never go wrong by following my leader.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I was glad to see that he was adopting some of my policies. Three members of his party, who were also members of the committee on which 1 sat last year, did not see fit to be present and vote when this question was being dealt with. Instead, they were out fighting by-elections.


Howard Charles Green: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I say I am amazed that the hon. member for Fraser Valley should attempt to make a statement of that kind. He made the statement at the Canadian Legion convention, and my own name was brought up. A day or two after I left for the west I was replaced on the committee by another member. Yet I was most unjustly accused by the hon. member for Fraser Valley of having run
[The Chairman.]	[DOT]

away from the veterans affairs committee. That was a most unfair statement to make.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There is only half an
hour left, Mr. Chairman, but I will get my word in yet, if no more points of order are raised. The hon. member for Vancouver South is quite correct when he says he was replaced by another member who did not see fit to attend. I made the statement that two members worked in by-elections; I could mention the ridings in which they worked. When it comes to the question of fairness, I want to point out to the hon. member for Vancouver South that he did not hesitate to come before the Canadian Legion in Vancouver and say that the member for Fraser Valley, on a straight vote of confidence, did not vote in favour of this measure, when it was before the committee.


George Alexander Drew: This is out of order, Mr. Chairman.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Let us have a little bit
of fairness here. It works both ways. Hon. members here know that.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I shall now come back to the section, if I may be permitted to do so.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member
for Fraser Valley says that he now intends to discuss section 50.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: The hon. member for Fraser Valley referred to me. I was the member who succeeded the hon. member for Vancouver South on the veterans affairs committee. At that particular time I was attending three standing committees of the house, and I attended the veterans affairs committee as many times as it was possible for me to do so. The record will show that I attended on most of the occasions on which it met. I highly resent the suggestion made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley that I did not do my duty as a member of that committee.


William Ross Macdonald: May I now ask the committee to consider section 50.


George Alexander Cruickshank: All right. Speaking on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, before continuing-


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I did not say that the hon. member for Parkdale was not doing his duty. He has always done his duty in this house. I never insinuated for a moment that he was not doing his duty. I accept his apology for

attending an inferior committee instead of attending the veterans affairs committee. I now want to come back to the section. I believe that if the veterans from Newfoundland-and I am one of the few who know how to pronounce the name of our new province-


Mr. Archibald:: That is where the margarine comes from.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It has not yet been sold in British Columbia. But as I was about to say, I believe that if the veterans of Newfoundland including the imperial veterans there, are entitled to this increased allowance -and I believe they are-then the veterans of Canada should be entitled to this increased allowance right now. A burnt-out veteran, which is the term usually used, gets less than an old age pensioner. Surely it is not the desire of the people of Canada that a veteran who is burnt out, through serving his country, should get less than an old age pensioner gets, little as that is. Speaking right on that section, and I am sure I am in order, let me say that, if the veterans of Newfoundland are to get this burnt-out pension, I think they should get more. I am referring to the section, Mr. Chairman. I say they should get more; and the only way they can get more is to get exactly the same as Canadians are getting. I am strongly urging on the government that reconsideration be given to the matter. I am still sorry that my friends in the opposition did not see fit to attend that meeting of the committee to which I have referred, because there was a tie vote, which was decided by the chairman. If those hon. members had been there, instead of working in by-elections, the measure would have been passed.


Arthur Henry Williams: I should like to put in my
threepennyworth on this matter anyhow. The hon. member for Yale and I had a conference with some of the legion officials here in Ottawa on this question that has been tossed into this discussion. On the advice of these legion officials we refrained from injecting into the discussion of questions referring to veterans of Newfoundland anything pertaining to veterans of this country. We did that at the express request of some of the legion officials here in Ottawa. We have deliberately refrained from taking advantage of either the legion or the temper and patience of the house by injecting this question into this discussion. I am sorry to see that it has been brought up, because my colleague, the hon. member for Yale, and I were impressed with what the legion officials told us. On this veterans question the legion officials were particularly anxious-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Where?
Statute Law Amendment


Arthur Henry Williams: Here in Ottawa.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That may be so.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We are veterans, and we do not agree.


Arthur Henry Williams: I am not disputing that you are veterans. You may also be something else besides veterans. I am not going to get into an argument on what you are. I am just making a statement in the house and I think I have the same right to do that as the leader of the opposition. I do not want to make a Donnybrook Fair out of it, but if you insist we shall have one.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Arthur Henry Williams: I was going along all right until the interruptions started. I can be as patient and quiet as any hon. member of the committee until they start making it awkward. As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, we did this at the express request of the legion officials. I am sorry to see that it has been injected into the discussion at this time, particularly when the legion requested us not to do so; yet their name has been rung in on it. They want to see that the veterans of Newfoundland are getting at least the same as the veterans of Canada. What they do afterwards is something the legion is going to decide, but at this moment the legion is particularly anxious to see this section on veterans affairs go through without any amendment or without any discussion whatsoever, and I hope that we listen to the voice of the veterans organization and see that that is done.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: I want to say just a word here.


William Ross Macdonald: I wonder whether I might make a suggestion. We have had remarks from representatives of three parties in the house. I think I have given a great deal of leeway in the strict interpretation of the rules; I have not been strict at all. But from now on the discussion should be strictly relevant to the section.


James Arthur Ross: I think what I want to say has some bearing on the section. Mr. Chairman, probably you will permit me to endorse the remarks of my leader and of the hon. member for Fraser Valley. Having been present when the vote to which he referred took place, I want to endorse what he said about the actions of that committee. I think that under this section I should be permitted to say that we should have a standing committee of this House of Commons on veterans affairs. Nowhere will you find a greater need for it than right in this section.

Statute Law Amendment


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


James Arthur Ross: This section does show the house and the country how important it is, and what some of the future difficulties will be for the servicemen from Newfoundland when they are taken in. That will be only one of their very many grievances. As I have requested in past sessions, I think it is important that the Minister of Veterans Affairs reconsider the matter of setting up a standing committee on veterans affairs.


Mr. Merritt:: Before section 50 passes, may I say there has been considerable discussion as to whether it is in order to advocate under this section that imperials be brought under the War Veterans' Allowance Act.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I have ruled that such a discussion is not in order.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I am aware that you have so ruled, Mr. Chairman. My point arises not out of the general question whether imperials should be brought under the act, but out of the wording of the section itself. In bringing in the bill the government has seen fit to select certain Newfoundland veterans to come under the provisions of the War Veterans' Allowance Act. The veterans they have selected are those who served apparently in His Majesty's forces raised in Newfoundland. I am certain that the number of Newfoundland veterans who served in the forces raised in Newfoundland must be a small proportion of the total number of Newfoundland citizens who served in the forces.
In the first part of his remarks the leader of the opposition raised the question whether the words, "His Majesty's forces raised in Newfoundland" went as far as the words in the previous section "persons who had been recruited in Newfoundland." I think it is perfectly clear that they do not go as far as the words used by the draftsmen of the bill in the previous section. It is going to become very important indeed, Mr. Chairman. For if, as I think most of us believe, there are among our new Canadians in the province of Newfoundland a very large number of ex-servicemen who served in the imperial forces and who did not serve in the Newfoundland forces, we may be limiting the application of the War Veterans' Allowance Act to forces in Newfoundland and cutting out the major proportion of Newfoundlanders who served in His Majesty's forces in the recent war.
It is my belief that the only way you will get around this point is probably to include all who served in the imperial forces. Certainly these words "His Majesty's forces raised in Newfoundland" are quite inadequate and I do not think the section should

carry without a statement from the minister as to how many it will include. What proportion of the total number of Newfoundlanders who served will be included in this phrase?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder whether we might get a definitive statement of this matter by saying that, under the terms of union, section 38, we undertake to do the following:
Canada will make available to Newfoundland veterans the following benefits, on the same basis as they are from time to time available to Canadian veterans, as if the Newfoundland veterans had served in His Majesty's Canadian forces, namely,
(a) The War Veterans' Allowance Act, 1946, free hospitalization and treatment, and civil service preference will be extended to Newfoundland veterans who served in the first world war or the second world war or both . . .
That is the substance of the contract between the two countries. Section 50 is intended to implement that undertaking, and it says:
For the purposes of paragraphs (b) and (c) of section four and section nine of the War Veterans' Allowance Act, 1946, chapter seventy-five of the statutes of 1946, His Majesty's Canadian forces include His Majesty's forces raised in Newfoundland, and for the purposes of paragraph (d) of section four and paragraph (b) of section nine of the said act domicile in Newfoundland shall be deemed to be domicile in Canada.
Turning to section 9 of the War Veterans' Allowance Act we read this:
In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, "veteran" means
(a) a person who served during world war I and world war II as a member of His Majesty's Canadian forces; . . .
That is covered in section 50 by "His Majesty's forces raised in Newfoundland". Then section 9 (b) of the War Veterans Allowance Act states:
A person who served during world war I as a member of His Majesty's forces other than Canadian forces-
That refers to the point mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.
-and was domiciled in Canada when he became a member of the said forces and was a member of His Majesty's Canadian forces during world war II.
In other words, it brings in the idea of domicile. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard would admit that, once domicile is brought in, the fact that the returned man was not serving in His Majesty's Canadian forces but has Canadian domicile would bring him under section 9 of the act.
Then section 4 of the same act states:
In this part, unless the context otherwise requires "veteran" means
(a)	Any former member of the Northwest field force who served in a theatre of actual war in the Northwest rebellion;
(b)	Any former member of a Canadian contingent who served in a theatre of actual war during the South African war, or any former member of His

Majesty's forces, other than Canadian forces, who served in a theatre of actual war during the South African war and was domiciled in Canada immediately prior to the eleventh day of October, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, if in either case the former member landed in South Africa prior to the first day of June, one thousand nine hundred and two.
And then going on to paragraph (d), this being the one made applicable to Newfoundland residents:
(d) Any former member of any of His Majesty's forces, other than Canadian forces, or of any of the forces of any of His Majesty's allies, who was domiciled in Canada at the time he joined any such force for the purpose of the war and who served during such a war in a theatre of actual war, or is in receipt of a pension for an injury or disease incurred or aggravated during his service in such force, or has, in respect of a disability rated at more than five per centum of total disability, received, pursuant to the laws affecting the members of the forces with which he served, a final payment similar or analogous to the final payment authorized by the Pension Act.
I think that covers it pretty thoroughly.


George Alexander Drew: I do not wish to labour the point, but I think there is a slight distinction which has not been recognized by the minister. The effect of section 50, as I see it, is to widen the meaning of the words "His Majesty's Canadian forces", as included in the sections he has just read, to include still further "His Majesty's forces raised in Newfoundland". That is correct, is it not?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I understand it, it includes first of all His Majesty's forces raised in Newfoundland.


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: And then, secondly, for the purposes of paragraph (d) of section 4, which I have just read, and also paragraph (b) of section 9, domiciled in Newfoundland shall be deemed to be domiciled in Canada, and will entitle them to be considered as veterans within the meaning of those sections. And that includes not merely service in Newfoundland forces or the Canadian forces but, in respect of section 4, it includes service in forces of our allies and in His Majesty's forces other than Canadian or Newfoundland forces.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I do not understand how the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Williams) could take it upon himself to speak so forcefully on behalf of the veterans. It was only recently in a by-election in Carleton that the veterans spoke so clearly in stating that they wanted the leader of the Progressive Conservative party to speak for them in the House of Commons-not the C.C.F. party.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 51 and 52 agreed to.
Statute Law Amendment
On section 53-The Emergency Exchange Conservation Act.
George Alexander Drew: This section certainly requires some explanation, I think, because it is a section which undoubtedly has the most unusual effect of any provision in the bill. It provides that, for the purposes of the Emergency Exchange Conservation Act, goods which have been imported into Newfoundland before the date upon which Newfoundland becomes a province of Canada are to be regarded as having come from the place where they were manufactured or produced for a year after the date on which this agreement with Newfoundland is consummated. I suggest we should have some explanation of the real purpose of this section and why a limitation of that kind was considered necessary.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As the committee will see, the purpose of this section is to prevent evasion of import restrictions now in effect. We learned some time ago, when negotiations were in progress with Newfoundland, that it seemed likely that some people in Newfoundland might take advantage of the delay which would elapse before the union by importing into Newfoundland articles which were prohibited or under quota-articles such as expensive automobiles, textiles and the like.


George Alexander Drew: Or liquids?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not so sure about that- but possibly liquids, too.
And then it was thought that subsequently they might send them into Canada, after union was effected. This point was brought up during discussions with the Newfoundland delegation. We informed them we would have to take steps to protect against such a contingency, and I made a public statement on December 13, 1948, in connection with some other matters, to this effect:
Mr. Abbott also announced that the government proposes to take steps to prevent the shipment of prohibited or quota goods of foreign origin from Newfoundland to the other provinces of Canada after the date of confederation. If such steps were not taken, it would be possible for importers to defeat the exchange conservation measures by creating stocks of prohibited and quota goods in Newfoundland prior to union, for shipment to Canada after March 31, 1949. If such shipments were permitted, unfair advantage would be gained by those who attempted to get around the import controls in this manner.
The committee will realize that it was important to see that no such advantage should be taken, and that it would have afforded opportunity for importers in some cases to make substantial profits, which would have been manifestly unfair to their competitors in Canada.
I may say that the Newfoundland delegation accepted the point without question,
666	HOUSE OF
Statute Law Amendment agreeing that the action was necessary. This section provides a term of a year-simply for the purpose of placing some time limit on it. We do not want it to carry on indefinitely. It simply means that we will look through the situation in Newfoundland to the country of origin.


George Alexander Drew: How would the department determine what was affected by this section, and what was not? It seems to me that in passing a law we want to be sure it is practical as well as desirable.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not sure of the details. I may say, however, that this was discussed with the deputy minister of customs, and we were assured that it was easily capable of enforcement. My colleague the Minister of National Defence confirms that view.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 54-Coming into force.
Mr. Shaw:: A moment ago the hon. member for Fraser Valley indicated he was one of the very few who pronounced properly the name of the area now to be joined with Canada. I have made a check in recent hours indicating no less than seven pronunciations of the name of this island which we hope will become the tenth province of Canada.
In the interests of unity it might be well for some member of the government to indicate to the house and country the correct pronunciation of the name of this area to become our tenth province.


George Alexander Drew: Well, it is not New Zealand.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the section carry?


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am not joking about this. I
actually have before me seven pronunciations. The Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister and others have been associated with gentlemen from that area and surely they should be in a position to give us an official pronunciation. I taught school for a number of years and I know the difficulties that teachers and children in our country are confronted with in connection with certain names found in the text books. I urge that this committee be given an official pronunciation of the name of this proposed tenth province.


Brooke Claxton: I can tell the hon. gentleman that I was just as concerned about this as he is when we began to meet with the Newfoundland delegation to discuss negotiations for the union of Canada and Newfoundland.
I listened attentively to the opening and successive speeches and I found that the representatives of Newfoundland used three or four different pronunciations. All we can do is the best we can.


Frederick Davis Shaw: It might be wise to ask those
gentlemen to make an official submission to this parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Minister of
Justice another type of question before we finally pass this bill? Some of the sections state specifically that they are amendments of existing statutes; they state that section so and so of an existing statute is to be repealed and the following substituted therefor. Other sections merely say that for the purpose of such and such an act such is the case. There are two questions in my mind. The first relates to the office consolidations of acts and the other relates to the Revised Statutes of Canada, in connection with which we passed an act last year. Will all these sections be included in the office consolidations, or only those sections which take the place of sections already in the statutes?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I thought my hon. friend was going to ask me how to pronounce "Newfoundland."


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has shown
that in Manitoba he learned a great deal about New Zealand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: By way of reply to my hon.
friend's serious question, I may say that the usual way to pick up these amendments provided by an omnibus statute of this sort is by an editorial footnote in the office consolidation or by a section inserted between the other sections of the consolidated act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That answers one question
satisfactorily, but can the minister say what will happen with respect to the revised statutes?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In what respect?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What will the commissioners who are to revise the statutes do with this bill once it is passed?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They will certainly take cognizance of it, and I should think that it would be published and then cross references would be made in the different statutes to which it refers. This is a statute of Canada and when all the statutes are revised this will be included along with the others. As to the statutes which this omnibus bill amends or changes-the Penitentiary Act, for example- they will be revised and will include the references made to them in this omnibus bill either by way of footnotes or inserted sections.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 37-The Penitentiary Act.
Douglas King Hazen: We have not had an explanation from the minister in connection with this section.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member for Calgary West raised three points in reference to this section. First, he objected to the use of the word "place". I discussed this with the draftsman and while he thinks-I share his views-that "place" is all right, there is no objection to substituting for that word the word "penitentiary".
Then the hon. member suggested that the words "city of" should be inserted before the word "St. John's". We have no objection to introducing those words. If the word "penitentiary" were used, we would have to strike out the words "that place of confinement" at the end of subsection 1 and substitute therefor the words "the said penitentiary".
Then the hon. member referred to the fact that whereas the section states that the place of confinement shall be subject to the statutes, rules, regulations and other laws pertaining to the management and control of it he contended that those words were surplusage, for in his view it would be under the Penitentiary Act. That is not so. As I pointed out to the committee in reply to a question by an hon. member, this section is being introduced to carry into effect the provisions of section 16 of this memorandum which states that for the time being it is understood that Newfoundland will continue to operate its own penitentiary.
The point here is that this penitentiary is continuing under the management of Newfoundland and is not coming under the Penitentiary Act. As I indicated before, this section starts out with these words:
Notwithstanding anything in the Penitentiary Act-
Since it is not to be under the provisions of the Penitentiary Act it has to be left under the statutes, rules, regulations and other laws now pertaining to its management. Otherwise it would be under no rules at all. Therefore these words are not surplusage.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1 would move the amendments suggested by the Minister of Justice.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Statute Law Amendment
On section 13-Maritime Freight Rates Act.
Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Would the Minister of Justice be good enough to advise if the Canadian National Railways are to take over the coastal services?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


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

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the adjournment of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can we have the business for tomorrow?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Unless objection is taken by hon. members desiring to revert to the debate on the address, it would be the intention to proceed with the resolution concerning emergency regulations, No. 6 on the order paper of today, and if that is disposed of to continue the debate on the resolution of the Minister of Agriculture, No. 4 on today's order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As far as this group is concerned, as indicated earlier today there is no objection to that procedure. I merely rise to make that statement now with the thought that others might do the same in order that we may know definitely what will be the business tomorrow.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: My understanding from the whips was that there would have been no objection to going on today with Nos. 6 and 4 on the order paper if earlier in the day we had disposed of the bill with which we have just concluded. I assume there will be no objection tomorrow, that we will be able to proceed with No. 6 and, having disposed of that, to revert to a continuation of the debate on No. 4.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.

Friday, February 18, 1949