1954-06-08

Mr. Speaker:: I am very pleased to communicate to the house the decision of the internal economy commission regarding a memorial in honour of the late Agnes Mac-phail.
The commissioners of internal economy have had before them for consideration representations from the lady members of the Senate and House of Commons and from senators and members of parliament generally, as well as from various women's organizations, suggesting that the election to the House of Commons of the first lady member be suitably commemorated.
The commissioners have also been informed that a bronze bust by Felix Weihs de Weldon, sculptor, of Miss Agnes Campbell Macphail, the first woman elected to the House of Commons of Canada, has been graciously offered to the House of Commons by Mrs. Meredith Reany, of Palmerston, Ontario, and Mrs. Hugh Bailey of Toronto, sisters of Miss Macphail.
The commissioners have had this matter under consideration and have recommended: (a) that to commemorate this historic event, a bronze bust of the first woman member, Miss Agnes Macphail, be placed on a pedestal in the vicinity of the chamber of the House of Commons; and (b) that for this purpose the bronze bust of Miss Macphail offered by her two sisters, be gratefully accepted.
Several appropriate dates together with arrangements for the unveiling ceremony are still under consideration and will be announced later.



LOSS OF MARKETS


[Stage Direction]
Kon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31, to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the need
for an immediate declaration of government policy with respect to the loss of farm markets for wheat and the means to be taken to protect the Canadian producers from the detrimental policies and practices of other countries.
Mr. Speaker:: I will have to ask the Leader of the Opposition to move this motion before the orders of the day are called. I have to call routine proceedings. This is not the proper moment. Perhaps he could keep his motion and move it later.
Presenting reports by standing and select committees.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the special committee on veterans affairs.
The Clerk Assistant:
The special committee on veterans affairs begs leave to present the following as a fourth report.
Your committee has considered Bill No. 339, an act to amend the Pension Act, and has agreed to report same with amendments.
With respect to clauses 10, 11, 12 and 18, as certain amendments contemplated therein would, to meet the views of the committee, result in an increased charge upon the public, your committee feels that it has no option, under the rules of the house, but to report these clauses without amendment. The committee would, however, recommend that the government consider the advisability of substituting the words and figures "1st day of May, 1954" for the words and figures "1st day of January, 1954" where they appear in the said clauses.
With respect to clauses 8 and 13 your committee has agreed to the deletion of the provisions contained therein. However, other amendments contemplated thereto would, to meet the unanimous views of the committee, also result in an increased charge upon the public.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear what is being read.


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be that proper order was not being kept, but it has been our practice lately to dispense with the reading of a report in which it is not intended to move concurrence the same day. The reason why I have not asked consent for the deputy clerk to dispense with the reading of this report is that the first paragraph is of some importance in that it deals with a bill to

Veterans Affairs
which an amendment is being proposed. Perhaps the deputy clerk would read the first part of the report again, and may I ask hon. members to pay attention to what is being read.
The Clerk Assistant:
Your committee has considered BUI No. 339, an act to amend the Pension Act, and has agreed to report same with amendments.
With respect to clauses 10, 11, 12 and 18, as certain amendments contemplated therein would, to meet the views of the committee, result in an increased charge upon the public, your committee feels that it has no option, under the rules of the house, but to report these clauses without amendment. The committee would, however, recommend that the government consider the advisability of substituting the words and figures "1st day of May, 1954" for the words and figures "1st day of January, 1954" where they appear in the said clauses.
With respect to clauses 8 and 13 your committee has agreed to the deletion of the provisions contained therein. However, other amendments contemplated thereto would, to meet the unanimous views of the committee, also result in an increased charge upon the public. Therefore, in obedience to the rules of the house your committee here again feels it has no option but to delete the said clauses. The committee would, however, recommend that the government consider the advisability of amending subsection (3) of section 31 and subsection (3) of section 42 of the Pension Act by striking out the words "in respect of service during world war II" where they appear in the said subsections.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Walter A. Tucker, Chairman.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the house has just heard the report with respect to the Pension Act. By leave, I should like to move:
That Bill No 339, an act to amend the Pension Act, be considered in committee of the whole this day, and that standing order 21 be suspended in relation thereto.
May I by way of explanation add that this does not apply to the report as such, but only to the bill.


Mr. Green:: One recommendation was made by the committee unanimously yesterday, and it requires the approval of the cabinet. I wonder whether it would be covered if we agreed to this procedure now?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the bill will not be considered until His Excellency in council has had an opportunity to consider the amendment suggested in the report, and we will convey to the house the result of that consultation.
[Mr. Speaker.!



LOSS OF MARKETS-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 31

Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of public importance, namely-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The item under routine proceedings intituled "motions" has not yet been concluded.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), who read his motion a moment ago, should be made aware that by this time I have received a copy of the motion which the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) intended to move and, I suppose, by a mere coincidence they are on the same subject. Perhaps I should immediately give my decision as to whether I think a discussion of this matter is one of urgent public importance.
Now, when I consider these words, I am guided by the business which has been announced for today, and this is to be found at page 5620 of Hansard. I see that the first item of business for today has to do with the study of a measure respecting allowances for disabled persons which is to be considered in committee of the whole.
There are other measures which will follow and then later, I understand, there will be a motion to go into supply, at which time hon. members may discuss the matter which is contained in the motion for the adjournment.
Hon. members may say, "Perhaps we will not reach the motion to go into supply today." But if we do not reach it today we may perhaps reach it tomorrow. In any event, on Thursday and Friday we will be going into supply and I would imagine that the estimates for the Department of Trade and Commerce cannot be very much longer delayed. They should be before the house soon. In addition, there are also the estimates of the Department of Agriculture on which this matter can be dealt with.
Therefore, for the dispatch of business and in the interests of order and good business, I think we ought to postpone the discussion of this particular reduction in the price of wheat for perhaps a few hours until we go

into supply, or, if we do not go into supply today, at any rate it will not be any longer than a few days hence.


George Alexander Drew: Then, Mr. Speaker, I propose to avail myself of the rule to the effect that if twenty members rise on such a motion then the matter must be discussed, and I would ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I perhaps deal with the point the Leader of the Opposition has made. Paragraph 3 of standing order 31 states, relative to the mover:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it is in order,-
I think it is in order.
-and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.
Since I gave it as my opinion that I did not think it was of urgent public importance in the sense which has always been adopted in practice, I did not, therefore, read it out, and I am not going to ask whether the member has the leave of the house; and, according to our established practice, the matter must rest there.
In this case I am not deciding on a point of order. I am deciding on practice, and by virtue of this standing order it just so happens that it is up to me to decide whether the motion is of urgent public importance. If I do not think it is of urgent public importance and do not read the motion then it is unnecessary to ask whether the hon. member has the leave of the house.
I agree that in years past the strict procedure with respect to standing order 31 was to the effect that the minute a motion was made the Speaker did not have the opportunity of deciding whether he thought it was of urgent public importance. The burden did not he upon him, and all he had to do was to ask if the hon. member who moved the motion had leave; and if twenty hon. members rose, all the Speaker had to do was to resume his seat and allow the debate to carry on.
However, this standing order was amended in 1927-see Journals, 1927, Tuesday, March 22, page 316 and page 334. Also Hansard, 1927, Tuesday, March 22, page 1426, re: amended rule 39, now standing order 31- and ever since these words have been included, to the effect that the Speaker has to decide whether he thinks it is of urgent public importance, the practice has always been, as established by Mr. Speaker Black and his successors-and I observe that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) recalls the establishment of that
Wheat
practice-that if the Speaker thinks that it is not a matter of urgent public importance the matter rests there. See ruling of Mr. Speaker Black, Journals, Friday, 19th February, 1932, page 62, and Hansard, February 19, 1932, pages 360 to 365 inclusive. Also ruling of Mr. Speaker Casgrain, Journals, March 10, 1939, page 178.	Also rulings of Mr. Speaker Glen, Journals, February 17, 1944, page 99, and Journals, Friday, 28th April 1944, page 332. Also ruling of Mr. Speaker Fauteux, Journals, July 15, 1946, page 485. Also ruling of Mr. Speaker Macdonald, Hansard, March 5, 1951, page 884, and Journals, March 5, 1951, page 136.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, may I make one or two comments on this matter of your decision as to whether this is of urgent public importance. I fully realize that your decision, once made, is final and is not subject to appeal. But all I would ask Your Honour to do is to hear a word or two on this point which may perhaps lead you to reconsider that decision.
I am not going to anticipate what would have been said had you ruled otherwise, but I would ask you to consider whether the possibility of this matter being reached at a later stage today is of sufficient reality to justify your decision, appreciating the possibility that it may not be reached for another couple of days if the supply motion should not be reached today.
With regard to the matter which has been raised, a statement of government policy would be a most urgent and important matter. In view of that, I would refer Your Honour to citation 249 in Beauchesne's second edition. I realize it may not be strictly applicable to the full extent in this house in view of some of the rulings which have been made, but nevertheless I would place it before Your Honour for your consideration. It reads:
In doubtful cases, the question of urgency and of importance are left for the house to decide by giving or withholding its support.
The authority for that citation is the manual of procedure in public business of the British House of Commons and for that reason I fully realize that it may not be applicable in this house, but I take the liberty of suggesting to Your Honour that there is some merit in it, and I hope Your Honour will agree, despite the fact that for the moment you have given the decision that it is not urgent. I hope Your Honour will yourself agree that there is some doubt. I think that at the moment you have come down on the side that it is not urgent. I merely suggest that possibly Your Honour might consider that there are two points of view as to its urgency and might therefore

Wheat
regard it as a matter of doubt which should be left to the house to decide. That decision, of course, would be dealt with on the basis of whether or not twenty members rise in support of the motion. What I am asking in effect is that in this case Your Honour should not exercise a firm decision immediately as to the question of urgency but should leave that question to be decided by the house.


Mr. Caldwell:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say just one word. I think your ruling is in accordance with the practice of the house but might I suggest this to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house and to the government. In order to avoid any possibility of this discussion being delayed, I suggest that the government, with the consent of the house, might agree to changing the order of business today and to have this matter come up at 2.30 this afternoon. Then there would be no possibility of any great delay. I make that suggestion, Mr. Speaker, to the government and to the house.


Walter Edward Harris: On that point, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. I am sure that the legislation before the house will commend itself to hon. members so much that it will be through by 2.30, and we can go on with the motion to go into supply.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I direct to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the question whether, in view of the importance of the issue raised and the need for a clear declaration of policy, he will not consent to this being made a substantive motion and being dealt with immediately. There is no assurance that we shall have any discussion of supply today or tomorrow. The legislation that the house leader of the government has indicated is now coming before us is of importance and may well occupy all of today, tomorrow and even longer. This subject is one which should be clarified immediately. I suggest to the Prime Minister that consideration be given to accepting this as a substantive motion and dealing with it now.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) cannot be serious in suggesting that I can give the unanimous consent of the house. It would be an extremely bad precedent to establish that any one man can give unanimous consent for the house. With respect to the urgency of discussing this matter, may I say this. The most I would be prepared to suggest is that either when we move to go into supply at a time when that motion is to be debated or when we get into suply, the first department called be the Department of Trade and Commerce.
fMr. Fulton.]


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, just by way of reference to the remark of the Prime Minister, let me say this. I am most serious in believing that if the Prime Minister had indicated his consent, all those who are now opposed to this matter being discussed would have readily agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his compliment.


Mr. Speaker:: In order to conclude my participation in this discussion, may I say this. The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has referred to citation 249 of Beau-chesne's second edition which reads as follows:
In doubtful cases, the question of urgency and of importance are left for the house to decide by giving or withholding its support.
If the Speaker thinks that the subject matter of the motion is of urgent public importance, standing order 31 provides that he will ascertain whether the member has the leave of the house to move the motion. Twenty members must rise. If this citation 249 were to apply, the majority would have to decide. Citation 174 of Beauchesne's third edition, in the second paragraph, reads as follows:
Urgency within this rule-
That is within standing order 31.
-does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
In considering the urgency of debating this motion, having regard to the meaning given to "urgency" in citation 174, I have to examine what is already on the order paper for discussion. There is the measure providing allowances for disabled persons. If I recall the debate which took place on second reading of that measure not long ago, it would seem that is a matter of rather urgent public importance. Then on the orders of the day today the acting leader of the house announced that there would be a motion to go into supply. Having regard to all the remarks that were made on both sides of the house with respect to the possibility of moving to go into supply later this day, I think we might perhaps forgo the discussion of this subject for the present. I feel sure that later in the day an opportunity for discussion will be provided on the motion to go into supply.



REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY ON MARKETING OF SURPLUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister so that there may be a better understanding of it when this subject comes up for discussion. Is the Prime Minister in a position to announce, on behalf of the government, any government policy in connection with the marketing of our surplus wheat?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not in a position to announce to the house any government policy different from that which has been followed up to the present time.



REQUEST FOR CO-OPERATION WITH UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether steps will be considered with a view to arriving at some method of co-operation with the United States so that the move made by Canada first on February 16 to cut the price of wheat, now followed by the United States, will not be continued by either country so that the situation will deteriorate into a price war?


Mr. Rowe:: It has already started.


Major James William Coldwell: Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce going to answer?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, from our discussions with the responsible members and officials of the United States government, I assure the hon. gentleman that there is no desire on their part or on the part of Canada to get into a price war.
CLater;]



DECLINE IN EXPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does he not think it is an alarming situation when Canadian exports of wheat have fallen by 60 per cent in the last five weeks compared with the same period in 1953?


Righi Hon. C. D. Howe (Minisler of Trade and Commerce):: My hon. friend asked that question yesterday and I have an answer prepared which I will give-a considered opinion. The statistics of export clearances quoted by the hon. member for Assiniboia are 83276-356
Inquiries of the Ministry substantially correct, but I must point out that the results of the last few weeks are not typical of the crop year as a whole. While exports of wheat are down compared with the heavy level of exports in 1952-53, the results are not discouraging. Exports of wheat and flour up to May 26 in the present crop year amounted to 207 million bushels, which is just about the average for the period August to May inclusive for the ten years from 194142 to 1951-52, the ten-year period prior to the harvesting of the last three big crops.
Furthermore, the hon. member has compared exports for the month of May this year with those for May a year ago. May I point out that wheat exports in May, 1953, were exceptionally large, reaching a total of some 41 million bushels, compared with average exports of about 22 million bushels for the month of May. May I say that the fourteen weeks strike at the Vancouver elevators had much to do with that situation. Deliveries were being made against overdue contracts.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: There was an election too.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Here is a wisecrack from the hon. member for Prince Albert-


John George Diefenbaker: There was an election in the offing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -who contributes so greatly to the problem of selling wheat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He regards the problem as one for his amusement and as a subject for his wisecracks. I regard it as something quite different.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who has the floor, may I ask?


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, that statement is unjustified and does not afford an alibi for the government.


Mr. Chevrier:: It is certainly according to the facts.


William Earl Rowe: Unparliamentary, too.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I resume
my serious answer to a serious question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Blind optimism does not do much to sell wheat.


Mr. Speaker:: I would be very grateful if hon. members would remain silent. If any
5626	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry unpleasant incident should develop in the house I could not be the arbiter because I cannot hear what is going on.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, there will be no need for your intervention.
When we make comparisons with May, 1953, therefore, we are making comparisons with a near record export movement for that particular month. When the members of the wheat board appeared before the standing committee on agriculture and colonization the reasons for the reduced wheat trade this year were thoroughly gone into. World trade in wheat this year is down largely because of the bumper crops harvested almost everywhere in the world in 1953 and also because of the general reduction in reserve stocks of wheat in importing countries. Canada has continued to hold a substantial share of the world wheat export business, about as high a share as we had last year.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must point out that we should not look only at wheat. Exports of oats, rye and flaxseed to May 26 this year are all higher than for a similar period last year, and the figures for barley, while lower than last year, have already exceeded the total reached in the second highest barley export year on record. I am not going to prophesy but it seems likely that, considering all grains and not only wheat, we shall this year probably have the third or fourth highest export year on record.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I rise on a point of order. There was a motion made to discuss this question as a matter of urgent public importance and you decided, Mr. Speaker, that this was not the time. If it is not the time to discuss the question on such a motion then it is certainly not proper to debate the question on the orders of the day, which is exactly what we are doing now. I suggest that we discontinue these questions and answers now and proceed as quickly as possible to a time when we can discuss this matter with less heat and more light.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Sybil Benneit (Halion):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question which I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. In view of the heavy lay-offs in the Ford plants at Windsor and Oakville, will he inform the house whether the government is considering reduction of


the excise tax and the sales tax on automobiles in order to encourage sales and thus to increase employment?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for having sent notice of this question to my office just before I came into the house. In reply may I say that no consideration has been given to any such policy decision. If and when any such policy has been decided upon, it will be announced to the house in the usual way.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Hal-ton. Is the government considering any measures to put a stop to the lay-offs of industrial workers that are now taking place, or any measures to put our unemployed industrial workers back to work?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government is considering at all times the whole of the economic situation in Canada, but the government is not considering interfering with the decisions of manufacturing industries in any of the sectors of the Canadian economy.



UNITED STATES SELLING POLICY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, now that the Prime Minister is answering questions, possibly he will be able to tell us what happened at that conference or meeting at Washington between representatives of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the United States department of agriculture. At that conference did Canada try to dissuade the United States from making a cut of ten cents a bushel in the price of wheat?


Mr. Abbott:: Order. Is this a debate?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I did not attend that conference. All I know is that efforts were made on both sides to meet the present world situation in connection with the marketing of wheat.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker,-


Douglas Charles Abbott: You will not sell 600 million bushels of wheat by asking questions in the House of Commons.


John George Diefenbaker: -whether the Prime
Minister attended the meeting or not, somebody in the government must have done so.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Somebody in the government-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: -must know what representations Canada made.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: I will direct the question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Some hon. members may hoot. The western farmer today is hooting too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the Minister of
Trade and Commerce whether or not Canada took a strong stand against the United States making a preliminary cut of ten cents a bushel.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I did not attend the conference either. The conference was called to discuss the wheat situation. There are others selling wheat in the world besides Canada and the United States. Discussions took place with respect to whether North America is competitive with the world in selling wheat. No decision was arrived at. The action that the United States took was probably taken in the light of the discussions, but was their decision. The action that was taken yesterday by Canada was Canada's decision. I might say that parliament has placed the responsibility for fixing the price of wheat in the hands of the Canadian wheat board with instructions that the price of Canadian wheat is to be kept competitive with world prices. Those instructions are being carried out. My hon. friend, by showing alarm and concern and telling the world that Canada is in a desperate situation, is not helping to sell Canada's surplus wheat.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The same old alibi.



DROP IN BARLEY EXPORTS IN MONTH OF MAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on another subject, although it is somewhat similar. How does the minister account for the drop in the exports of barley 83276-356i
Inquiries of the Ministry from 18,300,000 bushels to 3,100,000 bushels comparing the same five-week period ending June 2, 1954, with the previous year, which is a drop of 83 per cent?


Mr. Sinclair:: He just answered that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say why people buy in one month and not in another month. Perhaps my hon. friend knows the answer, but I do not know. As I say, May of last year was an abnormal month for the reason that all exports from Vancouver were cut off for fourteen weeks prior to that month because of the strike at the elevators on the west coast.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the immigration department any plans under way by which immigration examination of tourists and immigrants can be speeded up at the port of Vancouver so as to avoid six-hour delays in landing, as happened yesterday when the luxury liner Oronsay arrived with some 1,349 passengers?


Walter Edward Harris: I am not aware of the difficulty that my hon. friend mentions, but I shall look into it and report to the house.



STATEMENT AS TO EXPORT TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Hamilton West asked a question in connection with the sale of canned pork. She wanted to know whether the condition imposed was that the sale should be outside the North American continent or outside of Canada. The official return of the Minister of Agriculture stated "oft the North American continent". I have looked into the matter and find that is correct.



DISABLED PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 7, consideration in committee of Bill No. 462, to provide for allowances for disabled persons-Mr. Martin-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
5828	HOUSE OF
Disabled Persons-Allowances
On clause 3-Agreements with provinces.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether the minister is going to deal with the questions which were raised on the second reading of the bill, of which we reminded him briefly last evening. I should like to hear from him as to the definition of permanent and total disability. I should like to hear from him as to the age at which the allowance is to be paid, with particular reference to what some of us deem "the most unkindest cut of all", namely that gap between 16 years of age where the family allowance stops and 18 years of age where the disability allowance can be commenced. Would he also comment on the remarks we have made with regard to the amount of the allowance and the division between the provinces and the federal government? Will he give some information as to how many disabled persons he expects will qualify for this allowance under the provisions set out in the bill, on the assumption that all the provinces come into the arrangement?


Mr. Pouliot:: Before the minister aiiswers, Mr. Chairman, I wish to tell him my appreciation of his having mentioned, at page 5325 of Hansard for June 1, 1954, the interest that the hon. member for Terrebonne, the hon. member for Fort William and the hon. member for Temiscouata have taken in this matter. In that connection, I have not sponsored any motion concerning aid to invalids, but I have had a lengthy correspondence with the minister and with the officials of his department concerning many deserving cases.
There are some hon. members who have sponsored motions requesting the government to give aid to invalids, and I must mention particularly the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac, and the hon. member for Belle-chasse, who had resolutions standing in their names for that purpose. I should like to bring to your attention, too, the fact that if a pension is awarded to invalids the minister should be highly praised for that, as should the Prime Minister who announced that piece of legislation some months ago. Along with family allowances, the aid to invalids is one of the finest things that could be done. It is done for those who are handicapped by nature or as a result of accidents for which they have not been responsible.
Sometimes the invalid case starts at birth, and it is impossible to describe the devotion of the mothers of handicapped children. They want to look after them. There are hospitals that take care of invalids. There is a lady who has been recently appointed to the Senate who has been the chairman of the board of governors for 15 years of the deaf and dumb institute at Montreal. Many people
[Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) .1

are interested in the invalids, but those who are most interested in them are the mothers who give birth to handicapped children. We must notice that because of that motherly love they do not want their handicapped children to go to hospitals. They prefer to take care of them themselves. In my county in particular, there is a family in which the father and mother are both normal-appearing. It is a family of ten children, and five of the children are normal, but the others are not. They have suffered from birth. Although mentally they are normal, physically some of them can hardly walk, some are hunchbacked and present one of the saddest cases.
Imagine how deserving is that mother who has taken care of five children like that in her family. I shall not insist upon it, because this legislation will provide for them, and will help the parents take care of these handicapped children at home. This legislation is a step in the right direction, but on the other hand I do not understand why the age limit has been established at 18. Parents who look after the handicapped children need that help from the start, and I hope the legislation will be amended, sooner or later, so that it meets the needs of the most deserving people.


Mr. Shaw:: Last night I expressed the hope that the minister would find it possible to give us further information with respect to the expression "permanently disabled". I believe the minister was on the point of rising when the house was adjourned. I do want to join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in requesting the minister to make a statement before we approve clause 3.
Possibly he would like to have all the questions now so that when he does rise he will be able to deal with them. I notice that under clause 3 (e) patients in tuberculosis sanatoria, mental institutions, homes for the aged, infirmaries or institutions for the care of incurables are excluded. Then under paragraph (f), patients who are residents in hospitals, nursing homes, private, charitable or public institutions are excluded except as provided in the regulations. Apparently there are going to be exceptions under that section, and possibly the minister would give the explanation for that. I hope he will deal with it in the course of answering the questions.


Mr. Kirk (Anligonish-Guysborough):: The
statement made by the minister when introducing this bill was so comprehensive, Mr. Chairman, that there is very little left that can be usefully said. It is not my intention, therefore, to speak at any length on this

subject but I do welcome the initiative taken by the government in sponsoring this measure. It is, I believe, very significant that the disabled persons measure should be introduced at this time, so soon after a federal election campaign, during which the type of assistance referred to in the bill now before the house was not the subject of any election promise.
I am proud to be a supporter of a government that places such a high priority on human welfare. I am proud, too, that the provincial government of Nova Scotia has signified its intention of participating in this new program, and has, indeed, already passed the necessary legislation.
In fact, this was one of the highlights of the legislation recommended in 1954 by our late beloved premier, Angus L. Macdonald, and was one of the last items approved prior to his untimely passing. I know that I speak for the disabled in my constituency, who will benefit under this legislation, when I commend our Prime Minister for his special interest, in having this legislation brought forward, and his able lieutenant, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, for the part he is playing in sponsoring it.
The disabled in our midst have a very special claim on the sympathies of their more fortunate, able-bodied fellow citizens. There are, unhappily, a good many Canadians who, through no fault of their own, are barred through some disability from playing their full part in the life of the nation. But Canadians can be proud of the steps that have been taken in this country to provide for those unfortunate persons suffering from serious disabilities.
For many groups, such as our war veterans, the blind, and others, provision has already been made, through existing federal, provincial and local programs of one kind or another. A good deal of effective work is also being done by service clubs, and by voluntary agencies, such as the Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism Society, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, and others.
The rehabilitation of the disabled has also become an important feature in our legislative programs and, indeed, it is generally agreed that Canada's rehabilitation program for disabled veterans equals that of any other country.
Much has been done, also, through the federal Department of Labour, to train handicapped persons, and to place them in useful productive positions, using the facilities of the national employment service.
Through the new civilian rehabilitation branch of the labour department, federal grants have been made available, to support
Disabled Persons-Allowances co-ordinated provincial rehabilitation programs, so that these can achieve maximum coverage and effectiveness. The magnitude of rehabilitation efforts in Canada is indicated by the fact that in 1949 more than 325,000 disabled persons received assistance, under a number of different programs, at a cost of some $110 million.
Then again, since the national health program was instituted in 1948, there has been a continuous increase in the health provisions for our disabled citizens. The crippled children's grant has been extensively r^d for rehabilitation purposes. Under the tuWr-culosis control, and the mental health grants, much has been done for persons handicapped by these diseases, while other grants have assisted the victims of arthritis and polio to win their way back to health. Meanwhile governmental assistance has promoted the construction of additional hospital accommodation and, under the professional training grant, health workers have been trained in the technique of rehabilitation of the disabled.
Last year an important step was taken, with the institution of the medical rehabilitation grant, to extend in every province the provisions for disabled persons.
But, despite all that is being done, there still remains a hitherto neglected group of disabled civilians for whom the community as a whole should be prepared to shoulder a share of the responsibility. These are the men and women who will benefit by this new, nation-wide program of disability allowances.
It is well for every member of this house to remember the terms of the resolution, and the provisions of the bill now before us. I note that the age of eligibility has been set at 18 years, and a residence of 10 years is required. I understand it has been estimated that the number of pensioners to be covered under this legislation will run between 25,000 and 35,000, and that the annual cost will represent an expenditure of $12 million to $16 million.
The bill states quite specifically that assistance will be available to those in need, who are "totally and permanently disabled". It would be most unfortunate if members of this house were to convey to their constituents any false impressions as to the extent of the coverage of the present measure.
Some will say that this bill is unduly restrictive; that eligibility should not be limited so rigidly, to those whose disability is total and permanent. I think, however, that if any member of this house were to take the trouble to examine the provisions of similar legislation in the United States and
5630	HOUSE OF
Disabled Persons

Allowances elsewhere, he would find that the measure now being introduced by this government is equally as generous as any similar program now in existence, anywhere.
It should not be forgotten that the ultimate aim of any forward-looking program, on behalf of the handicapped, should not be merely the provision of financial relief but, rather, victory over the handicap. There are many persons now suffering from a temporary or partial disability who could be helped back to a useful, self-supporting existence. It^/ould then, in my view, be a retrograde st^>
if action were now taken to encourage dependency on the part of those persons for whom rehabilitation may be possible.
Only when it proves impossible to help a disabled person to lead a happy and productive life, through his own endeavours, should we consider the provision of a pension. In such cases a pension will provide a guaranteed level of protection, and will represent a very real advance in establishing security for some thousands of our citizens who, up to this time, have had little or no help under our established programs.
No doubt there will be some who will not be satisfied with the present measure-just as there were some who spoke against family allowances, and every other progressive social measure, introduced by Liberal governments over the past 20 years. I, for one, believe in giving credit where credit is due, and I should therefore like to commend the government upon this important, humane and far-reaching social measure.
Summing up, Mr. Chairman, the social legislation introduced for Canadians, by successive Liberal governments, has provided a degree of security for our elder citizens, and has ensured at least a minimum of wellbeing for the very young; we have shown gratitude to our veterans and their dependents, through unsurpassed veterans legislation; the youth of our country have been assisted in their educational program, through special students grants, vocational training, grants to universities, and so on. Labour legislation has been introduced to make easier the lot of the labouring man. Unemployment insurance benefits are available for those temporarily out of work. Our people, generally, have benefited by extensive health and welfare legislation.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have the disabled persons bill, and I am sure that all these other groups of Canadians will welcome this measure with that spirit of generosity towards the needy which has always been characteristic of our citizens.
[Mr Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough).]


Mr. MacNaughl:: Mr. Chairman, before the minister replies to the questions asked I should like to put a question to him. In his statement to the house on the motion for second reading, when referring to the negotiations with the various provincial governments, he said, as reported at page 5325 of Hansard for June 1:
There have been no official indications as yet from the provinces of Quebec and Prince Edward Island as to their intentions.
This statement has caused no little concern to the people of Prince Edward Island, and I wonder if, when the minister is answering the questions, he would bring the committee up to date on the recent negotiations with the government of Prince Edward Island on this vital question.


Mr. Castleden:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a word to what has been said by hon. members, particularly with regard to the age limit of 18 years. I understand there are difficulties of administration, and also that the government has to draw the line somewhere. Undoubtedly it made a survey of the number of people affected by this legislation.
I have in mind one family in my own constituency in which, unfortunately, there are three children who are permanently and totally disabled. I am thinking of the very heavy burden placed upon that young couple in connection with the raising of those children. I think of the great amount of care they are putting into it, the difficulties with which they are faced, and the terrific burden they must endure.
I have known of other cases where the members of a family have had to look after one in that family who has been totally and permanently disabled. I contend that in a family where there are three in that condition there is far more hardship, far greater need for care and for assistance, and the case is much more deserving than are other cases-[DOT] deserving as they may be. Before he leaves this discussion I should like the minister to comment on whether or not, under the regulations, there would be some way to take care of two or more cases in one family. I see no reason why some provision should not be made, in those provinces where they wish to do it, to assist those families that I am sure are more deserving than any others where there is only one disabled person in the family and where the person has reached the age of 18.
When the minister is speaking I should like him to give some estimate of the number of people who he expects will be covered by this legislation and to whom assistance will be given.


Mr. Barneil:: I do not intend to discuss this clause at any length, but as some of other hon. members have said, the phrasing of the various subclauses raises some questions in my mind as to just what the ultimate result of the application of the clause will be under the regulations that are drawn. The particular point that I should like to raise is a question that concerns paragraph (f) of clause 3 which says that a person may be eligible if he:
is not a patient or resident in a hospital, nursing home, or private, charitable or public institution, except as prescribed in the regulations:
I can readily understand the restriction in paragraph (c) where people are excluded from receiving the benefits under this measure if they are receiving benefits from other public plans. But the question in my mind is as to the application of the principle. It seems to me that paragraph (f) is in effect placing some citizens in a category different from those who may not be in a position to receive private charity. It seems to me that if we are to introduce a measure which provides benefits from public funds for disabled persons, it should be considered as a right of any citizen of the country, provided that they meet the qualifications in other respects. In other words, we should not place some of our citizens in the position that where they feel that because, for one reason or another, they are in receipt of private charity they are to be excluded from the benefits of this legislation. I feel that that will be the result of the application of this measure. It is not a good way to start out.


Mr. Martin:: Your interpretation is right.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It is not a good way to start out with a measure of this kind. As indicated by other members of my group, I certainly feel this measure is a necessary step in the right direction; but if we are to put some of the disabled people in Canada in the position where they feel that because they are recipients of private charity they are not eligible-


Mr. Marlin:: I said your interpretation was right.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Perhaps the minister has not correctly understood the interpretation that I am trying to make of this paragraph. When the minister is speaking on this clause I would appreciate it if he would expand upon what is the intent of paragraph (f). I am more interested in understanding the minister's interpretation than I am perhaps in his understanding of my interpretation.


Murdo William Martin: I agree with the hon. member, and that is the intent.
Disabled Persons-Allowances


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister not give a reply as the various clauses are dealt with? We are now dealing with clause 3. One of the most important questions to be decided is a definition of "totally and permanently disabled". The clause provides that the definition will be prescribed by the regulations. Having regard to the fact that the essence of this bill is the payment of allowances within the limitations provided to those who are totally and permanently disabled, the minister should advise the committee what the tentative definition of those words will be so that we might be able to make suggestions to cover a subject matter very difficult to define.
Before this clause is carried he might also give to the committee an indication of the degree to which negotiations have taken place with the various provinces to the end that the definition of another question might be arrived at by agreement between the federal government and the various provinces. I would appreciate it very much if the minister would place before the committee the definition he has in mind for incorporation in the regulations, or at least that definition which will constitute a tentative one and will be representative of the view of the government.


Mr. Zaplitny:: I have only a brief word to say on this clause. Generally, I support this legislation very happily because it so happens there is on the order paper a resolution in my name calling for such legislation.
There are two paragraphs in clause 3 to which I should like to refer. The first is subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subclause 2, the part which has to do with residence qualifications. It specifies that the applicant must have been in Canada for 10 years or more. There may be some particular reason for setting 10 years as the minimum. I hope the minister will give us the reason, if there is a good case for it.
I should like to draw to his attention something that I have mentioned before on different legislation, namely, that when immigrants come to this country they come under the auspices or jurisdiction of the federal government. They come presumably in good health; otherwise they would not pass their medical examination. If something should happen before they have been here 10 years and they should become disabled, at the present time they would have to apply to their local authority, that is, to the municipality, the town or the city, as the case may be, for assistance. It would appear to be rather unfair to the local authorities to require them to take on the responsibility for persons who entered Canada in good
5632	HOUSE OF
Disabled Persons-Allowances health, and through no fault of their own became disabled. I would urge that the minister reconsider this particular subparagraph to see if a shorter length of residence qualification may not be agreed upon. I shall leave it at that point until we hear the reply.
I go on to the next paragraph with which I am concerned, namely, (e), to which the hon. member for Red Deer has already referred. This paragraph specifies the persons who are excluded as those who are patients of tuberculosis sanatoria, mental institutions, homes for the aged, infirmaries or institutions for the care of incurables. I am not going to say anything about the first two exclusions, but when we come to the home for the aged and the infirmaries or institutions for the care of incurables I have this to say. The minister is aware of the fact that across Canada there are many excellent voluntary organizations and institutions which are doing their best to take care of persons in that class. Very often they have to depend on public charity in order to make ends meet. The income that they usually derive from pension and other assistance to persons who are patients in that institution does not cover the cost of operating the institution, and it appears to be a bit unfair to leave out persons who are being taken care of by these voluntary institutions, often, as I said, at the cost of having to go to the general public and beg for funds in order to keep the institution going.
I certainly hope that at least the provision contained in paragraph (f), where it provides that there may be some exceptions, may be made applicable to paragraph (e), because I think there will be cases coming up where that will become necessary. I hope the minister will consider these two points.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may deal with these questions now before we pass this clause. I thank members of the committee for their useful suggestions.
First of all, in answer to the hon. member for Prince, I think I should say that I already mentioned in the house in my statement in chief that as far as we were aware enabling legislation had been provided in eight of the 10 provinces. Undoubtedly the impression created by that observation was that in the case of the provinces of Quebec and Prince Edward Island no such enabling legislation existed, and that possibly there was not going to be any support given by these provinces to this measure.
The premier of the government of Prince Edward Island called me on the telephone and pointed out that his government intended to take advantage of this legislation just as
[Mr. Zaplitny.l

quickly as possible. I pointed out to him that there was no enabling legislation in the province of Prince Edward Island and it was because of that that I made the statement to which he had directed my attention.
He intimated that his government had considered the matter and they were of the opinion that no enabling legislation was necessary in that province. He assured me without reservation that Prince Edward Island was going to join the scheme. I can therefore now say that there are nine provinces which will undoubtedly take advantage of the legislation, and I am hopeful that all the provinces in Canada will eventually take advantage.
With regard to the observations made by the hon. member for Dauphin, I think he has made several valuable suggestions, and I can only give him my reaction to them.
With regard to the qualifying residence period of 10 years, the hon. member will note that that is the same period required in the case of blind persons, and as this is disability legislation we are anxious to have both acts conform, one with the other, as closely as possible, consistent with the wishes of the majority of the provinces.
The question of residence was discussed with the provinces and every one of them was of the opinion that this qualifying period of 10 years was desirable. In the case of family allowances there is a lesser period of one year but the circumstances, I think, are different. In any event, this was the wish of most of the provinces. It conformed to our own thinking at the time because of our desire to see that this measure should be as consistent as we could make it with the blindness allowances act.
On the question my hon. friend raised regarding paragraphs (e) and (f), the problems he has noted have been very much in our minds and the reason for (f) is that we hope by regulation-and it is only by regulation that we can deal with this kind of situation- to try to meet the kind of cases he had in mind, and which were also referred to by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. The words "except as prescribed by regulation" in paragraph (f) will mitigate somewhat the exclusive result created by the general terms of paragraph (e).
Much has been made today and last week of the fact that the bill does not define "total and permanent disability." Now, as the hon. member for Prince Albert has pointed out, this is a very difficult matter to define. The hon. member for Lanark thought we should define total and permanent disability in the bill. But I am sure on reflection he would agree that is neither desirable nor possible.

In the Ontario measure, which we have followed very closely, there has not even been an attempt to define it under the regulations as we are going to do. The experience in Ontario has been that it was best not to define it at all. They did not even propose to do it by regulation as we are going to endeavour to do. We have examined the legislation in over 30 states in the United States. Our officers have visited and talked to the officials there, and the vast majority of the states do not in their legislation define total and permanent disability. In one or two instances where it has been defined in the law itself they have got into all sorts of trouble because experience has shown that there is need for change. The best judgment we could get from the states we visited, and from Ontario, Alberta, and Newfoundland, where they have had some experience, was that we should not define it in the bill, except to state it in general terms, and that we should try instead to define it by regulation.
We will do exactly what the hon. member for Prince Albert suggested, namely, we will submit to the provinces a definition for regulation purposes which, of course, will receive their consideration and, we hope, approval.
As I said when I spoke in the house, what we have in mind is a definition along the lines of what they have generally used in Ontario by the use of the words "permanent and total disability". We mean a disability is "permanent" in the sense that it cannot be corrected within the foreseeable future, and we mean "total" in the sense that a person cannot perform the ordinary activities of daily living without the assistance of another person.
In the definition we have in mind we do not intend to have the limitation which now exists in Alberta of a twelve-month period. I think we will have no difficulty, in fact, I know we will have no difficulty, with the province of Alberta in that particular.
In order to give the committee an indication of our intentions as regards the kind of regulation which we hope will represent the wishes of both the provinces and ourselves, I might add that we will mean by "permanent" a disability to which the concept of cure cannot be applied and which is not likely to improve, or which is likely to continue throughout the lifetime of the individual.
That does not mean to say that that necessarily will be the case. It does not mean to say that rehabilitation measures will not be pursued as they are going to be pursued, and as other sections of the act indicate. But that would be a guide.
Disabled Persons-Allowances
Total disability will be regarded as total- and I am not now suggesting what the regulations will be, but what we are thinking about-if, as a result of the impairment, a person is severely limited in activities pertaining to self-care or normal living.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow a question? What exactly did he mean in the reference he made a moment ago to the fact that a person would require the assistance of another person?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In some of the states that is their definition but it would not necessarily be ours. The general characterization I used was taken from the Ontario pamphlet describing the operation of the Ontario legislation. It is the Ontario pamphlet which says that disability must be permanent in the sense that it cannot be corrected in the foreseeable future and total in the sense that a person cannot perform the ordinary activities of daily living without the assistance of another person. That is the Ontario requirement. When I referred to this matter the other day I did not use the phrase "without the assistance of another person". That is the Ontario characterization but it is not an exclusive definition. It is just a characterization given in the Ontario pamphlet as an indication of what they have in mind.


John George Diefenbaker: A kind of rule of thumb.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A rule of thumb, a norm; something to approach. Because of the lack of a detailed definition, what they have done in Ontario and in Alberta is to use their good judgment in each case, to look at the context and to see whether in that context, having in mind all the circumstances, the person comes within the kind of general rule of thumb to which my hon. friend refers.
As to the age of 18, may I say that in the Alberta act the age is 21 and in the Ontario act the age is 18. The age of 18 represents the age desired by the majority of the provinces. I will not say that if all the provinces come into this program the qualifying age will be 18 in all cases. I think that some of the provinces may want to stay at 21. But 18 was the earliest age to which the provinces were prepared to go. No province thought that at this time we should go below the age of 18, which is the age in the Ontario act and is the age which we think we at this time should follow.
Likewise, the amount of the allowance is one that first of all is consistent with the benefits paid under the Old Age Security Act, the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act and was the amount to which

Disabled Persons-Allowances the provinces agreed. No province suggested more. In fact, I cannot say that all the provinces will be prepared to pay disability allowances at $40. However, I hope they will be prepared to do so. In any event, there would be no difficulty, under the act, in their having either some age higher than 18 or an amount less than the amount for which we are providing basically in the act.
As I said in my statement in chief, we hope that this measure will cover roughly between 25,000 and 35,000 persons. It is difficult to estimate what the number will be. When we decided on this measure we had to make certain estimates, naturally, as to cost. That is something which it is not very easy to do. However, using the figures in Alberta and in Ontario we roughly concluded that we would be covering a group numbering between 25,000 and 35,000.
The kind of case which my friend, the hon. member for Yorkton, had in mind obviously cannot be covered by this measure. This is a measure for disabled people. However, in the case he mentioned, I am sure that by rehabilitation measures some mitigation of the difficulty could be anticipated.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think I need to comment on any further matter that has been raised, except to indicate that there might be in this bill features that would not be there if it were dependent entirely on the act of the federal government alone. But this is an attempt to meet a need in a co-operative partnership with the provinces. It represents the most common denominator that could be arrived at. We do not want to put in the bill provisions which we know the provinces would be unwilling to accept or which they would find it difficult to accept. With those comments I think I may say that we look forward to this act providing, in co-operation with the provinces, valuable assistance and help to an extremely important group of our people.


Mr, Diefenbaker:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to have the minister make one further explanation. It is in connection with section 3, subsection 2 (f), which reads as follows:
(f) is not a patient or resident in a hospital, nursing home, or private, charitable or public institution, except as prescribed in the regulations;
That provision denies a person payment of this allowance while a patient in the institution named, "except as prescribed in the regulations". What has the minister in mind to include in the regulations in order to restrict what, on the face of it, would appear to be a limitation that goes too far? To what degree does the minister contemplate offering to the provinces the suggestion, to be 

accepted by them, that under certain circumstances such a patient would be entitled to payment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the surface it does seem to be restrictive. The purpose of having in the bill the phrase "as prescribed in the regulations" is to permit giving disability allowances, under certain circumstances, to certain people who are actually assuming the financial responsibility for the care they are receiving. This bill follows the lines of the Ontario act. It is not intended to provide disability allowances to the institutions that are provided for by the community, the municipality or the province. While the provision in paragraph (e) is not as exclusive as that in paragraph (d), nevertheless some of these institutions-hospital, nursing home or private, charitable or public institution-may be institutions providing care to people who are receiving moneys at the public expense. It is not intended to provide disability pensions for them unless they are actually providing for themselves. The only way we can deal with the matter in respect to all the many kinds and varieties of institutions is to wait until we are faced with a particular kind of situation. Then, if it comes within the category we intend to cover we will frame regulations so as to permit us to pay the disabled people being cared for therein. This provision is generally the same as the one in Ontario.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the minister was
answering the point about the requirement of ten years' residence in Canada in order to qualify for this allowance, he said it was felt by the government that this legislation should be made to conform, as far as possible, to the Blind Persons Act, in view of the fact that both of them might be regarded as disability legislation. He pointed out that the ten-year requirement is in the Blind Persons Act and, as I say, he indicated that, in his view, that was one reason for having the ten-year requirement in this legislation. Without accepting that as a reason for the ten-year requirement being justifiable in either case, may I ask the minister why that argument is not carried over to the question of the division of the costs between the federal government and the provinces? As he knows, under the Blind Persons Act the division is on a 75-25 basis whereas in this legislation, which he characterizes as being comparable to the Blind Persons Act, the split is 50-50. My reasons for urging that the split be 75-25 rather than 50-50 are, in the main, two in number. First, I think that recognition should be given-and a 75-25 split would accord that recognition-to the fact that a great many people who might be

regarded as disabled persons are covered by provincial moneys of one kind or another; and if they are covered by grants in the form of mothers allowance, assistance from the province or from the municipality or are in various homes, they are excluded from receiving assistance under the legislation which is now before us. As I say, I think that recognition should be given to the fact that a great deal of provincial and municipal money is going to the assistance of persons who are disabled or incapacitated in one way or another. My other reason for urging a 75-25 split rather than 50-50 is, as I indicated at an earlier stage, that it would make it possible for the provinces with their more limited resources to pay their share of a higher allowance and their share of an allowance that might start at an earlier age.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the minister as to the age at which the allowance would start. I noted in particular his statement that the mere fact that the age of 18 is set out in the bill does not mean that all the provinces will start at 18 but that in a sense it is permissive legislation as is the maximum amount of $40.


Murdo William Martin: I think most of them will.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to hear that. I am hoping they will. Since the age of 18 is in a sense a permissive figure that is all the more reason why the age of 16 might have been inserted in this bill so that any province that wished to take advantage of it could do so. I believe there is only one province, and I am glad there is only one, which does not take advantage of the full amount provided under the Old Age Assistance Act. This act is set up in the same way. It is possible for a province under this legislation to pay something less than $40 and to start it at a higher age than 18.
One cannot force these things on the provinces, but if it were a 75-25 split rather than 50-50 the provinces would be in a better position to carry their share of the cost of legislation of this kind. However, I should like to hear from the minister as to why he does not feel that this legislation should conform to the Blind Persons Act in that other respect, namely, splitting the cost 75-25.


Murdo William Martin: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said I should like to hear from the minister on that point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is just a matter of policy. We felt we had saved the provinces a great deal by assuming full responsibility for the 70 and over group, and that was one of the reasons.
Disabled Persons-Allowances


Stanley Howard Knowles: I feel that the provinces are saving the federal government considerable money-


Murdo William Martin: I know. You made that point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -to the extent that, even with this legislation, they are being left with many people for whom they will still have to care. I think the federal government should have gone further and should have put this on a 75-25 basis rather than 50-50.


Mr. Mclvor:: Ontario.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to ask the minister a question about subclause 2 (f). I did not get the minister's full explanation with respect to nursing homes or private institutions. I have in mind a man who is only 61 years of age and is in a private nursing home. He will never get any better. It is taking practically all the income of the family to keep him there, but he refuses to be moved to some provincial institution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the purpose of (f).


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will he be covered?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the purpose of (f).


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will he be
covered?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know all the facts, but that is the kind of case we have in mind in (f).


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The regulations would be extended to cover that type of person if it were proven that the family could not keep him?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the kind of situation we have in mind in (f).


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But it would have to be proven that the family could not keep him before this legislation would be of any use to them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not necessarily. It depends upon who is keeping him. That is the kind of situation we want to cover by this clause.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You would
cover it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say that is the kind of situation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Wait. If they could pay for him he would not be covered?


Murdo William Martin: No. What we are trying to do under (f) is to deal with the situation of people who are in certain kinds of private institutions and are not being cared for by the state in one form or another. If in the case you have mentioned the family is paying fully for the care of that person, obviously

Disabled Persons-Allowances that person should qualify and under this provision will qualify. That is the very reason for clause (f) to which my hon. friend has referred.


Frederick Davis Shaw: On a previous occasion I raised the question of physical and/or mental disability. May I conclude that the definition of totally and permanently disabled will be broad enough to cover a person who is mentally retarded but is not confined to an institution?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I forgot to deal with that earlier. As my hon. friend knows, in Alberta that kind of person originally could not qualify. They have amended their regulations, and certainly that would meet our situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have one other question. In the Labour Gazette of April, 1952, at page 424, 1 find that at the formation of the national advisory committee on rehabilitation the Minister of Labour-
. . . announced that the ultimate objective of the rehabilitation program was to make available to the estimated 100,000 seriously disabled persons of working age in Canada the best treatment obtainable and the possibility of becoming rehabilitated to the point of being able to earn their own living . . .
I should like the minister to relate the
25,000	to 35,000 persons whom he expects to be covered by this legislation-that includes persons 18 years of age and over-with the figure of 100,000 seriously disabled persons of working age in Canada as indicated by the Minister of Labour.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A lot of the cases to which the Minister of Labour referred were of course veterans, workmen's compensation cases, total hospital cases and so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not too sure about that. I believe the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough put figures on that point on the record this morning, and if one includes the types of cases now referred to by the minister the figure would be much higher than 100,000. I understand that the Minister of Labour was referring to people who are not now obtaining treatment. He said that the purpose was to make available to the estimated 100,000 seriously disabled persons of working age in Canada the best treatment obtainable and the possibility of becoming rehabilitated.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot add anything to what I have said the situation is. I cannot say any more.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I point out that there is a terrific gap between the number who will be covered under this legislation, with its

restrictive provisions, and the number of seriously disabled persons of working age in Canada.


Mr. Kickham:: I should like to say a word or two on this section. I want to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare on the introduction of this most necessary legislation. I think members of the House of Commons and the people of Canada generally felt the need of including in our social security program the very persons whom this legislation is meant to cover. I think it will round out our social security program. I cannot think of any other group in Canada who will be excluded once this legislation has been passed.
I like the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the federal government should pay 75 per cent of the cost and the provinces 25 per cent. This would be most acceptable, particularly in the four Atlantic provinces, because as the government and the minister appreciate it is most difficult for those provinces to raise the necessary funds on a dollar for dollar matching basis. I am thinking also of patients who have been hospitalized in sanatoria. This might not apply in the other provinces of Canada but I know that it applies in the province of Prince Edward Island. When the patient becomes sufficiently well to be discharged from the sanatorium our province provides no assistance for this arrested case, except I believe some form of relief which would not amount to more than $10 or $15 per month. I feel quite confident such persons would become eligible for aid under this new legislation.
I repeat that this legislation is evidence of the keen interest and the anxiety that our present Minister of National Health and Welfare has for every man, woman and child in Canada. As the member for Antigonish-Guysborough said this morning, it is indicative of the interest this government takes in every citizen in Canada. We do not wait until the public demands the passage of such beneficial legislation for our citizens. We did the same thing in 1951-52 when legislation was introduced covering our old age security program. I just wish again to congratulate our minister and the government upon the introduction of this most beneficial legislation.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to make this remark in closing, Mr. Chairman. We have tried not to talk too much about the political side of this question, but I have heard a number of speeches today about the great Liberal party and what it has been doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Disabled Persons-Allowances


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to point out this one simple fact. Before this bill has gone through the house, practically every province in Canada has passed enabling legislation to carry out the purposes of this measure. This is a sign that this government is late in introducing the measure.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Amount of payments by government of Canada.
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Is it correct to assume that all the cost of administration will be borne by the provinces, or will the federal government contribute in some form?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will pay our own costs and they will bear theirs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How do they compare?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will tell you that next year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is not usually so ill-informed about his own legislation. Has he no idea as to how the administration costs will compare, as between what will fall upon the provincial governments and what will fall upon the federal government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not want to speculate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the matter with the minister today?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Census records.
Mr. Montgomery:: This clause refers to census records taken more than 30 years ago. I should like the minister to comment on that point. When that happens to be the only method of proving age, it is a long way to go back.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Especially for someone only 20 years of age.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I was wondering why that could not be made a lesser period.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think that would help us. The 30-year period, I think, is quite justified. We want to have the records as accurate as possible and that was thought, by the census officials, to be desirable. It is the same as the old age assistance provision.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I was going to raise the same point, and I do not believe the minister's answer is quite satisfactory. I have had considerable experience in recent years in matters of this kind, and I know there are many people in Canada who will not be able to go back 30 years because they may not be 30 years of age or may not have lived in Canada for 30 years. The applicable words
in the clause are, "contained in the returns of any census taken more than 30 years before the date of the application for such information." The reference is to more than 30 years. In the prairie provinces, as the minister may know, the census is taken every five years, whereas we understand in the rest of Canada it is taken every ten years. This will mean a person may have to go back 35 years or in eastern Canada perhaps 40 years. I see no particular reason for it.
I have had considerable correspondence with respect to a similar matter under a different act, and I have yet to understand the reason for going back 30, 35 or 40 years in order to compare the census records with the claimed age of the applicant. The procedure will be useless for a large number of people. I certainly hope the minister will consider shortening the period. After all, there will be cases, as the hon. member to my right mentioned, where that will be the only method of proving age. If a person happens to have lived in Canada only 20 years, and he is asked to go back to census records 30 years ago, obviously that procedure is of no value to him. The same would be true of a person younger than 30 years of age. Since the second census records in most parts of Canada are available at ten-year intervals, it means a person may have to go back 40 or 50 years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to say that there is
quite a lot in what the hon. member said. But the census is by no means the most accurate way of proving age. As a matter of fact, it is not any proof at all, in the final analysis. We have not had a great deal of difficulty with this same procedure under the old age security measure. The dominion bureau of statistics, under whom the census comes, have asked us to leave this in and try it to see how it works. I think there is a lot to what the hon. member said, but we will see how it works.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Under the old age security regulations no provision is made for a tribunal in case of failure to prove age by any documentary evidence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will do the same here.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am hoping there will be such a provision under this measure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 7-Provisions of agreement.
Frederick Davis Shaw: Those of us who were around here about 12 years ago might recall a three-hour debate that revolved around the

Disabled Persons-Allowances word "domicile". If my memory serves me correctly, we were no nearer a solution at the end of three hours than we were at the beginning. For that reason, I hesitate to ask this question. In paragraph (d) subparagraph (v), we see the word "residence" used. Could the minister indicate to us what the department has in mind? It says:
. . . where a recipient, who has been granted an allowance, transfers his residence to some place out of Canada-
I believe that is of some concern because we do know of persons who find it necessary to leave the country, sometimes for rather extended periods, in search of treatment. I would be quite concerned, for that reason, if the word "residence" were not quite clearly defined. After all, it would be tragic if we later found that because a person was out of the country three or four months following the doctor's orders, he might be barred from further payments under the act. Would the minister indicate what the thinking of his officials may be in this respect?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I recall the difficulty to which my hon. friend referred, and of course with regard to the word "domicile" there is a difficulty because a person can be domiciled in a place without living there. This has produced all sorts of difficulties, as lawyers know.
I do not believe the same difficulty is experienced with residence. It is the place where a person normally is in residence. We shall do our best to interpret these measures as fairly and as liberally as we can.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it clear from this clause- and I am looking at 7 (d) (ii)-that there is no minimum length of time that a person has to be within any one province in order to qualify for the allowance? I take it he has to be in Canada 10 years, but that he can get it in whatever province he has resided for the longest period of time during that 10 years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: So far as the federal act is concerned, that is so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have the provinces the right to make regulations any more restrictive in that respect?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They have the power to make regulations. Under section 7 (a) the province may specify the minimum age of a recipient, and any other condition of eligibility set forth in the provincial law. I do not think they will, but that is the fact.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest the minister should be more communicative on that point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot be more communicative without being needlessly loquacious-or characteristically loquacious.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The latter is correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All right, if you will; I am willing to give in to anything to meet the hon. member. I cannot say anything more than that. I do not think the provinces will. If they do wish to, the power is there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The expectation is that-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The expectation is that they will not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And that, so long as a person is 10 years in Canada, and meets the other conditions, he will be able to qualify for the allowance in some one of the provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 13-Coming into force.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the minister could break down, now, and tell us when it is intended to have this act come into force.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend heard me say on many occasions, "just as soon as possible", and that is the situation here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have been hearing the minister say that ever since he became a minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is a highly efficient man, and does things as quickly as he can.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In this case, at what point will the minister's high efficiency and speed result in this act coming into force?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope just as quickly as it is possible under the circumstances so to do. And may I say to my hon. friend, seriously, that we want to have it proclaimed as quickly as possible so that the great benefits of this act may go to the people we intend to cover.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the act be proclaimed in this calendar year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: You have something to say about that.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I understand nine of the ten provinces have indicated their participation in the act. Is it the intention of the government to wait for the tenth province before having it proclaimed, or will that not be a factor in the date which will be set?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would want to give that more thought. I do not think-no, I can say that we will proclaim this measure as quickly as we can. We will not wait for all the ten provinces, because all of them might not come in. I think they are all going to come in, and I am hoping that every province will come in-even that province which has not now enabling legislation. I am hoping that it will signify its formal intention soon to take advantage of this measure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no reason why it could not be proclaimed this month, is there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend asks me questions the answers to which are perfectly obvious.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the obvious answer to that question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is obvious.


Gage Workman Montgomery: May each province have a separate agreement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, as soon as this measure is passed by the other place we will then seek to have agreements concluded with each province. As a matter of fact I may say, just to show that there is no waste of time on our part, that we are ready now to sit down and discuss the matter with the provinces, and to sign.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported.
Paul Joseph James Martin: the third reading of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before this bill passes I want to say once again that we welcome it most wholeheartedly. We are glad to see legislation of this kind being put upon the statute books of this country. I wish to make it clear, however, that we will continue to work for improvements in this as in other social security legislation. We believe that the amount of the allowance should be brought up to $60, and that it should be payable at the age of 16. We believe that the split between the federal government and the provinces should be on a ratio of 75-25 rather than 50-50; and we believe that if the means test cannot be abolished at least the permissible income ceilings should be raised.
For these and other improvements we shall continue to work.


James Sinclair: You should be on a radio give-away program.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
8, 1954	5839
Veterans Benefit Act VETERANS BENEFIT ACT



PROVISION OF VARIOUS BENEFITS TO MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 101, respecting benefits for members of the Canadian forces-Mr. Lapointe-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Walter Edward Harris: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


The Chairman:: We are dealing with Bill No. 101, in respect of benefits for members of the Canadian forces. Shall clause 1 carry?
Clauses 1 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 12-Application of part V of revised statutes, chapter 273.


Mr. Bennetl:: The special committee on veterans affairs recommended for consideration of the government an amendment to paragraph (c) of subclause 2 of clause 12. I understand that the Minister of Finance is prepared to move an amendment to this clause.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I move that Bill No. 101, respecting benefits for members of the Canadian forces be amended by substituting for paragraph (c) of subclause 2 of clause 12, relating to the Unemployment Insurance Act, the following:
"(c) every person who was a member of the regular forces on and immediately prior to the 4th day of July, 1950, and thereafter without any interruption in service as such member, was on service in a theatre of operations on the strength of the special force and was discharged from the regular forces within three years from the date he ceased to serve on the strength of the special force; and"


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, by leave, and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 7, consideration in committee of Bill No. 421, to amend the National Harbours Board Act-Mr. Chevrier-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
National Harbours Board Act
William Alfred Robinson: When the committee rose previously clause 3 had been allowed to stand.
On clause 3'-Police constables.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 3 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, since the adjournment of the discussion of this clause yesterday, I, together with my parliamentary assistant, have had an opportunity to consider the suggestions which were made by the hon. member for Prince Albert and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. The committee will remember that the clause is one having to do with the appointment of peace officers. The point raised by the hon. member for Prince Albert was that the national harbours board should not take unto itself greater powers than the Canadian National Railways have taken in the appointment of such peace officers, and that the appointment should be made by a judge of the superior court or the county court judge. Perhaps the point is well taken, and it will be possible to propose an amendment in the course of the next few minutes which I think will meet the difficulty.
However, after very careful consideration, it has not been possible to meet the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. I refer to the mileage over which the peace officers would have jurisdiction, and the suggestion that it should be reduced from 25 miles to 5 miles or 1 mile. There is a serious difficulty in the city of Montreal which could well arise in other cities such as Vancouver. It has been brought to my attention that the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines gave careful consideration to this matter and saw fit to recommend the bill to the house with an amendment reducing the jurisdiction from 50 miles to 25 miles. That committee gave it careful consideration, and so did we, and we feel that there should not be a further reduction. I should therefore like to ask my colleague, the Minister of Finance, to move the following amendment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I move that clause 3 of Bill 421, an act to amend the National Harbours Board Act, be amended by striking out lines 29 and 30 on page 1 thereof and line 1 on page 2 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"4A. (1) Any superior court judge within whose jurisdiction property under the administration of the board is situated may, upon application to him by the board, appoint any person as a police constable for the enforcement of this act and the bylaws"


Lionel Chevrier: Then of course the clause would go on to read just as it is in the bill, together with subclause 2 and clause 4.


I am also asking my colleague, the Minister of Finance, to move another amendment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I move that the said clause 3 be further amended by adding to the proposed new section 4A the following additional subsection:
" (3) Any superior court judge referred to in subsection (1) or the board may dismiss any police constable appointed under that subsection, whereupon all powers, duties and privileges belonging to or vested in such constable by virtue of this section are terminated."


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the amendment carry?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this
amendment meets in large measure the objections that I took yesterday to the previous clause 4A, which would have given the board the authority to appoint police officers. This provides that a superior court judge within whose jurisdiction property under the administration of the board is situated may appoint any person as a police officer for the enforcement of this act, also dismiss anyone appointed under that subclause. That in general covers the situation raised by myself as to the danger to our system of having appointments of police officers made by boards. In so far as it covers that question it removes a major source of objection.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the second point raised by the minister, I might point out he has declined-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I wonder if we might dispose of the discussion on the amendment before we proceed to other aspects of this subject? Is there any further discussion on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: No.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: I also have a second amendment moved by Mr. Abbott dealing with the same subject. Shall the amendment carry?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that that meets the objection that was taken. Apparently any objection to this method of appointment did not go before the committee, and I felt yesterday when I raised the matter that it encompassed a dangerous situation. I want to thank my hon. friend for giving consideration to the introduction of an amendment such as this, which covers the points which I raised.


Lionel Chevrier: May I suggest to the hon.
member that he try to convince his colleague as regards the soundness of the present position?


John George Diefenbaker: I had quite a job convincing the government.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, we now come to consideration of clause 3 as amended and the point which worries us is that the national harbours board under this clause will have the power to have constables appointed who will have jurisdiction 25 miles beyond the national harbours board property in any direction.
We believe that that is both unnecessary and unwise, and I propose to move an amendment cutting that distance down from 25 to 1 mile. It is significant, Mr. Chairman, that if we turn to the Railway Act, which the minister has followed in making the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Prince Albert, we find that a judge appointing a constable under the Railway Act for a railway company can appoint that constable only to act on and along such railway.
These qualifying words can be found in the last line of subsection 1 of section 456 of the Railway Act. In other words, the judge appoints a constable to act only on and along that particular railway.
Now, it is worth while to see just what powers the harbour commissioners and the national harbours board have had in the past in the appointment of constables. For example, I find this provision contained in the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners Act, chapter 54 of the 1913 statutes, under section 19, which gives the power to make bylaws, and we find that the corporation may make bylaws for the following purposes:
(b) To regulate and control navigation and all works or operations within the harbour and to appoint constables and other officers to enforce the same or to enforce the provisions of any statute or marine regulation.
Obviously the power there was merely to appoint constables to act on the property of the Vancouver harbour commissioners and to enforce any statutes or marine regulations which applied to the harbour commissioners' property.
I have not had an opportunity of looking up the acts setting up the other harbour commissions, but I presume that much the same powers were granted in each case. The intention obviously was that these harbour commissions could appoint someone to look after their own property and the goods passing over that property.
Then, when the national harbours board was set up in 1936 and given power to take
National Harbours Board Act over the control of the seven national harbours in Canada, we find that it was given power under section 4 as follows:
The board may employ such professional, technical and other officers, clerks and employees as it may deem necessary for the proper conduct of its business.
Under that authority the board, at least in Vancouver, and I presume the same is true of the other national ports, had the power to appoint a small local force to keep order on the national harbours board property, in much the same way as the C.P.R. and C.N.R. have railway constables to keep order on their property. But the force is not a trained one in any sense of the word. In effect, that police force is a sort of glorified watchman service, though, of course, it fulfils a very useful function.
But now the national harbours board is seeking greatly to extend various powers by the amendments in the bill, and is asking for power to set up a police force. I mentioned in the committee that their constables were not trained, and I think the parliamentary assistant, or one of the officials of the national harbours board, said, "Well, we are going to give them some training". That would mean that in Vancouver we will have another police force right in the business section of the city, despite the fact that we have an efficient city police force now. The R.C.M.P. are policing all of the province outside of the cities which have their own police force and they are doing an excellent job. Why on earth should a harbour police force be set up now?
There is no objection to their carrying on their duties within the national harbours board property or within a reasonable distance of that property, but this bill, if passed, will give them the power to appoint persons to act as police officers for a distance of 25 miles from the national harbours board property in every direction. That would mean that in Vancouver the harbour police could go into any part of the city and make arrests and, in effect, act as ordinary constables.
Surely there is no justification for setting up a duplicate police force of this kind. We do not want the harbour police running around our city making arrests. If arrests have to be made in the city, let them be made by the city police, and let the harbour police co-operate with the city police and have the arrests made through them.
There is no reason at all why the citizens of Vancouver should be subjected to a harbour police force coming into their homes or acting in the same way as the regular city police force.

National Harbours Board Act


Lionel Chevrier: This bill does no such thing.


Howard Charles Green: But this bill does do such a thing. If something is stolen from the harbours board property then the harbour police would have the same right as the city police to come into the city and arrest the person who is alleged to have stolen the goods. Not only that, the distance is so great that they can arrest people in the New Westminster area. New Westminster is about 12 miles from Vancouver. By giving Vancouver harbour police jurisdiction over 25 miles, you bring about the result that these Vancouver harbour police can walk over on to another harbour commission's property and make arrests. Fortunately the New Westminster harbour commission does not come under the National Harbours Board Act. They do not have to carry that load. But here they are going to be in a position where the Vancouver harbour police can make arrests on the New Westminster harbour commission's property.
I submit that there is absolutely no reason for establishing a police force with that jurisdiction. We need only go back to the Railway Act, and there we find just what sort of power should be given to a police force of this kind. Section 457 of the Railway Act, under the heading of "Territorial limits and powers," contains these provisions:
(1) Every constable so appointed, who has taken such oath or made such declaration, may act as a constable for the preservation of the peace, and for the security of persons and property against unlawful acts
(a)	on such railway, and on any of the works belonging thereto:-
We have no objection to these harbour police having jurisdiction over harbours board property. No one is questioning the wisdom of going that far. The section continues:
(b)	on and about any trains, roads, wharfs, quays, landing places, warehouses, lands and premises belonging to such company, whether the same are in the county, city, town, parish, district or other local jurisdiction within which he was appointed or in any other place through which such railway passes, or in which the same terminates, or through or to which any railway passes which is worked or leased by such company: and-
The minister will notice that again the power is confined to the railway.
-(c) in all places not more than a quarter of a mile distant from such railway.
If the railway police who are a proper police force-and who are a great deal better trained and much better qualified than this other police force is going to be

are to be restricted to one-quarter of a mile from railway property, why should the harbour police be given jurisdiction over 25 miles? That is a move the justification for which I cannot see.


The minister today mentioned that he needs this power in Montreal. It may be that in Montreal the harbours board cannot get co-operation from the city police or from the provincial police. I would not be surprised to learn that that is the case, that the harbours board police do not get on with the other police, and hence want the power to run out into Montreal, 25 miles from harbours board territory, and to make arrests. But that condition does not exist in Vancouver and I do not believe it exists in any of the other national ports of Canada.
If there is a situation to be met in Montreal, and the Montreal members in this chamber are willing to have the harbours police making arrests in the city of Montreal outside of harbours board property, then let us restrict this 25-mile provision to the port of Montreal. There is no reason why the six other ports should be penalized in order to meet a situation which may or may not exist in the port of Montreal. This is one country, but there is no reason why one port should force a thing like this on six other ports. If there is such a thing as majority rule, surely it should apply in this case. The national harbours board is taking this drastic power in violation of a principle governing the enforcement of our Canadian laws. I suggest that no governmental body should be given police jurisdiction over other territory for a distance of 25 miles.
I therefore move:
That clause 3 of BUI No. 421 be amended by deleting the word "twenty-five" where it appears in the thirteenth line of the proposed section 4A. (1) and the word "one" be substituted therefor.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. I listened carefully to all the arguments that were presented in the committee of the House of Commons that studied the bill. I have also listened carefully to both the minister and the parliamentary assistant. Neither of them has yet, to my satisfaction, brought forward any argument in support of the reason why the harbour police should have all the authority of a police officer under the Criminal Code to a distance of 25 miles beyond the property which is owned by the harbours board or is administered by it.
I completely fail to understand how the minister can differentiate between the rights, the responsibilities or the jurisdiction of the special constables of the harbours board and those of the constables on the railways of this dominion. We have in the city of Vancouver the termini of the Canadian Pacific

Railway, the Canadian National Railways and the Great Northern Railway. They all have their own constables under the terms of the Railway Act. What are the duties of those special constables? Their duties are responsibility for the protection of the property of those three railways and the protection of goods in transit over those railways so long as they are on the properties of those railways. I have yet to hear of any request being made by the railways or any suggestion being made by the government that the authority which has been there for years should be changed and that those special constables who are guarding the property of the railways and the goods in transit over them should have their jurisdiction extended beyond a quarter of a mile, as it now exists under the present act.
That being the case, and no suggestion of altering that situation having been made, whence comes the differentiation as far as the harbours board property is concerned? Harbours board property is at a port and the duty of any constable is the protection of the property owned or administered by the harbours board and the protection of the goods in transit at that time in the possession of the harbours board. With regard to their complete responsibilities, the harbours board police are absolutely no different from the special constables of the railway systems of Canada. Then on what basis, on what line of logic and reasoning-when their duties and responsibilities are absolutely identical -should harbours board policemen have authority under the Criminal Code as peace officers for a distance of 25 miles outside harbours board property while the railway constables have jurisdiction only up to one-quarter of a mile from a railway. It does not make sense in any way, shape or form. I am therefore heartily in accord- and if I had my way it would be done-with bringing the jurisdiction of constables of the harbours board in line with the provisions of the Railway Act. However, I think my friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is trying to do as was suggested by the minister yesterday. He is trying to be reasonable. He has come up with a compromise. His amendment will mean that harbours board policemen will have jurisdiction extending three-quarters of a mile farther than the jurisdiction of the railway police.
There is another phase which I think should be mentioned, the possibility of a clash of jurisdictions. When the police authorities are doing a good job and carrying out their responsibilities in a city such as Vancouver,
National Harbours Board Act I think such duties should be left to them. If my experience counts for anything, when any breach of the Criminal Code takes place on railway or harbours board property it is the local police force that does the investigating and lays the charge. I can remember when two policemen were shot on railway property in the city of Vancouver a few years ago. It was not the railway police who undertook the investigation. It was the local Vancouver police force. When it comes to areas outside harbours board or railway property, I think it is a matter for the local police force. If it should happen that an instance occurs, such as we were told about both here and in the committee, where one city police force does not co-operate, that is really no reason for causing a disturbance in the other harbour cities of the dominion.
I have only heard one reason given why the harbours board wants authority over such a large area beyond the property of the board. That was the reason that the harbours board either owns or operates a bridge in Montreal and that unless they have this jurisdiction they cannot catch a speeding car or motorcycle if it happens to get away from the end of the bridge. To me that is a pretty poor reason to ask for a change of the type being sought in section 3. Moreover, there is also this point. Even if an infraction of the law involving stolen goods does take place on property owned or administered by the harbours board, the policeman cannot conduct a search without obtaining a search warrant. Therefore he has to go before a justice of the peace or magistrate of the county or town before he can search.
Having to do that, surely right then and there is the time to place the actual responsibility in the hands of the local police force, whether city or provincial, which enforces justice in the harbour city. For all these reasons, having listened very carefully to the minister and the parliamentary assistant, I say that the provision in section 3 for the extension of power to a point 25 miles distant from harbours board property is unnecessary and unjust. The case in support of the amendment rests on the fact that the responsibility of the harbour police is the same as that of the railway police in whose case it has been found satisfactory to limit their jurisdiction to a quarter of a mile. I support the amendment.


Lionel Chevrier: May I say one word in reply to what has been argued by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I should like to say first that this matter was dealt with fully
5644	HOUSE OF
National Harbours Board Act in the committee. It was also raised yesterday during the discussion of the bill. I undertook at adjournment to give the matter very careful and serious consideration. I did. I considered the matter in the light of the point made by the hon. member for Prince Albert and in the light of the argument made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and I came back to the house with the amendment that has been submitted.
The response of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was to repeat the same allegations and make the same charges against this clause as were made earlier. I can make the same reply. If the committee wants to put up with another speech by the Minister of Transport I will reply to the arguments made by the hon. member. But will it get us any place? After all, there is nothing so extraordinary, may I say to the hon. member for Vancouver East, in the powers being taken. There is nothing novel about these powers. They have these powers today.


Howard Charles Green: No, they have not.


Lionel Chevrier: They have the right to appoint constables who would have exactly the same powers. In fact, they could go away beyond 25 miles. As matter of fact, what the board is actually seeking to do is to limit the powers compared with what they were before.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question?


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend-


Howard Charles Green: How on earth does he figure that out? I should like an explanation of how he can submit to the house that this measure is limiting the jurisdiction of the harbour police.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like an explanation-


Howard Charles Green: If that is the case, why not leave their powers as they are, and everybody would be satisfied?


Lionel Chevrier: I should like an explanation from my hon. friend as to why there is so much fuss about this section, particularly when it was discussed for almost two days in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of privilege-


Mr. Hosking:: Certainly it was.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I have the floor, Mr. Chairman.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of privilege-


William Alfred Robinson: Do I understand the hon. member is raising a point of order?


Howard Charles Green: A question of privilege. The minister has just said this point was discussed for two days in the committee. In the first place the minister was not present in the committee for one minute and could not know of his own knowledge. In the second place, it was not discussed for two days. It was brought up there and we were voted down, but it was not discussed for two days or anything like it.


Lionel Chevrier: All right, Mr. Chairman, it was not discussed for two days, but the bill was considered for two days in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. If my hon. friend wants to quibble with words to that extent, all right, I will let him have his way about it. But the bill was considered for two days in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Representations were made by a number of associations, so I am told, and the hon. member cannot rise in his place and say that this particular point was given no consideration. I do not think he is attempting to do that. No. On the other hand, a great to-do is made about the tremendous powers that are going to be taken by the national harbours board in this case. Let me tell my hon. friend that the national harbours board spends millions upon millions of dollars each year in the national ports of Canada, and I think it should have the necessary powers to protect the taxpayers' money.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear.


Lionel Chevrier: There has been handed to me an old act-and I ask the hon. member for Vancouver East to keep this in mind-which authorized the predecessor of the board of transport commissioners to appoint police officers with jurisdiction in the whole of a province. How does my hon. friend like that? How would he react to that?


Harold Edward Winch: I do not like it a bit.


Lionel Chevrier: He does not like it. Well, all right. If my hon. friend does not like it, then what I am saying to him is that this is a considerable reduction in the powers of the police officers who will be appointed by a superior court judge. I do not want to repeat here the reasons which were given or to make a distinction between the Canadian National Railways and the national harbours board because I think the position is not the same. So far as the jurisdiction of a police officer of a railway where the line runs from one end of Canada to the other is concerned, probably it is consistent that it should not extend beyond the quarter of a mile limit, but here the position is not at all the same. Men have taken property from the national

harbours board, have been sought beyond the limits of the property and because the warrants were not backed in the proper jurisdiction it was necessary in more than one case to lose the benefit of the law in respect of the person who was being chased.
Some hon. members seem to think that the police officer is going to have all the powers that an ordinary police officer has under the Criminal Code. The hon. member for Vancouver East seemed to hold that view.


Harold Edward Winch: I made that clear. I said all the powers of a police officer under the Criminal Code within 25 miles and concerning property of the harbours board or under its administration. I made that clear.


Lionel Chevrier: I accept my hon. friend's
correction. I was under the impression he had a different idea of the application. But what is so abnormal about the fact that a peace officer should be able to seek within the required jurisdiction, particularly if an offence has to do with the administration of board property or of persons subject to the jurisdiction of the national harbours board? It seems to me it is not beyond reason, when there are millions of dollars spent, voted by this house, to see that that money is protected.
These officers are not going to clash with the other officers of the city of Montreal or the city of Vancouver. How can they, unless warrants are made out at the instance of the national harbours board officers, and at the instance of the local police for the same offence? That I am sure will not be done. The national harbours board has been in existence since 1935, and the administration of the act by the officers has been fair, just and reasonable. I feel that we can count on the officers of the board to use their common sense, to use their judgment, not only in the city of Montreal but in the city of Vancouver as well. If this section is given a fair trial, I believe it will be workable and that hon. members will not have any reason to complain about any extraordinary power. I want to reassure the house that it is not the intention to take extraordinary powers, that extraordinary powers are not being taken under this section, but that powers are being taken for the protection of the property of the board.


Harold Edward Winch: It is not my intention to speak twice on this subject, but in view of the minister's remarks, I feel that I have to do so. The minister has emphasized the fact, and he was applauded by all the Liberal members, that the taxpayers of Canada have spent millions upon millions of dollars for
National Harbours Board Act the development of the harbours of Canada, and that these harbours have to be protected.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: There will not be a member of the house who will disagree with that statement, that the investment has to be protected. However, the same taxpayers of Canada have spent hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars on the Canadian National Railways and that investment has to be protected too. But in the protection of that investment, you want jurisdiction for a quarter of a mile, whereas to protect the other investment you want jurisdiction for 25 miles. How do you explain the difference? We all stand for the protection of the taxpayers' money invested in the harbours and the railways, but how do you explain the quarter of a mile in one case and the 25 miles in the other, when the responsibilities of protection are identical for both police forces?
There is only one other point I want to mention, and I do so because of a remark by the minister and also by an hon. member down here-I am sorry I cannot remember who spoke yesterday-who brought up the question of sincerity. The minister went over that again today. He told us he accepts responsibility for introducing these bills. They have had study and consideration, and he brings them forward in all sincerity. No one questions that at all. I am going to say that when the minister accepted the responsibility of sponsoring this Bill No. 421, he did so in all sincerity. I believe that. But, Mr. Chairman, they do not know everything on that side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: They can make mistakes just as all of us do. What happened? After all the study by the government, the Department of Justice, the bill went before a committee of this house. What occurred? The committee, with a Liberal majority-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: -was persuaded by the opposition minority that the bill could be improved and there were four or five amendments made in the committee. The measure comes back here, and even with all the brains on that committee, and it had plenty, what happened? The hon. member for Prince Albert was still able, after all that review by the government and the Justice Department, the civil service, and the committee, to point out that there was still something that could be improved in the bill. There was a wrong principle involved. We are saying to you: We know
5646	HOUSE OF
National Harbours Board Act you reconsidered and you saw wisdom in the suggestion by the hon. member for Prince Albert, but it is only one step farther to reconsider a third time and see the wisdom of this amendment.


Mr. Macdonnell:: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that my rising is not greeted with enthusiasm. If it will relieve hon. members' pain at all, I shall tell them I will be very brief. I have a somewhat unique qualification for intervening in this debate, and that is that I did not hear any of the earlier part of it. I just heard the speeches by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Vancouver East. I was not a member of the committee. I have the advantage, as I say, of an open mind. After listening to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Vancouver East I said to myself, those arguments sound very reasonable indeed. The minister must have some tremendous argument that he is going to produce, and it is just going to flatten them out and I am going to be completely twisted around.
I waited, therefore, for the minister's argument. So far as I can make out, his great argument was that there were hundreds of millions of dollars belonging to the harbours board to be protected. He sought to distinguish, in a manner that I could not follow, between the fact the Canadian National Railways jurisdiction is one-quarter mile and the harbours board wants 25 miles. Incidentally the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra sought to meet the special case the minister raised as regards Montreal by suggesting that some special arrangements should be made.
All I want to say is that in so far as I have any claim to being, what shall I say, a man of average intelligence, I submit that any man of average intelligence who has been in this house for the last three-quarters of an hour would wonder why on earth the arguments made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Vancouver East were not accepted. He would still wait for that pulverizing argument the minister was to make.
Amendment (Mr. Green) negatived: Yeas, 44; nays, 75.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 3 as previously amended carry?
Clause 3 as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Howard Charles Green: Next sitting.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we might alter our agenda for the moment to take care of a matter to which reference was made this morning in connection with the pension bill. There is a resolution which has been consented to by His Excellency the Governor General, and of which notification could be made now. We could then deal with the resolution, and do as we did on another occasion-that is, move that it be referred to the committee of the whole, and then it could be considered with the pension bill itself. If that would meet with the wishes of hon. members, I suggest that we do it, before proceeding with the amendment to the Post Office Act.



PENSION ACT


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That Bill 339, intituled: "An act to amend the Pension Act", now before the house, be amended by substituting the words and figures "1st day of May, 1954" for the words and figures "1st day of January, 1954" where they appear in clauses 10, 11, 12 and 18 in the said bill and that subsection (3) of section 31 and subsection (3) of section 42 of the Pension Act be amended by striking out the words "in respect of service during world war II" where they appear in the said subsections.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved that this resolution be referred to the committee of the whole on Bill No. 339.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
And the order for committee of the whole having been called:
Howard Charles Green: We cannot go on now. Members of the veterans affairs committee met at 3.30. This contains some highly controversial points.


Walter Edward Harris: I think that the clerk assistant may have misunderstood me. It was not intended to proceed with it at this time. It was the intention to proceed now with the Post Office Act; and then, later this day, to call the Pension Act.



POST OFFICE ACT


Hon. Alcide Cole (Postmaster General) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 473, to amend the Post Office Act.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Does the minister propose to make an explanation of the change?


Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Parliamentary Assistant to the Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I shall make a brief explanation. This bill is being introduced as a result of representations received by the government from the Periodical Press Association on behalf of Canadian publishers, to the effect that the proposed amendment will be of benefit to them.
At the present time, Canadian publishers, in order to enjoy the reduced statutory rates on copies of their publications going to subscribers, must post such copies at the post office in the place in which the office of publication is situated.
The publishers' representations are to the effect that if more than one point of mailing was permitted they could forward their publications in certain instances by bus, by truck or by air cargo to other centres for local mailing and thus afford a faster delivery to their subscribers in different parts of the country. This would be an advantage to them in their competition with United States publications.
Apart from being an advantage to publishers, the proposed amendment could conceivably result in some saving to the Post Office Department, as we would not have to pay certain transportation charges in any instance where a publisher took advantage of this suggested procedure. In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned, we recommend the adoption of the legislation.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as there are questions we will wish to ask at the committee stage, I do not propose at this time to discuss the matter at length. However, there are certain questions which, because of the nature of the bill, particularly its brevity and its apparent innocence-a feature which, may I say, we always suspect-we will want to ask. We will want to know precisely what the effect of the bill will be.
First of all, we will want to know just how many centres the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) might designate as areas to which bulk shipments might be made, in respect of any one national publication. Is this going to be a matter of several centres within a province, or the main terminal points in the
Post Office Act
provinces across Canada? We would also like to know whether or not this change in the regulation will have any effect on the content of any periodical. Will it alter in any way the rules which now exist with regard to the advertising these publications are permitted to accept?
When I ask this, I have in mind the fact of course that certain publications will be in a preferred position, by reason of their being able to get their publications into the field at distant points days quicker than otherwise they would be able to do. That is an advantage in competing for advertising in the general advertising field as against the United States publications which now enjoy that privilege.
There is also the general question of revenue. In what way will the revenue of the Post Office Department be affected by this change? Another general point into which we shall want to inquire rather closely is just what is the difference in this matter of the shipment of publications between daily newspapers and periodicals. The minister will recall that when we were speaking on the first item of his estimates I addressed a question to him with regard to the shipment of newspapers to distant points by T.C.A. in passenger seats. If I remember correctly the minister at that time told me that that was a matter strictly between the newspaper itself and T.C.A. I notice that this bill does say both newspapers and periodicals. If regulations exist which prohibit the bulk shipment of newspapers and periodicals to distant points, there to be broken down and mailed, then I should like to know under what regulation the newspapers are permitted to bulk ship, and if that permission is granted to them-possibly this is a question which would more properly be directed to the department which handles T.C.A., but nevertheless the minister, having some connection with it, must also know the answer- under what terms is T.C.A. permitted to occupy passenger seats with these newspapers, certainly to the inconvenience of the travelling public and possibly also to the detriment of their actual safety. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that in bringing up that point I am probably on the borderline. The Postmaster General has very definite responsibility in this regard because of the connection which his department has with the dissemination of this material from coast to coast. With these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, we shall rest until the bill gets to the committee stage, when we shall press for answers to these and other questions.

Post Office Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) referred to this as an innocent-looking bill, and one might say that the explanations that have been offered for it thus far are plausible. I think, however, most of us know the real purpose behind this bill. I rise to oppose it.
As hon. members know, this is not the first notice we have had of the amendment to the Post Office Act proposed by this bill. Earlier in the session when we had before us another bill amending the Post Office Act an attempt was made during the course of the discussion of that legislation to introduce an amendment which would have included in that bill the provision that is set out in this bill. Hon. members will recall that we were able to make the point on that occasion that as the proposed amendment to that bill went beyond the scope of the measure then before the house, it was out of order as an amendment to that bill. It is quite clear of course that it is now in order, procedurally at any rate, to bring in this proposal as the subject matter of a separate bill. But we are as opposed to this bill now as we were to the proposal when it was made on February 8, as noted on page 1902 of Hansard.
The parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General who introduced the measure today referred to it as one that would make possible the posting of magazines or periodicals, on approval by the department, at more than one place, with the privilege of having at all such mailing points the reduced rates provided for magazines and periodicals under section 11 of the Post Office Act.
Reference has been made, both today and on other occasions, to the desire of some publishers to transport certain quantities of their publications in bulk from the centre of publication to some other centre or centres in order to speed up the distribution of their periodicals to the subscribing public. It might be interesting to include in the record at this point the explanation that the Postmaster General gave us of this matter on February 8, 1954, when, as recorded at page 1902 of Hansard, he said this:
For instance, if a newspaper in Toronto is ready for delivery at four o'clock-X am only giving a hypothetical example-and the train leaves at six o'clock, the paper would be delivered in London, for instance, or some other place, only very late that night or even the next morning. Hence the periodicals have made representations.
Another explanation given regarding this measure was in these terms:
For instance, if a fraternal organization with its head office in Kingston has a publication printed in

Brockville, the publication, with the approval of the Post Office Department, can be posted in either Kingston or Brockville.
That, I may say, was the brief explanation of this bill given to Their Honours in the other place. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no secret about this bill. There is no secret as to the identity of those who are asking for it, and as to why they are asking for it. Indeed, there is no secret to the fact that gentlemen representing certain publication companies in this country have visited Ottawa, as have gentlemen who are opposed to this measure, and that those gentlemen have called on many people here; indeed, they have called on me as well as on other members of this group.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I had no calls from anyone.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Hamilton West says that they did not call on her. Maybe they did not feel she would be quite as much an obstacle to this legislation as it was thought I might be.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Maybe they thought that I would use some sense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member can make interjections like that a little later, if she still feels they are appropriate.


Mr. Lennard:: You made one yourself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was made clear to me that what was annoying some publications in this country is that there is a law in the province of Ontario which prohibits the publishing of liquor advertising. Some firms which are situated in the province of Ontario, firms which print their publications in that province, have been taking steps to get around that law against the publishing of liquor advertising in that province.


William Earl Rowe: This does not get around it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Duf-ferin-Simcoe says: "this does not get around it". Just to have the record clear, let us note the Ontario law which is section 91 (3) of the Liquor Control Act of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1950, which reads:
No person, unless authorized by the board, shall exhibit, publish or display or permit to be exhibited, published or displayed any other advertisement, or form of advertisement, or any other announcement, publication or price list of or concerning liquor or where or from whom the liquor may be had, obtained or purchased.
Now, Mr. Speaker, because of that law a magazine like Maclean's, which is printed in Ontario, which wants to carry liquor advertising, for the money to be had from carrying

that advertising, has to declare that its publication is not published in Ontario but is published somewhere else. So Maclean's magazine-


Mr. Pickersgill:: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is not one of the words in that the word "display"? Does it make any difference whether it is published in Ontario or anywhere else if it is displayed for sale in Ontario?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The law prohibits any company from displaying such advertising in Ontario or from publishing it. The law does not prohibit the printing of such material in Ontario so that Maclean's magazine, in order to get around this law, prints its magazine in Toronto but declares that it is published at the city of Montreal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How does that get around the law?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend is not a lawyer, nor am I; but lawyers apparently have found ways of getting around it. Thus it is that they make the statement in their publication that it is published at the city of Montreal, despite the fact that it is printed in Toronto, whereupon the magazines, before being mailed, are trucked from Toronto to Montreal and are mailed from Montreal. Now, in doing that Maclean's magazine achieves two things. On the one hand it gets around this law and thereby claims it is not publishing liquor advertisements in Ontario but is publishing them in the province of Quebec.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member has not answered my question about the word "display".


Stanley Howard Knowles: They do not display this advertising in Ontario, but they print it in Ontario and they bundle the magazines in trucks and have them carted to Montreal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can get copies of the magazines in Ontario on the newsstands.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the copies you get on the newsstands in Ontario are mailed into Ontario from the province of Quebec.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does not make any difference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree with my hon. friend that in the actual result there is no difference. They are getting around the law technically but not in spirit. But I started to say that Maclean's magazine achieves two purposes by 83276-357
Post Office Act
declaring Montreal to be its publishing location and by trucking its copies to Montreal before mailing them. The first purpose, which I have already indicated, is that they get around the Ontario law. The other purpose they achieve is that they get the cheap rate of postage provided for periodicals under section 11 of the Post Office Act because they are mailing their periodical at the point declared to be the point of publication.
Section 11 of the Post Office Act now requires that a periodical, in order to enjoy the cheap rate of postage, must be mailed in the postal area in which its office of publication is located.
Now, I agree with the Secretary of State that they are just gettting around the law technically but not in spirit, but in order to do this it is now costing Maclean's magazine a considerable sum of money-I understand it is of the order of $20,000 to $25,000 a year- to truck its periodicals from Toronto to Montreal.
One can understand the natural desire on the part of Maclean's magazine to have legislation, if it can be obtained, that will save them $25,000 a year, or some portion of that amount, and therefore the proposal that has been made by the Periodical Press Association, and the proposal which is implemented in this bill now before us, is that the publishers of periodicals, if they get the approval of the Postmaster General, might be able to mail their publications at the point of publication and at one or more other points while still obtaining the cheap rate of postage.
Let us look at the result which will flow from this bill with respect to the magazine of which I have been talking, and there is no secret about the fact that one of the reasons I have been talking about this magazine is that a gentleman representing that magazine came to see me and tried to argue his side of the case. However, if this bill passes it will not change the law which I read a moment ago, namely section 91, subsection 3, of chapter 210 of the revised statutes of Ontario. It will still be against the law to publish or display liquor advertisements in periodicals published in Ontario. Therefore, Maclean's, though it is printed in Toronto, will still have to be declared as being published in Montreal.
It will be possible for issues of Maclean's magazine going to subscribers outside Ontario to be mailed in Ontario under this new provision, if the Postmaster General declares Toronto to be a mailing point for this magazine. But, so far as the issues of Maclean's magazine that go into Ontario are concerned, it will still not be possible for them to be

Post Office Act
mailed from Toronto. The Ontario law will still apply. They will still have to truck the Ontario issues from Toronto down to Montreal and have them mailed in Montreal. As regards the practical result of this law you will have Maclean's magazine mailing its publication at two points, one in Montreal, its point of publication but not where it is printed, and the other from Toronto. I should spell this out again. The result will be that the issues going to the rest of Canada, outside of Ontario, will be mailed in Toronto and will obtain the lower rate of postage from that point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I interrupt the hon. member again to ask another question? Why does he infer that? Why would not they have some of these distributed from Calgary or Vancouver? It is pure inference on the part of the hon. gentleman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not pure inference. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this interruption suggests that the purpose of this legislation is along the line now inferred by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), namely to enable the shipment of bundles of the Financial Post to Calgary, or some other point, to be distributed from there. But that is an inference which is entirely unwarranted, for whether or not advantage of this legislation will be taken for that purpose has not yet been decided.
What is definite is that Maclean's magazine wants to save this $20,000 to $25,000 it is now spending in trucking its magazine down to Montreal, and I say again that I have no objection to Maclean's magazine trying to save some money if possible. My hon. friends can snicker about that, but what we are doing here is enabling a firm to get around provincial law and still have the cheap rates granted under federal law under certain circumstances.
I could spend more time than I am allowed, Mr. Speaker, in reciting the number of times it has been said on the floor of this house that we must not interfere with provincial rights. It has been said we have got to be very careful about health insurance because that is a provincial matter; we are told that we cannot have federal aid to education because that is a provincial matter; we have got to be careful as to what we say about any provincial laws because that would be interfering with provincial matters; and on the administration of justice how many times has the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) said that is something with which we must not interfere because it is a provincial matter.
But here is a provincial law which is clear-cut and specific. This firm wants to

get around it, so this firm, along with others, wants the federal government to amend a federal law to the extent that it is possible by so doing to enable them to get around the provincial law. There is one thing the federal government cannot do and that is amend the law so that it will permit a magazine printed in Toronto to be mailed from Toronto to Ontario subscribers, if it carries liquor advertisements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be tiresome but I would like to ask the hon. gentleman one more question. How is it going to be possible for Maclean's magazine or anyone else to get around the law in Ontario by posting publications in Toronto to other provinces? They are not going to anyone in Ontario. The present practice as far as Ontario is concerned, if I followed my hon. friend correctly, is that they will continue in their present position and nothing will be done about the subscriber in Ontario. All that would be done by this bill is to permit publishers to post in Toronto magazines to other provinces. That is not getting around the law of Ontario because the people of the other provinces are not subject to the laws of Ontario. It has nothing to do with provincial rights or the law of Ontario.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The reason they will not be breaking the Ontario law by printing a publication in Toronto and mailing it somewhere else-just a minute; listen to me now-is that some lawyer suggested to Maclean's magazine that they could get around that law by declaring that it is published in Montreal. They get around the law by saying: No, we do not publish in Toronto. The Maclean-Hunter Publishing Company may be situated in Toronto. The printers are there; and by the way their relationship with the printers is not any too good, but that is a side issue. The work may be done there,-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Stick to the point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but on the masthead it says: "Published in Montreal". This government by this bill is going to permit a publication, which although printed in Toronto is technically published in Montreal, to be mailed from a point in Ontario to other provinces and thereby to get the reduced rate of postage. I appreciate the interest of the Secretary of State in this matter but I think it is an interest that recognizes the point I am making.


Mr. Trainor:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Owen C. Trainor: Is the hon. member inferring that the declaration on the masthead, "Published in Montreal", in this case, is a false declaration?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is one of those things that it may not be possible to call false but it has a purpose that seems to be misleading. They have an office in Montreal, so far as I understand it, and they declare-


Owen C. Trainor: Have they an editorial staff in Montreal?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not know whether or not they have an editorial staff in Montreal. I do not believe they have. I believe their editorial staff is in Toronto, except for one distinguished member of that editorial staff who is situated here in Ottawa. I hope they do not put him in jail.


Owen C. Trainor: That would be a good thing to find out. How do they define "published"?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend will have to ask a lawyer for the answer to that question. All they say is that is the point at which it is published; and, having declared Montreal to be the point of publication, they get the cheap rates that are provided under section 11 of the Post Office Act. I think the situation is fairly clear. I am grateful for the various interjections that have been made. They make the discussion all the more interesting, and I think they have helped to bring out the point that what is involved here is not a discussion of the rights or wrongs of liquor advertising. I could go into that matter also.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Don't do it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I could talk about the corrupting influence of liquor profits. However, I will not go into that matter today. It is not a temperance issue, interested though I might be in that question. The issue at stake here is whether or not we are going to pass a federal law, the purpose of which is to enable people to circumvent, to a certain extent, a provincial law. Maclean's magazine is now circumventing that provincial law to a certain extent. They print the magazine in Toronto. They truck all of it to Montreal and mail it from there, thereby getting around the law that says they cannot publish in Ontario their magazine carrying liquor advertising. Once this bill passes- if the house does put it through-a magazine like Maclean's and any others that are in similar circumstances will be able to mail, as I say, all of their copies that go outside of Ontario, from Toronto, and get the cheap
Post Office Act
rates from the two points, and still technically get around the provisions of the Ontario liquor control act.
There is another aspect about this matter on which I want to make a comment. I think the way in which this whole matter has been handled has been rather odd. The Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) did not tell us of these aspects of the matter when he introduced the legislation or when he tried to introduce it on February 8. The parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General has failed today to touch on the aspects of the matter which I am discussing. I read with interest a debate to which we are not supposed to refer in this house, and I find that Their Honours in the other place made no reference to this aspect of the matter at all. Yet, as I say, because some of us raised questions about this matter when it came into the house previously, representations have been made to me as well as to other members of this group-and, for all I know, to other members of the house-that we should let this legislation go through in order that certain magazines might be able to carry this liquor advertising and not have to put out this extra money for trucking costs and, to put it in their terms, thus be better able to compete with American magazines. They have gone on and said to us: "We want to develop Canadian culture." I do not go for this idea of developing Canadian culture on the basis of liquor profits, whether they turn up in the form of advertising revenue, donations to dominion drama festivals or what have you.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to hear my
friend the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) say "hear, hear". I hope this is one occasion on which he will oppose a measure brought in by the government he supports.


An hon. Member:: He will walk out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I say, Mr. Speaker, there has been an attempt, or at least it appears to me that there has been an attempt to cover up the real purpose of this legislation by reference to matters that are not important at all. It has been said to me, for example, that under the proposed bill it would be possible for copies of the Financial Post to be mailed in bulk from Toronto to Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver, Halifax and other places to be mailed from the post offices in those cities and thus reach the subscribers more quickly than is at present the case. When I inquired as to the extra costs of this project, it was admitted to me by the gentleman

Post Office Act
to whom I have already referred that that would necessitate an increase in the subscription price for the Financial Post; and he was not sure that that increase was being contemplated. In other words, that is a possibility which is being provided for but which may not be implemented at all. The real issue is what is happening right now, namely that liquor advertising is being carried in this magazine as well as in others, and it is the desire of this company to be aided further in getting around the provincial law by the provisions of the measure that is now before us.
Every time this matter has come up, it has been said that it will be done without adversely affecting the treasury revenues. Indeed in the bill itself there is a provision which says that that must not happen. I ask hon. members for just a moment-


Mr. Cannon:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Can the hon. member explain to us the mechanics of how American magazines are imported into Canada in bulk and are mailed here under the present law? Would he like to stop that practice?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have not time to go into all of that matter, but just briefly I might say that it is done under two arrangements. In the first place, it is done under the arrangements of American postal law. The other fact is that it is done in part under international postal arrangements that are made between Canada and the United States, and which are reciprocal in character. That is one of the arguments that these people use, namely that American magazines are imposing on the Canadian mind American culture which is supposed to be of a much lesser order than the culture that we get out of Canadian magazines. I am going to be frank enough to say right away that I think the cultural level of Canadian magazines, generally speaking, is higher than the cultural level of many American magazines that circulate widely in this country. But that is no reason for approving the principle that culture should be supported on the basis of liquor profits.


Frank Exton Lennard: There are some liquor advertisements in the American magazines.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, the same answer applies to them. Neither does it justify-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the trouble.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Neither does it justify our trying to get around the Ontario provincial

law in a field where the province has a right to enact legislation of that kind, and has done so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not yet answered my question: How does this get around the Ontario law at all? He said they are getting around the Ontario law now and he says that they will continue to get around the Ontario law in exactly the same way even if this bill does not pass. In so far as his example is concerned, if I understand it correctly he is saying that this will enable them to post their publications to other provinces, which can have nothing to do with the Ontario law. He says they are getting around the Ontario law now and will continue to get around it afterwards in exactly the same way, so what are we doing to facilitate getting around the Ontario law by this legislation?


Mr. Noseworthy:: You are helping to do it by cheaper rates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) this question. Why does Maclean's magazine truck its magazines down to Montreal at the present time? Why does it not mail them in Toronto? Come on; answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That, it seems to me, has nothing to do with this legislation at all. That is a practice which appears to be legal now. I do not know whether or not it is. I am not a lawyer any more than the hon. gentleman is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the best thing about both of us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Taking that word "display", I would somewhat doubt whether it was legal, but it appears to be legal now and it will be legal whether or not we pass this bill. It will not make the slightest difference so far as distribution in Ontario is concerned. All this would do, in the example he cites, is to facilitate the distribution of Canadian magazines in the other nine provinces outside of Ontario. That is all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why can they not do that now?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I point out to both the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Secretary of State that if I were to apply the rules on second reading strictly I would have to say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just relinquished the floor and the Secretary of State has made his speech on second reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am happy to agree with the latter part, but in view of the earlier part of your remarks, sir, I suppose I had better

be careful. I suggest to the Secretary of State that if it were not necessary for Maclean's to take its publication to Montreal at the present time it would not be doing so, and if it did not think it had to get the law changed in order to mail these publications from Toronto it would not have asked for this legislation. I am sure the Secretary of State must have been on the receiving end of the representations with respect to this matter, and he must know that what they want is the right to be able to carry liquor advertising and mail from Toronto despite the law there which says-


Frank Exton Lennard: To other provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They would like to do it in Ontario too but the Ontario law will not permit them. In this House of Commons, where the rights of the provinces are pleaded so often by the gentlemen on the other side of the house, we are now presented with legislation which is enabling people to get around the Ontario law. That, Mr. Speaker, is the real issue in the measure now before us.
Before you find that my time has expired may I just deal with one other point. It is argued that to make this change will not adversely affect the postal revenue. It is my contention that it will, and that it will do so in respect of Maclean's magazine itself. At the present time all the issues of Maclean's magazine are being trucked to Montreal and mailed from there. If this legislation goes through, the issues destined for Ontario will continue to be trucked to Montreal and mailed from there. There will be no change so far as issues going to points in Ontario are concerned.
In the case of the issues going to subscribers in western Canada, at the present time they are being trucked to Montreal and mailed from there to western Canada. If the bill passes they will be mailed from Toronto to western Canada. So far as the post office is concerned, there is practically no difference involved in that change. Issues for western Canada will be carried from Toronto to Sudbury or Capreol and then on west instead of being carried from Montreal to Sudbury or Capreol and then on west. The only difference is the difference in mileage between Toronto and Sudbury or Capreol on the one hand and between Montreal and Sudbury or Capreol on the other. There is a slight difference but not enough to amount to anything.
But I ask hon. members to note what will happen in the case of issues destined for the province of Quebec or the maritime provinces, including Newfoundland. At the present time all the issues for these five provinces are trucked, at Maclean's expense, to Montreal,
Post Office Act
and are mailed from Montreal to their destinations in the five provinces. After the bill goes through, issues for these five provinces, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, will be mailed in Toronto and the post office will have to bear the expense of carrying them by train from Toronto to Montreal, an expense which they do not now have to bear, an expense which at the moment is met by Maclean's magazine.
I submit that when one looks at that aspect of the matter it becomes evident that this change is actually going to cost the Post Office Department additional money compared with what it is now spending for the transport of this magazine. As I have indicated a good many times there are other publications involved. This is not an act for the relief of Maclean's magazine. It is an act of general application, but this magazine seems to be the one affected most. It is the Maclean-Hunter Publishing Company that has made the most active representations, and that is my reason for having cited that magazine as an example throughout the case I have been making this afternoon. Basically what is involved here is that we have a bill, the purpose of which is to enable firms in Ontario to get around the provincial law and still enjoy the right to the cheap postage provided in the federal act for newspapers and magazines. I think the House of Commons should turn down this measure.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The Postmaster General has not anwered some of the points we brought up. Does he propose to do so?


Thomas Andrew Murray Kirk: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hamilton West did ask three or four questions. She asked first, I believe, how many centres would be involved in the mailing. I presume she meant mailing centres by each of these various magazines or periodicals. Frankly, I do not think anyone can give a definite answer to the question, because there are between 500 and 600 magazines in Canada which would be affected by such a change, if they wished to take advantage of it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I believe my question referred to a magazine having national distribution.


Thomas Andrew Murray Kirk: The
company may ask for certain centres, and then in his wisdom the Postmaster General will decide whether he will grant one, two, three or four such centres. I do not think the question can be answered more specifically than that.
Then the hon. member asked what effect the provision would have on the content of the advertising. The Post Office Department studies magazines periodically to ascertain the percentage of reading material such as editorials and news items, and whether the smaller half-to use an Irish expression- consists of advertising. That is the only examination made by the department on that score.
With respect to revenue; the bill states that the decision will be made so that it will not adversely affect postal revenue.
Then the hon. member referred to these newspapers and periodicals being carried in the seats of aircraft. In such cases they are not being carried in aircraft as mail, but rather as air cargo. It is my understanding that when they are delivered to a certain town or city they are then sent by truck to the newsstands for sale, and are not sent to the post office for posting. I believe I have answered all the questions.


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Chairman, in case some attempt should be made to put upon what has lately been done in the house an interpretation that is not warranted, I should like to make one point crystal clear, with the assistance of the parliamentary assistant in the Post Office Department.

Mention was made of the position of publishers in respect of liquor advertisements. I am referring to publishers who have their printing plants in Ontario and who then, in order to comply with the Ontario law, actually carry out the technical function of publication in another province, and mail the publications in that other province. In the case commonly referred to, it is Montreal. Will the parliamentary assistant make it clear-because I understand it is clear in the bill-that the bill will have no effect, either in its terms, its application or administration, upon that situation so far as the law of the province of Ontario is concerned; and that no magazine or other publication containing liquor advertising can comply with the law of Ontario if it is printed or published or mailed in Ontario, addressed to an Ontario destination.


James Ralph Kirk: Mr. Chairman, I really feel that several hon. members have very kindly answered the question, when they have carried on their own private debate. To the extent that this has relieved me of further comment, I am deeply appreciative.
But I wonder if I might say briefly to the hon. member for Eglinton that the answer to this problem, introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is in my opinion very briefly this: That such advertising as is referred to is not prohibited by federal legislation. As I said when replying to the hon. member for Hamilton West, the Post Office Department does not censor publications for liquor advertising. The reference made by the hon. member for Eglinton to the Ontario act, which was quoted previously, was absolutely accurate. It states:
No person, unless authorized by the board-
And that is the board in Ontario.
-shall exhibit, publish or display, or permit to be exhibited, published or displayed any other advertisement, or form of advertisement, or any other announcement, publication or price list of or concerning liquor, or where or from whom the liquor may be had, obtained or purchased.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The parliamentary assistant has not come through with what I hoped would be a clear answer to the point I raised, because I think it is the only point seriously raised in the course of the discussion. It is the sort of point that could easily be misconstrued; therefore I hoped there would be a clear statement upon it. Let me just state my own understanding of the effect of this bill. This is federal legislation. What has been introduced into the discussion is a law of the province of Ontario, which has the
Post Office Act effect of banning the display of liquor advertisements. We do know that at the present time magazines containing liquor advertisements do come into the province of Ontario, but they have to come from outside the province of Ontario. They cannot comply with the law of Ontario if they are printed, published and distributed in the province of Ontario, without going outside.
Now, my understanding is that the effect of this bill is such that that situation will continue so far as the law of the province of Ontario is concerned, and that there is nothing in this bill which will remove the prohibition now imposed upon the publication in Ontario of magazines containing liquor advertisements. In other words, if magazines containing liquor advertisements are to be circulated in the province of Ontario they must come in from outside.


Thomas Andrew Murray Kirk: I
can say that this bill does not change anything in so far as the Ontario act is concerned to which the hon. member for Eglinton has referred. The act to which he referred is a provincial act. This bill does not change the provincial act. We have nothing to do with it.


John George Diefenbaker: Does it change the
practice?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a little more than that. We all appreciate that laws passed here cannot as such change laws of the province of Ontario or of any other province; but the point that needs to be clarified is one that I think can be simply done. If my understanding of the bill is correct the parliamentary assistant should be able to say very clearly that there is no change in the Ontario law and practice. It is not simply a change in the law; it is a question whether the change that is now proposed in the Post Office Act will facilitate what is today a technical compliance with the law of the province of Ontario.
Now, my understanding is-and I should like a simple confirmation of this from the parliamentary assistant-that the situation that obtains today under the law will continue after this amendment becomes law. In other words, in the case of publications which are printed in Ontario, if they do contain liquor advertisements they cannot simply be circulated in the province of Ontario; they will still have to be posted outside Ontario and enter Ontario from a source outside the province if they are intended for distribution within Ontario or to Ontario destinations. That is the point.

Post Office Act


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


James Ralph Kirk: I
think that is an absolutely correct interpretation.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: The reason I voted against this bill was that I thought it stimulated liquor advertising. If I am wrong I will take a back seat, and I will tell the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that if he is not correct his speech was misleading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Fort William was right the first time. I may say also that the hon. member for Eglinton and the parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General in my view are correct in their statements that no change results in the passing of this bill with respect to magazines that are for circulation in Ontario. So far as the magazine I talked about is concerned, the picture is quite clear. There is no change in respect of its Ontario circulation. It is printed in Toronto at present, but it is ostensibly published in Montreal and is mailed from Montreal into Ontario. That situation with respect to the issues going to Ontario would not be changed one iota. We agree on that. But there will be a distinct change with respect to the many thousands of copies of Maclean's magazine which are printed in Ontario for distribution into the other nine provinces. At the present time, because of the Ontario liquor control act and because of the federal act, they have to be trucked to Montreal, mailed there (a) so as not to break the Ontario law and (b) so as to get the cheap rate of postage. When this bill is passed, if it passes, it will be possible for those many thousands of Maclean's magazines which are printed in Toronto for distribution to the other nine provinces to be mailed from Toronto at the cheap rate of postage. In other words, Mr. Chairman, I contend that this bill will facilitate a firm like Maclean's magazine getting around the Ontario law in that it will in effect publish, since it is printing it there, a magazine in Toronto for circulation to the rest of Canada. It is facilitating an attempt to get around the Ontario law against publishing liquor advertising; at the same time they will get the cheap rates set out in section 11 of the Post Office Act. I submit the hon. member for Fort William was perfectly right the first time when he voted with us against this bill.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, in so far as hon. members were informed, the bill before us on second reading with which we have dealt simply covered the principle of distribution points for mailing purposes. We are now dealing with the details of the bill. In a large

measure we are dependent upon the explanations given by the government as to the effect of that bill. Certainly, I would not support any measure, either on second reading or in the committee stage, that had as an indirect or direct effect the circumvention of any provincial law in regard to advertising or any other matter over which they have jurisdiction in connection with the sale, distribution and other details connected with liquor.
I do want to interject at this point that there is one statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with which I must take issue. I do not believe there is any such thing as cheap postage in Canada, anyway.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With that I agree. It was a relative term.


George Alexander Drew: Well, relative or otherwise, I do not think it is an accurate term. In any event it is not changed by this bill. There is nothing in this bill that affects the postal rates. As I understand it-and it is upon that understanding that I voted on second reading and that I am now approaching this, unless I can be shown otherwise-this bill provides a facility that is available to publishers in the United States for the more effective distribution of their publications, under which there are designated points to which they can send their publications in bulk and from which they can then be posted for simultaneous delivery throughout the whole country. Unless there is something hidden in this, which I am unable to see, then it would seem that our publishers should have the same facilities for distribution as are available to those south of the line who are carrying on similar activities, particularly in a large country like this.
There is one point about which there can be no question whatever other than the effect that may flow from it. It is that this does not directly or indirectly change the application of the Ontario law in respect of liquor advertising. There can be no question about that. What other consequences flow from it I admit perhaps might be more accurately explained than has yet been done. It is clear that nothing contained in this act can in any way circumvent any provincial law regarding advertising of liquor in any way.
So far as I am concerned, on the basis of the information before me, I am dealing with this, both on the second reading with which we have dealt and the sections before us, on the understanding that this is giving a facility for the distribution of publications.
I have yet to see anything in this measure that produces the result which has been

argued by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). If there were any way in which I could see that this was a veiled attempt to circumvent any provincial law I would certainly oppose the bill and every section of the bill. I am unable to see that and therefore I am supporting this measure.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the clause carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Clause carried on division.
Title carried on division.
Bill reported on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: When shall this bill be read a third time?


An hon. Member:: Next sitting of the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Next sitting.



PENSION ACT


Hugues Lapointe: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 339, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: House in committee of the whole on Bill No. 339, an act to amend the Pension Act, together with resolution relative to said act.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Salaries.


Mr. Brooks:: Mr. Chairman, as hon. members know, this bill has been before the veterans affairs committee and there were quite a number of amendments proposed. I might say that amendments have been made which were more or less agreeable to the majority of the committee, with the exception of amendments relative to clause 2.
As hon. members will recall, when the resolution introducing this bill was before the house strenuous objection was taken to the principle as set out in clause 2 that the salaries of the commissioners be fixed by order in council. That is entirely contrary to the principle which has been followed since the inception of the act.
Certain groups of veterans organizations appeared before the committee and gave evidence, and the Canadian Legion, which as hon. members know speaks for the great majority of veterans across Canada, took 83276-358
Pension Act
very serious objection to clause 2. I might add that all the opposition members on the committee and one member of the government shared that serious objection to the principle as set out in clause 2. I do not feel I should review all the objections which were taken in committee at this time. They are already on record in this house and on the record of the veterans affairs committee. The chief objection taken was that it infringed the basic principle of the Canadian Pension Act in that it took away the independence of the commission as far as this matter was concerned.
I mentioned a moment ago that since the inception of this act the salaries of commissioners have been fixed by parliament. Under this new clause they would be fixed by order in council. It was also contended in committee, as it was here in the house, that the Canadian pension commission is a judicial body and if there is one body outside the judiciary of our country which should be absolutely independent it is the Canadian pension commission. The members of that commission sit and hear evidence which has to do almost entirely with the granting of pensions, and they hear that evidence for and against the granting of a pension before arriving at their decision, in the same fashion as a judge hears evidence and makes his decision. Now, the salaries of judges are not fixed by order in council and I think we would consider it an unheard-of procedure if the salaries of judges were so fixed. Along with veterans organizations across this country we feel that parliament should not in any way lose control of the administration of the Canadian Pension Act.
As I have already pointed out, it is not my intention to enlarge on these arguments which are well known to all hon. members, and particularly to those members who sat on the committee. When this matter was before the committee I listened for arguments in favour of the action we are asked to take under clause 2, that is to fix salaries by order in council, and I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I failed to hear one logical argument in favour of this procedure. A number of hon. members representing the government spoke, but not one of them presented an argument which could be termed logical in favour of clause 2. They talked all around it and tried to belittle the argument made by opposition members and others, but no sound argument was presented as to why this should be done.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is the feeling of the majority of the members of this committee that clause 2 should not be allowed to pass and in order to bring this matter again before the committee I move:
That clause 2 of Bill No. 339 be deleted.

Pension Act
The Depuly Chairman: If I heard the hon. member correctly his motion was to the effect that clause 2 of this bill be deleted. Well, the motion now before the house, if it were expressed in formal terms, would be to the effect that clause 2 be now adopted. I am therefore of the opinion that the hon. member's amendment is not an amendment but a straight negative and his purpose will be obtained by a vote on the section now before the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, on that point, there was an amendment moved to clause 2 in committee and I do not know in what shape clause 2 now comes before the committee of the whole house. If it is in the shape of the bill as originally drafted with the amendment moved in committee then I presume the motion moved by the hon. member for Royal would be a subamendment, but I would like to know what the position is at the present time.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: For the information of the hon. member, the copy which I have before me indicates that clause 2 of the bill was adopted in committee without amendment.


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Chairman, that is not correct. Clause 2 was amended in committee and if I recall correctly it was the first subsection of that clause which was amended. Are we considering subsection 1 of clause 2 as amended in committee, or are we considering it as it was originally brought into the house with the recommendation from the committee for an amendment?


Colin Emerson Bennett: Mr. Chairman, this section was amended in the special committee and the committee reported clause 2 as amended. The amendment is as follows:
That section 2 of Bill No. 339, an act to amend the Pension Act, be amended by striking out subsection 1 thereof and substituting the following:
1. Subsection 11 of section 3 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(11). The chairman, the deputy chairman, and the other commissioners and ad hoc commissioners shall each be paid a salary to be fixed by the governor in council, except that the salary to be paid to the ad hoc commissioners and the said other commissioners shall be fixed at the same rate."


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I rise briefly to express the opposition of this group to this section 2. While we are pleased to support this bill in general and are pleased to have the amendments that this bill introduces, we take strong exception to this section 2 for reasons similar to those outlined by the hon. member for Royal. In the committee exception was taken to it by opposition members and by some members on the government side of the house. In presenting evidence before the committee the Canadian Legion

took strong exception to the principle embodied in this section. On that account we are opposed to the section. We think it is unsound. We think it is taking away from parliament the control of the commission and is taking away its independence.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman,-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. In view of the discussion that we have just had I think perhaps one matter should be straightened out by the committee before five o'clock. The copy which I hold in my hand of Bill No. 339-that is the tabled copy-indicates that clause 2 of the bill has been marked and initialled by the chairman and by the clerk of the committee as adopted in its original form. There has now been drawn to my attention an amended form of clause 2 which, I am told unofficially, was supposed to have been adopted in that committee. It is my suggestion to this committee that if they wish to put this matter in order, at this stage we should have a minister on behalf of the crown move the amendment which some members at least believe was accepted in the veterans affairs committee and which has not been reported to us as having been adopted.


Walter Edward Harris: In order to regularize the proceedings, I will move as indicated in the amendment that has already been read.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, I may say
that we in this group are also opposed to this section.
The Depuly Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will send up the amendment he has moved, I will read it to the committee, and we shall try to get this section regularized.


Walter Edward Harris: Very well.
The Depuly Chairman: Mr. Harris moves:
That section 2 of Bill No. 339, an act to amend the Pension Act, be amended by striking out subsection 1 thereof and substituting the following:
1. Subsection 11 of section 3 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"11. The chairman, the deputy chairman, and the other commissioners and ad hoc commissioners shall each be paid a salary to be fixed by the governor in council, except that the salary to be paid to the ad hoc commissioners and the said other commissioners shall be fixed at the same rate."
Shall the amendment carry? I believe the hon. member for Acadia-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move as a subamendment:
That section 2 of Bill No. 339 be deleted.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am sorry that I must indicate to the hon. member tor Royal that it his subamendment, as I have it, is for the deletion of the whole of clause 2 of Bill No. 339,-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: -it is not an amendment or a subamendment, it is a straight negative of the whole proposition which will be before the committee when the amendment has been disposed of. The clause then must either be accepted or defeated. I might point out to the hon. gentleman that when and if the clause is defeated the purpose of his proposed subamendment would be achieved. The question before the committee at the moment is on the amendment moved by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with respect to clause 2 of Bill No. 339. I saw the hon. member for Acadia-


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say that this exact procedure was followed in the special committee. There the amendment was moved by the parliamentary assistant. It changes paragraph 11 of the clause. Then by way of subamendment I move that the whole clause be deleted. Surely that procedure is perfectly in order. We have an amendment and it was ruled to be in order by the chairman of the special committee on veterans affairs. You have brought in an amendment which changes the section. Then I move as a subamendment that the whole section be deleted. Surely there is nothing out of order in procedure of that kind. I submit that what was done in the special committee should now be followed in the committee of the whole.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: With due respect to procedure which may have been adopted in the select committee, may I say that the hon. member has not convinced me that I was wrong in ruling that a direct negative is not an amendment. I would point out to this committee that whether the amendment that has been proposed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is accepted or is defeated, this committee eventually will still have to decide upon the question: Shall clause 2 be adopted? By voting "no", they will defeat clause 2, a result which is the purpose of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Royal. I am therefore of the opinion that his amendment is not an amendment but is a direct negative and that being a direct negative should be ruled out of order.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, I may say that we in this group are opposed to section 2. The amendment that has been moved does
83276-358j
Pension Act
not make any change in the section in so far as our objection to it is concerned. Our objection is that the section provides for the setting of the salaries of the chairman of the commission and of the commissioners by the governor in council instead of by parliament. The salaries of the judges are set by parliament. The commission is a judicial body and we feel that their salaries should also be set by parliament in order that they may be directly responsible to parliament. Up to the present time no good reason has been given by the government for this change. All the opposition members in the special committee were opposed to this section. The Canadian Legion voiced strong objection to it. Unless the government can give some really good reason for the change, we feel that the section should be allowed to stand as it was in the Pension Act.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has any extensive remarks to make, I would suggest that we might now call it five o'clock and proceed with the consideration of private and public bills.
At five o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair.



PRIVATE BILL


Mr. R. E. Reinke (Hamilton South) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 472, to incorporate Canadian Slovak League.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 466, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (laying of information).
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when this bill was introduced and given first reading on May 28, its purpose is to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act to make it clear that a trade union or an individual, on the one hand, or an employer or an employers' organization, on the other hand, has the right to lay an information or complaint under the act. Those who may have familiarized themselves with this

Industrial Relations
matter will probably realize that as section 45 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act now stands it is quite clear that a prosecution for an offence under the act may be brought against a trade union or against an employers' organization.
I think it is fair to say that most of us who are interested in this legislation have assumed that the opposite was also the case, namely, that it was possible for actions under the act to be brought by a trade union or by an employers' organization. I indicated on May 28 that a recent court decision has created some uncertainty and ambiguity with respect to whether an information or complaint can be laid by an aggrieved trade union against an employer. Accordingly, the purpose of the bill is to amend section 45 so as to clear up this uncertainty.
In view of the fact that in introducing this measure I made reference to a recent court decision I think it would be only fair that I indicate to the house the decision that I had in mind and its terms. It is not a very lengthy one so I think I had better read it to the house, although I should point out that there are sections of the decision that do not bear on the point that the bill seeks to correct. Nevertheless, since it is a legal point I think the decision should be on the record in full. It is a judgment given by Mr. Justice A. M. Campbell of the Court of Queen's Bench and was delivered at Winnipeg on April 6, 1954. I have a copy which has been furnished to me by the deputy prothon-otary of the Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg, so I have the correct terms of the judgment. It reads as follows:
This is an application in chambers for an order that Emil Walterson and Laundry and Dry Cleaning Workers' Union, 306 Donalda Building "be prohibited from taking any further proceedings" against the accused applicant in ten prosecutions (informations) laid under the Criminal Code for alleged violations of sections 4 (1), 4 (2) (a), 4 (2) (b) and 4 (3) of the Manitoba Labour Relations Act, S.M. 1948, chapter 27.
I am of the opinion that an application for an order of prohibition is the appropriate procedure in this case. It permits careful examination of the twenty-five exhibits filed, fifteen of which require study. This would not have been possible in a stated case.
This is a case where prohibition should lie. An application for prohibition based upon alleged defects on the face of the proceedings before a magistrate should not be affected by the prospect of an amendment being made to the information by which such proceedings were begun. There is no proper informant in any of the informations. The union was not the "aggrieved person", neither is Emil Walterson.
In any event, if the real prosecutor is Emil Walterson there is no consent to "institute" these proceedings. On the other hand, if the real prosecutor is the union, then it cannot be an informant, even acting through its president. Section 46(1) of the statute provides for a trade union or an

employers' organization being informed "against" i.e., of being an "accused". I am unable to find any section of the statute allowing either of them to be an informant.
Furthermore, in the proceedings before the magistrate, the so-called permission (consent) must stand alone. I am of the opinion that the so-called permission (consent) cannot serve the purpose intended in these proceedings. I do not think it is necessary to deal with the other arguments advanced by counsel.
An order of prohibition will go. Costs to the applicant.
As I have already indicated, that is the judgment given by Mr. Justice A. M. Campbell on April 6, 1954. May I make it clear that this judgment related to a matter that arose under the Manitoba labour relations act. Some hon. members may ask what that has got to do with our Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. The point is that the issues which arose in this case related to section 46, subsection 1, of the Manitoba labour relations act, which is identical word for word, jot for jot and tittle for tittle, with section 45, subsection 1 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
In other words if a court decision is made, and if such a decision stands, which places a certain interpretation on the words of section 46, subsection 1, of the Manitoba labour relations act, I think it follows that the same interpretation would be held to apply to the section in the federal act which is spelled out in exactly the same words. It is because of the fear that the judgment rendered by Mr. Justice Campbell might have an effect on labour relations generally, including the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, that those interested in these matters feel that what appears to be a defect or weakness in our labour law should be corrected.
May I also point out that much of what I read in quoting Mr. Justice Campbell's judgment in full does not have an immediate bearing on the issue which is presented in my bill. I merely read the whole judgment so that it might be a matter of record. What is significant in Mr. Justice Campbell's judgment is something that some lawyers might refer to as in the nature of an obiter dictum. It is this portion:
Section 46(1) of the statute provides for a trade union or an employers' organization being informed "against" i.e., of being an "accused". I am unable to find any section of the statute allowing either of them to be an informant.
That is the crux of the judgment, namely, that the wording of the Manitoba labour relations act, with the identical language in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, makes it possible for a trade union or an employers' organization to be informed against, but according to the learned judge it

does not make it possible for a trade union or an employers' organization to initiate an action under that statute even though it may regard itself as aggrieved under the terms of this legislation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If that was the crux of the judgment, it was not an obiter dictum.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend, I would say, has made a point. Perhaps I could straighten it out this way. Maybe it was not the crux of the argument, so far as this application was concerned. It may have been that the learned judge allowed an order of prohibition on the basis of other defects which were spelled out in the judgment, but so far as labour generally is concerned, in relation to matters that may arise in the future under our labour laws, the crux of this judgment is in the sentence I have just quoted. The smile on the minister's face seems to suggest that I have straightened that out, so perhaps I may read it again.
Section 46 (1) of the statute-
The reference is to the Manitoba statute, but the language is exactly the same as we find in section 45 (1) of the federal statute.
-provides for a trade union or an employers' organization being informed "against" i.e., of being an "accused". I am unable to find any section of the statute allowing either of them to be an informant.
Now, Mr. Speaker, those who are interested in this case, both because of their interest in this particular case and because of their interest in the labour laws of this country, felt at first that the judge had made an error, and that his decision should be appealed. The latest word I have is that that decision on the part of those interested has been altered although it may be they are still planning to appeal to a higher court. Certainly labour lawyers and counsel who advised the trade union bodies, both locally at Winnipeg and nationally here at Ottawa, are of the opinion that the learned judge may have something in so far as the interpretation of the wording of the law is concerned. None of us thought that the law was meant to have that interpretation, that trade unions or employers' organizations could be informed against but could not lay an information. It is because it appears to be. a defect that we felt consideration should be given to making the necessary amendment to section 45, subsection 1, of the labour code. Perhaps so that this record might be complete and clear to those who are interested,
Industrial Relations
I should put on the record section 45, subsection 1, of the labour code as it now stands. It reads as follows:
A prosecution for an offence under this act may be brought against an employers' organization or a trade union and in the name of the organization or union and for the purpose of such a prosecution a trade union or an employers' organization shall be deemed to be a person, and any act or thing done or omitted by an officer or an agent of an employers' organization or trade union within the scope of his authority to act on behalf of the organization or union shall be deemed to be an act or thing done or omitted by the employers' organization or trade union.
Bearing in mind the point I am trying to make, hon. members will see that if, as I contend, there is a weakness or defect in this subsection it is in the first line or two thereof. I refer to the portion of that subsection where it says:
A prosecution for an offence under this act may be brought against . . .
And so on. Our contention is that to cure the defect the wording should be that a prosecution for an offence under this act may be brought "by or against ..." All that is needed to ensure protection either way, if either party is aggrieved, is to insert the words "by or" in the appropriate place, just before the word "against". Those who have looked at this matter feel it would be well to make sure there are no loopholes, no point not covered, and just to do that section 45 should be further amended by adding a new subsection 3 which would read:
(3) Any information or complaint in respect of any prosecution under this act may be laid by an employer, an employers' organization, trade union or person claiming to be aggrieved under this act.
In presenting this bill, Mr. Speaker, it is my belief we are not asking for anything new. We are not asking for anything we have not assumed to be part of the labour law, but rather we are asking that the necessary step be taken to correct what appears to be a defect, in view of the decision rendered by Mr. Justice Campbell at Winnipeg to which I have made reference. I present the matter to the house hoping that favourable consideration will be given to this request of those who are interested in the correction of this defect, and that the legislation be made to read so that it will carry what we thought was the intent, namely that the aggrieved person or aggrieved body, be it a trade union or an employers' organization, should be able to lay an information under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Labour, as my hon. friend and the house knows, is not

Canada Elections Act
in the city but is away on public business. In his absence I have been asked, as Acting Minister of Labour, to point out that the minister and the Department of Labour have followed with interest this judgment of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench. From the advice that has been made available to me it would seem that my hon. friend is rushing things a little too quickly by presenting an amendment to the federal legislation at this time. The information that I have is that the unions feel they have good grounds for launching an appeal and that they propose to do so. Of course, if the appeal is successful there would be no necessity for the amendment, as my hon. friend well knows.
Following the appeal, should it be desirable to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act it would seem that this should be done only after a careful examination of all the implications, and particularly the effect on trade unions as unincorporated bodies and the repercussions which, of course, may occur in the field of general law, both civil and criminal. Pending further information I am going to suggest to my hon. friend, having in mind that there is going to be an appeal launched as we are advised, that perhaps he would be willing to let the matter stand. I say to him, on behalf of the Minister of Labour, that if it is finally established that there is still any uncertainty or any defect in this section of the federal statute requiring correction, careful consideration will be given to the question as to whether or not an amendment along the lines proposed by my hon. friend should be undertaken. Having in mind this statement, I would ask my hon. friend if at this time he would be agreeable to allowing this bill to stand?


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the minister moves the adjournment of the debate?


Murdo William Martin: Yes.
On motion of Mr. Martin the debate was adjourned.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, June 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Argue for the second reading of Bill No. 390, to amend the Canada Elections Act.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I presume if the hon. member speaks now, he will be closing the debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I had not realized that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) had completed his remarks on this bill, or I
[Mr. Martin.)
would have been in my place. I am really a little worried about the state of grace in which I find myself, when, for this the third time in almost as many days, I am in complete agreement with the Leader of the Opposition.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Things are looking up for you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You were born a Tory, were you not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I do not know whether it is possible to be born a Tory, but I heard a good deal about Toryism in my youth, and it took quite a long time to get over it. I hope, sir, that there will not be a relapse.


George Alexander Drew: I assure the minister that agreement in this instance will not prejudice his position.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I appreciate the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition.
I was about to say that I agree with what was said by him about this measure. I am not at all sure that when one attains the age of 21 years he is endowed with wisdom he does not have at 20, at 19, or 18 or 17, or even 14. The Leader of the Opposition referred to a member of his family who is 14, and I could refer to some members of mine, all of whom are younger than that and who sometimes display more wisdom than, in my very prejudiced view, is sometimes displayed by some legislators in this chamber- if I may be permitted to say that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The race is improving on that side of the chamber, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But the reason I was impressed by the argument of the Leader of the Opposition-indeed, I had intended to make it myself, had he not got there first- was that it does seem to me that before we change the voting age we should change the age at which people who would vote would have full legal capacity. The age of 21 years is that at which one can sue and be sued on one's own account, and the age at which one assumes full legal obligations. As I conceive it, voting is one of the most important of the obligations of a full citizen. If there is to be a change in the voting age, as to the wisdom of which I think there can be two opinions, and about which up to now I must confess I have not formed any very strong views, it seems to me the other step ought to be taken first.
There is another danger in this kind of proposal. It seems to me it is the kind to which the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), and perhaps to an even greater extent the hon. member who represents Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), are prone, and that is

what I might call the auction type of legislation. That is to say, someone in the house makes an offer and, with no early hope of having to accept any responsibility, the hon. gentlemen can always outbid.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are bidding 21; we are bidding only 18.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Twenty-one, or bust.
I cannot see, really, why the hon. member for Assiniboia chose the age of 18; why he did not for example choose the age of 17. In fact, most of the argument advanced in support of this measure by most of those who supported it was, if my memory serves me correctly, that we ask people to fight at the age of 18, when there is fighting to be done, and that therefore if they are old enough to fight they should be old enough to vote.
One hon. member-and I think it was my fellow Manitoban, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras)-pointed out that enlistments are permitted into the army, not at the age of 18 but at 17J. So that probably there should be an amendment, if that is to be the main argument. I do not think the fact that 18 years is already the law in Saskatchewan is any very compelling reason for most of us in the house to adopt this as a national measure.


Hazen Robert Argue: Ask the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker).


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), who is in committee and not in his seat today, is perfectly capable of making up his own mind.
The measure we are debating is a private member's bill having to do with the election of members to the House of Commons, a measure in respect of which there is no necessity of having any government policy at all. It seems to me that in relation to the election laws we, as members elected to this chamber, and not as members of the government or of the opposition, settle what the law will be. And it would not embarrass me in the slightest to find that the hon. member for Rosthern or the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir), or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris), or any other member in the house took a view of this question different from the one I take.
As hon. members can see, the view I take is not strongly held, except on the one central point, that if we are to change the age at all, then the change should be in more than merely the privilege of voting. It should be to give people full legal responsibilities in every respect, when they reach the age at which they will be permitted to vote.
Canada Elections Act
I was also impressed by the general line of argument used by the hon. member for Provencher in what I considered a very thoughtful and somewhat original presentation to the house. It has been my experience, and I believe it has been the experience of a great many young men and young women between the ages of 18 and 21, that those young men and women have not really formed very fixed convictions about a large number of questions which occupy the public stage, and about which in conducting our public affairs we have to form views.
I happen to be one of those people who think it is a good thing to have political parties, to have people belonging to those parties and, except when there are very strong reasons to the contrary, to have people stick to their parties. It seems to me, sir, that if we gave the vote at the age of 18 there would be a tendency for a great many more to vote in a stereotyped fashion, before they had really had time to complete their education and to do the kind of thinking and reflecting that some, at any rate, of the citizens do in those years. If I may be personal about it, since the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has drawn attention to the matter, it would have been somewhat more embarrassing to me if I had voted at the age of 18 because, undoubtedly, I would have voted differently from the way in which I have now formed-perhaps a habit-of voting.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: A temporary habit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You do not have to stay in the rut.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope I shall progress further; and if I do I suspect it will be because I belong to a party which is a genuinely progressive vehicle, and not merely one that sticks the progressive tag on its name.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A horse-drawn vehicle, do you mean?


Hazen Robert Argue: Have you got a forward gear?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, and also a brake. It seems to me that sometimes a brake is a very useful part of any mechanism that moves. I think, sir, there is another reason why, in default of any very strong ground for supporting this bill, it would be preferable not to adopt it. It is that elections- and I am not talking about what is spent by parties; I am merely talking about what it costs the taxpayers directly-cost a lot of money. If you brought thousands of additional-I have no idea what the statistics are, and I am not too good on this particular kind of arithmetic-electors, perhaps from

Canada Elections Act
a quarter million to half a million extra electors, on to the rolls it would mean that the cost of holding elections would be considerably increased. I doubt very much whether the results of elections would be changed to any material degree. They might be occasionally; it is a little hard to say. But it seems to me that if we have-as we have in this country-universal suffrage for persons 21 years of age and over, we do in fact in a general election get an adequate and a fair cross-section of the whole population, and that after all is what the purpose of elections is.
I do think also it is undesirable to tamper with these conventional ways of doing things unless-and this is a very important qualification-one is really convinced that by changing them definite improvement will be made.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Assiniboia felt that if this change were made it would be of benefit to one particular party rather than another. I do not think he did. Personally, I do not think it would. On balance I do not think it will have very much effect of any kind, except to increase the number of votes cast, increase the number of voters, increase the cost of elections and possibly, too, impose on a lot of Canadians the duty of making up their minds about questions on which two or three years more reflection would probably enable them to reach conclusions which would be more valid.
I go back again to my own personal experience. I think I was just as intelligent at the age of 18 as I was at the age of 21, but in the interval I had had a certain amount of experience, or a certain number of experiences, sir, and for some of us experience does alter our outlook, and in some cases it does widen our horizons; it does in some cases add to our knowledge. All these things, it seems to me, are desirable.
I would not like to be misunderstood. I am not one of those neo-fascists who believe that only the good or the virtuous or the wise should be allowed to vote. I think it is just as important for those who are not quite so good and those who are not quite so wise to be allowed to vote, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After all, you were glad to win the election.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, what I wanted to make abundantly clear was I did not think that foolishness or stupidity or ignorance should be disqualifications of voters; but I do think that on balance, other things being equal, it is preferable that the voters should

be informed, and I think the more information they can have the better. I do think on balance the electorate is a little more apt to be well-informed if the voting age is left at 21, where it now is, than it would be if it were to be reduced in accordance with the bill proposed by the hon. member for Assiniboia. It is for those reasons, sir, that I propose, if this measure should come to a vote, to oppose it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I do not
intend to discuss this measure at any great length. I agree with the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) that if the change in voting age which is proposed by this measure does come into effect I would not consider it to be a matter of world-shattering importance. But it is a question, as he has suggested, of judgment on which members from various parts of the house might feel they can express their honest views.
I have listened with a good deal of interest to some of the arguments that he has advanced, and they have included some relation to his own experience as a young voter. I would feel that if we had an election in this country every year there would be a good deal more validity to his argument than appears to me to be at the present time. I might, for example, interject my own particular experience on the first occasion on which I had a chance to cast a ballot. It so happened that the federal election was held when I had reached or just passed the age of 20, which meant, as you can readily see, that before I cast my first vote in an election I had reached the very mature age of 24 or 25. This question should be considered in part at least from that point of view. I have long felt that one of the most disconcerting aspects of our society is the lack of interest which a large percentage of citizens take in the public affairs of the country.
Frankly, my principal reason for rising to support this measure is that I believe it would serve to stimulate in the young people in the country reaching manhood and womanhood a greater interest in the public affairs of our country. I base my reason for that in part at least upon the fact that a great many of our young people in the country are finishing their schooling at approximately the age of 18, and that in most of our modern schools today a certain amount of time is spent in arousing in the students an interest in the institution of government and in various other aspects of public affairs. If it were possible, assuming that an election followed shortly after the graduation of students from high school, to have them participate in an election to the extent of at least casting a vote, then I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, there

is a likelihood that their interest would be stimulated and would continue. At least there is a greater likelihood than if they were faced with a period of years during which they would have to wait until they reached the age of 25 without having the stimulus of an election to interest them in a decision that is important so far as our national policies are concerned.
With regard to the argument advanced by the Secretary of State to the effect that along with this provision should go the right to assume full legal responsibility in every other aspect of life, I think I would agree with his point if he were to limit that to the right, for example, to stand for election and be elected as a member of parliament. But it seems to me on the basis of his own argument that the net result of allowing people of this age to vote would not be to cause any great change in the political spectrum of this country. His argument allows a good deal of ground for the discredited point that that right should not be given unless full legal responsibility in every other sense was allowed. I commend the points I have raised to the attention of the house before we are called upon to make a decision on this measure.


Frank Exton Lennard: Mr. Speaker, in rising for a moment to oppose this bill 1 do not propose to repeat the different arguments put forward on several occasions during which this bill has been before us. I wish merely to state that it is only several years ago that a poll was taken in the Westdale Collegiate in Hamilton and in other high schools in that area and the pupils themselves were opposed to the earlier voting age. I rise merely to put that on record because I know it to be a fact.


Mr. F. A. Enfield (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue) speaks again there are just one or two remarks I would like to make on the general principle involved in this very interesting discussion which has arisen regarding the voting age. I am sure none of us here would wish to belittle or criticize or in any way discuss the lack of ability of our 18-year-olds, nor in any way mention their lack of wisdom or maturity. We all know that the young people in Canada probably have a broader outlook, certainly a greater opportunity for education, and probably a wider experience in the light of present-day living than they had a decade or two ago.
The argument has been raised that, having reached the age of 18, they have enough experience, wisdom and maturity to make
Canada Elections Act
it possible for them to vote intelligently, and hence this bill has been introduced. I assume that that is the only basis on which this bill can be justified. Well, the age-old view has been, of course, that 21 is the age of, I think it is called, discretion. That view has a long history and has existed, I suppose, ever since we have had the system of common law introduced in England. Ever since that system was set up 21 has been considered the age when one becomes legally responsible for one's actions. It is the only age at which a person can enter into a binding contract, and that is a basic premise that has been in effect for, I suppose, well nigh on 1,000 years up to this time.
Presumably there is a very sound basis for that legal belief, and it is not something that you can discard lightly. That is not to say that making the voting age 18 is directly related to that legal right, duty or responsibility, but it certainly is an encroachment on that principle.
As I have already said, it would take a very careful estimate of the situation before one could bring oneself to vote for this particular measure. If my memory serves me right, when the hon. member for Assiniboia was introducing this bill he said he felt- and he can correct me if I am wrong-that our 18-year-olds are better educated today than they were at one time and they were now in a position to vote intelligently at that age. Apropos of that there is a great deal of confusion existing in educational circles regarding the education our youth are now receiving. In Ontario last year the Ontario Educational Association conducted a survey of the province of Ontario to determine just what happened to school children after they started school, what qualifications they received, from which courses they finally graduated, and what happened to them up to the time of leaving university.
They found out that out of every 100 children who commenced elementary school, only 13 ended up with any sort of graduation certificate from high school. In other words, in Ontario only 13 out of 100 graduated with a senior matriculation in high school, and since it is a very progressive and rich province I presume that figure might well be applicable to the other nine provinces. I have no way of knowing, of course, whether that is true, but you cannot merely assume because the opportunity for education is there that that opportunity is always taken. Certainly if you are using that as a criterion I would submit that that criterion is not a valid one because 13 is certainly nowhere near a majority of the youth who

Canada Elections Act
should graduate. The others leave school, I presume, at the average school leaving age of 16J or 17.
Is it too much to say that they need the four years between 17 and 21, or the five years between 16 and 21, to feel their way, get their feet on the ground, and gain that experience which comes only with being in business and through the effort they must put forth to make a living? Is it too much to say that they need that four or five years to prepare their minds and to gain the necessary experience and information to vote intelligently?
It seems to me that is the only way in which we can tackle this problem. As I said, there has been a great deal of confusion in educational circles in Ontario regarding this particular problem and the plight of the student who is in high school, who leaves high school and goes on to university.
I know that of the 13 who graduate with a senior matriculation there are only three in Ontario who go on to university. Of that three, one quits, one fails and the other graduates, so we have an average now of one out of 100 children who go to elementary school in Ontario, graduate from there, and then finally graduate from university, according to the figures of the Ontario Educational Association in a survey they conducted in November, 1953.
With this in mind, and bearing in mind the views of other qualified people such as Dr. Hilda Neatby who, in her book, "Too Little for the Mind" created quite a furore, I think the situation certainly requires a great deal more study than we are able to give it, or can give it in this debate in the house at the present time. I would submit that the time is not ripe, the matter has not been sufficiently adjudicated upon, or the criterion on which we are going to change the voting age has not been sufficiently established for us to vote intelligently to change the voting age from 21 to 18 at this particular time.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I say that as I have listened to the various members who have taken part in this debate and who were opposing this bill, I find that that opposition is in accord with every extension of the franchise down through the ages.


Mr. Nowlan:: How do you know?


Angus MacInnis: I have read a little bit of history.


George Clyde Nowlan: What do you mean?


Angus MacInnis: I can tell my hon. friend that in this country for many years-


George Clyde Nowlan: What a statement to make!


Angus MacInnis: -we were definitely of the opinion that women were not persons and consequently were not entitled to vote. It was thought that women were really not to be trusted with the duty of voting to elect members of parliament who were to make the laws. I do not know, but probably my hon. friend still holds those ideas. However, he certainly would not advocate them now that women are important and have influence because they have the vote. To advocate anything of that kind would mean the disappearance of the advocate from any political scene.
From reading English history I remember the opposition to the universal franchise for persons 21 years of age and over when it was advocated in that country. I recall reading Lord Macaulay's speech in the House of Commons in opposition to the measure, wherein he told of the dreadful things that would happen to the British people if these uneducated workers were given the right to vote. However, they were given the right to vote and those dreadful things have not happened to the people of the United Kingdom. When women were given the right to vote in that country, they were not given the vote at the age of 21; they were given it at the age of 26. Although women are supposed to mature earlier than do men, they were not given the vote until they reached an age five years older than that at which men received the vote.
I think a good deal of nonsense is talked with regard to this matter of the age of discretion. In the Journal the other day, I saw a definition of "discretion". I am sorry that I forgot to bring it with me but I think it was to the effect that it is the age at which you find you cannot do the things you would like to do. It was something like that although it may not be just quite that. If it is not, it ought to be anyway.
I find that when a person becomes a member of the armed forces at the age of 18 or perhaps earlier, he is entitled to vote. If a person who becomes a member of the armed forces at the age of 18 is entitled to vote, what about the person who sets out to earn a livelihood for, say, his mother and the younger members of his family at the age of 18? I may say that there are many of them. Should not that boy or that girl be allowed to vote? Why all these fine distinctions? They have no validity at all. If the age of 21 has been set, as was said by the hon. member who preceded me, say for perhaps one thousand years, on what basis was it set? Who said that was the age where

men came to the point where they could choose right from wrong or when they should have the right to take part in government as mature human beings? It was something arbitrarily set by somebody. I do not know who the nincompoop was but I have no doubt that he was just as ill-advised as I would be if I said the age should be 17.
The hon. member who preceded me referred to Dr. Neatby's book. He is right. It caused a furore but I think that is all you can say for it. Whether there is any basis of knowledge or understanding underlying what she says is a question that is much debated.
I would suggest that we get down to earth and realize that our objection to this step is the old reluctance that has come down through the ages, the old habit of wishing to limit the franchise or participation in government to as few people as possible. The young people today at the age of 18- particularly those who have not had the opportunity to go to university but who have had to take up the responsibilities of citizens before they were 21-are entitled to the vote, and we should not refuse it to them.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but in view of the comments made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I should like to say at least one or two words. Personally I have always followed the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) with a great deal of interest and usually in what he has said I have found much to commend itself to one's reason and one's judgment. However, I think this afternoon he has departed somewhat from his usual custom -if he has not gone quite to the extent of being a rabble rouser-in suggesting that those who are opposed to this bill are guilty of reaction and of living in the past. I do not subscribe to that view and I do not think it is fair of the hon. gentleman to make that suggestion. I do not think that he has any basis whatever for making it. He can perhaps speak with authority on the position of women in public life and the reason for giving women the vote. I will accept his judgment on that matter.
However, I should like to put myself in the position of saying that I think I know about as much as he does about the young people in this country. I happen to be the father of five children, all of whom now have the vote. They are now old enough to vote intelligently and well because they are 21 years of age, even though it has taken a little while to train them to vote right. I can tell the 83276-359J
Canada Elections Act
hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that not one of them would accept his suggestion that it is desirable, necessary or fair that they should be given the vote at the age of 18. I have had the fortunate privilege of having children in my house, living as I do in a university town, and entertaining scores and scores of them. I am not speaking grandiloquently. Over a number of years scores of them have come in and out on Sunday nights and on week nights and they have discussed these matters.
I agree with the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Enfield) who spoke a few minutes ago on the difficulties of the situation. I think he was expressing the view of the young people in connection with this matter. With the problems being as complex as they are, they do not think that they have any God-given right to vote at the age of 18. In fact, they do not think they should vote at the age of 18. In fact, some of them wonder if we should have the age set at 21. I wonder if this is not a form of escapism that people are trying to get in hiding behind this matter and saying "There is something wrong with public life", yet bringing in youngsters of 18 to vote. What about ourselves? How many adults today are failing to accept their responsibility? How much do we fail in this House of Commons in impressing upon the public the necessity for dealing with these matters? Until we accept that responsibility, I do not think we should try to extend the franchise.


Mr. Speaker:: It is now six o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Nowlan the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: At eight o'clock the house will resume consideration of the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 339, to amend the Pension Act-Mr. Lapointe-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
William Alfred Robinson: Order. I understand when the committee rose previously we were discussing clause 2 and the amendment proposed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Shall the amendment carry?

Pension Act


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, clause 2, which it is proposed to write into the Pension Act, has the effect of repealing the provision which has been in the act since its inception in 1919 for setting the salaries of the pension commissioners. If the clause carries those salaries will from now on be set by the cabinet. There was considerable argument against such a change when the bill was in its earlier stages. In the committee on veterans affairs the parliamentary assistant brought in one amendment to this particular clause, but all it did was to provide that all the ordinary commissioners should be paid the same salary. There are of course higher salaries for the chairman and deputy chairman of the commission.
The committee will be interested in knowing that at the present time the salaries under the Pension Act are $12,000 per year for the chairman, $11,000 for the deputy chairman, and $10,000 for each of the ordinary members of the commission. This clause is most objectionable to all opposition parties and, I believe, to the veterans of Canada, for two reasons. In the first place, the setting of these salaries by the cabinet will do away with at least some of the independence of the pension commission. Second, it takes away from parliament and gives to the cabinet the right to set these salaries. That is contrary to what we had thought was the trend in this year 1954. We have been hoping that the cabinet would give up some of the autocratic powers it has had, and as a matter of fact the Emergency Powers Act was allowed to expire just eight days ago. But here we find a move in the opposite direction under which power is taken away from parliament and given to the cabinet.
First of all I should like to deal with our objection that this change will interfere with the independence of the pension commission. I do not suppose the Minister of Justice would have the temerity to argue in the house or anywhere else that the salaries of Canadian judges should be set by order in council. They have always been set by parliament. The figures have always been placed right in the statute so that the judges of the land know that they are not subject to any change being made in their salaries at the whim of the cabinet.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that there is even more reason why the Canadian pension commissioners should have their salaries set out in the Pension Act. There is even more reason why we should be careful to keep them independent and to build them up in every possible way as an independent body not subject to control by whatever government happens to be in power.
[The Chairman.]
The Pension Act was passed originally in 1919 just after the first war. In the original act the amounts that were to be paid to the chairman and the ordinary members of the commission were set out. From time to time since then there have been increases but in every single case the increase has been made by changing the statute itself.
Since I came here in 1936 I have been privileged to be a member of every special committee on veterans affairs. When it has been proposed to increase the salaries of the pension commissioners the change has been brought in in the form of a bill which has been referred to the committee on veterans affairs and in due course has come back to the house and become law in just the same way that judges' salaries have been dealt with twice within the last six or seven years.
This is very important to the veterans of Canada because they feel that the pension commission should be kept independent. One has only to go over the other provisions of the Pension Act to realize that the legislators who passed the act in the first place were very careful to build up the independence of the commission. I refer, for example, to section 4 of the Pension Act, and I believe that each of these provisions I am about to quote has been in the Pension Act since 1919. Section 4 reads in part as follows:
The commission shall be attached to the department and the expenses required to be incurred for the discharge of its duties shall be paid out of the moneys provided by parliament.
I point out that under that section the commission is not made a part of the department but is merely attached. That was one other way to help to keep the commissioners independent. Section 5 reads as follows:
Subject to the provisions of this act and of any regulations, the commission has full and unrestricted power and authority and exclusive jurisdiction to deal with and adjudicate upon all matters and questions relating to the award, increase, decrease, suspension or cancellation of any pension under this act and to the recovery of any overpayment that may have been made; and effect shall be given by the department and the comptroller of the treasury to the decisions of the commission.
There you have the commission given absolute power with regard to pensions, and 1 would point out that the last sentence is particularly noteworthy in that it provides that effect shall be given by the department and the comptroller of the treasury to the decisions of the commission. In other words, if the pension commission decides that a veteran is entitled to a pension, treasury board cannot interfere. They cannot come along and say: "You should not have given that pension", because the Pension Act is so worded that the

pension commission has absolute jurisdiction. Another significant section is subsection 5 of section 5 which reads as follows:
The commission shall determine any question of interpretation of this act and the decision of the commission on any such question is final.
That means that where there is a doubt as to the legal interpretation of the Pension Act the pension commission can make that interpretation and their decision on such question is made final. Another significant section is 6 which reads as follows:
The governor In council may impose upon the commission like duties in respect of any grants in the nature of pensions, allowances or gratuities authorized to be made under any statute other than this act and effect shall be given to any adjudication by the commission under any such act either by the department or such other department of government as the governor in council may direct.
That goes very far too. I submit that it means that the handling of old age assistance payments, for example, could be turned over to the Canadian pension commission. The Department of National Health and Welfare would be bound to follow the rulings made by this pension commission if that were done.
The act shows clearly that this pension commission was intended to be a judicial body. Commissioners are always under suspicion from the veterans of Canada, because in many cases they have to turn down an application for pension. The first thought of the wounded or sick veteran in my province who fails to qualify for a pension is, oh well, that pension commission is just a branch of the government and they have turned me down; it is not a proper court and I would like to appeal to the county court or the supreme court of British Columbia.
For many years there have been rather insistent demands that there should be an appeal to the courts provided for these applicants for disability pension. Surely, the Prime Minister and the members of the government realize that by taking away these provisions for leaving parliament in control of the pension commission they are weakening that commission and making it all the more subject to criticism from the veterans of Canada. They are making all the more justification for a demand from the veterans of Canada that there be an appeal to the courts of this land from decisions of the pension commission. If it is to continue as a judicial body, then let us see that it has the same standing as the courts, and that the pension commissioners are directly under parliament rather than being under the cabinet.
The Canadian Legion take a very serious view of this. I have here the brief which
Pension Act
they submitted to the standing committee on veterans affairs, and the Legion had this to say about this particular question:
The Canadian Legion looks upon section 2 of Bill 339 as a serious potential infringement of one of the basic principles of the Canadian Pension Act.
The original, and I think the continuing intention of the act, was that the Canadian pension commission be as independent as parliament can make it. This is as it should be.
After all the whole basis of our veteran and pension legislation rests on the conscience of the Canadian people who express their wishes through you their elected representatives. Parliament guards that trust, and indeed it is for the express purpose of executing the trust that the committee of parliamentary members meet here today.
But section 2 takes away from parliament the right to establish the quantum of salaries to be paid the pension commission and gives the right to the cabinet.
We feel that this is a definite move against the autonomy of the pension commission, an autonomy which was established by parliament and must be protected by parliament.
The salaries of the judges of our courts are fixed by parliament. That is admittedly necessary for the safe functioning of our courts. We are confident that any attempt to make or to have the judges' salaries fixed by the executive branch of government would cause a mighty outcry across the nation.
We contend that the pension commission is also a judicial body, and as such it is important that it be left so far as possible in a position that it is answerable to parliament alone. We, therefore, must strongly urge upon the committee, that the time tested and vital principles by which the pension commission salaries are fixed by parliament should be retained. We feel most strongly that parliament must continue to control in every possible way the administration of the Canadian Pension Act.
The national council of veterans also submitted a brief and they were very hesitant about this provision. They said if it did not interfere with the independence of the commission, then it might be all right. There was a great big "if" at the first of their submission.


Hugues Lapointe: I think the hon. member should read what they said.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, I shall be glad to do that. It reads as follows:
if-
And I emphasize that word.
-this section will facilitate the fixing and administration of commensurate salaries, without impairing the force and effect of appointments to the commission by the House of Commons, and protected from partisan or other influences which would be detrimental to the fair and impartial administration of the Canadian Pension Act, we have no>
objection.


Hugues Lapointe: You emphasize the "if" and I will emphasize the "we have no objection."'


Howard Charles Green: I emphasize the "if" and I emphasize the stand taken by the Canadian, Legion.

Pension Act
Apart from my first submission entirely, I submit that for the sake of parliament itself, this change should not be made. We have not had a free parliament in this country from 1939 until the end of May when the Emergency Powers Act went off the statute books. This parliament has been under the thumb of the cabinet since 1939, so why in June, 1954, should the cabinet seek to take away from parliament the power to set the salaries of the Canadian pension commission? This move is nothing more nor less than an affront to parliament and I can see no reason why we should agree to a change of this kind being made.
As a matter of fact, the government members on the committee were put under a great strain in trying to justify the change. One of them, and one alone, had the courage to stand up and take his stand against it. All the rest of the Liberal members of the committee voted to bring about the change. The arguments that they put up-really, I have never seen some of these able parliamentarians like the hon. member for Spadina put to such great trouble to try to make arguments that even could be listened to let alone taken as being logical. They said this change is unimportant; there is nothing to this change. Why not do some of the important things? The hon. member for Vancouver South said, why bother about this little thing? What we want to do is to increase the war veterans allowances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: He knew very well that the government would not allow this committee to even consider the war veterans allowance, let alone raise it. When that matter was under consideration in this house he did not get up and say he wanted the allowances considered. He was on the side of the government at that time.


Mr. Philpolt:: On a question of privilege; if my hon. friend will look at the speech I made when we were considering raising the indemnities of members of this house, he will see that I said very clearly I would much prefer to be voting for an increase in the war veterans allowance or the old age pension.


Howard Charles Green: Why did the hon. member not say that when the members of all opposition parties were trying to get the powers of this committee extended to consider war veterans allowances? He was strangely silent then about war veterans allowances. However, in the committee that was his argument, that he did not want to be bothered with these

pension commissioners' salaries; he was all for rushing in to get the war veterans allowance increased.
The hon. member for Spadina, and one or two of his other colleagues who dared to say anything at all said, why this is going to improve the administration of the Pension Act; it is going to be much easier to get salaries raised if we do not have to go to parliament. We will be able to get it done much quicker. There will not be a lot of fuss about it. It will be all over, and then it will be possible to spend our time on something else. This administrative argument about changing more quickly, well they rang the changes on that. And that was about the only argument they had, as a matter of fact. There was nothing else they could think of to justify it.
And I will be very much interested to hear what the Minister of Veterans Affairs has to say this evening to justify these changes. And I would like to ask the hon. member for Spadina to get up and tell us how he justifies this change being made. Let some of these other members get up and say to the house what they are saying around the corridors about this change. Let us hear them justify it; let us hear them justify taking away from parliament the right to set the salaries of the pension commissioners.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Let us get the auction going again!


Howard Charles Green: Oh, the Minister of Finance may think this is funny.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No; I just said, "Let us get the auction going again."


Howard Charles Green: Never mind the auction. This is not particularly funny for over a million veterans in Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We must be fair to the taxpayers as well as to the veterans.


Mr. Harkness:: This does not affect the taxpayers at all.


Howard Charles Green: I do suggest this: Let the Prime Minister give his followers the freedom to vote as they see fit. Let him get up and tell the house that the life of the government is not at stake, and then let the Liberal members vote as they see fit. I will be very much interested to see how they vote, if he will put them in that position. There can be no excuse for enforcing party discipline on a question of this kind.
There is only one reason for making this change, and that is that it is intended to raise the salaries of the pension commissioners, and the government does not want

to have any more publicity than is necessary in connection with it. It wants to be in a position to raise these salaries after members who are attending this session go to their homes. At that time there can be no discussion about it, until the house meets again in the fall, or after the new year. In fact, there could be no discussion until we got down to a consideration of veterans affairs estimates a year from now. Then we would be faced with an accomplished fact, and there would be no possible chance of making any change at that time. There would be no use talking about it then. The salaries would have been raised; parliament would have been by-passed.
That, I submit to you, is the reason why the cabinet is making the change proposed here in the bill. And let me close with these words, that this change is not of the slightest benefit to the veterans of Canada. This is a provision written into the Pension Act, not for the benefit of even one veteran in this country, but for the benefit of the government and of the members of the pension commission. This change will shake the confidence of the veterans of Canada in the pension commission; there can be no other result. Furthermore, it strikes at the independence of the pension commission. There would be no more justification for the Minister of Justice to come into this House of Commons with a provision whereby judges' salaries would be set by order in council than there is for this provision concerning members of the pension commission.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not suggest that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That will be the next move.


Howard Charles Green: Well, the Minister of Justice may be pretty dumb, but he is not that dumb.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I can think of others who are just as dumb; can't you?


Colin Emerson Bennett: You should be a pretty good judge.


Howard Charles Green: I do not include the Minister of Veterans Affairs in that statement.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Speak for yourself, John.


Howard Charles Green: Finally, this change is taking power away from the Canadian parliament; and, as such, it is entirely wrong. I hope the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet will just take another look at this section before they force it through the house. If they are not interested in the submission made by me, or any other member on the opposition side of the house, then let them consider the veterans of Canada. And if they do that, they will not force this present change through.
Pension Act


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, it is rather unfortunate that the veterans affairs committee had to return to the house with a controversy of this kind on its hands; because, otherwise, the committee got along very well. It brought about a good number of changes in the proposed legislation. It is bad near the end of a session to bring in a sore spot like this. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has served one very useful purpose:	If you
happen to be with him in opposition he makes his case pretty thoroughly; and it saves time for whoever comes behind him in the debate.
Now, I agree with him. We agreed in committee, and it is unfortunate we have to repeat it in the house. I agree that if the principle of parliament setting the salaries of the commission was correct from 1919 to 1954, there was not anything I could see that should have changed it.
The second point we have to consider is that there is a principle at stake here, and that is the right of members of parliament to vote money. That principle is at stake; and it is not a good thing for members of parliament to get away from that principle.
The next thing I see that is bad in the proposal is that it interferes with the independence of the commission. That commission was always looked upon as an agency which would operate between the government and the veterans, with the veterans affairs committee acting as a kind of referee. But if the cabinet now appoints the members of the commission-well, in my judgment the most trouble the commission has had in the past has been with treasury board. And if we now grant the right to at least some members of treasury board to fix the salaries of the commission, in addition to making the appointments, then in my opinion it will have the effect of making the members of that commission subservient, at least to some extent, to members of treasury board. It creates a very bad psychological effect. This complex is created, whether we like it or not: "I am working for the cabinet; they appoint me; they fix my salary; they pay me, so I had better be a good boy." There can be no doubt about that, and I think it is a very bad principle. Even at this late date this should be reconsidered.
Now, I know there is a very important debate to come up soon on an important section of our economy. I do not want to belabour this matter. We are all on record in committee. On the two points I have set out, I completely disagree with the proposal as it stands at the present time. It is bad legislation. It can set a precedent:	The
Minister of Justice can come in and ask for

Pension Act
the same concession; the Minister of Transport can ask for the same thing for the benefit of the board of transport commissioners. And after that precedent is set, in the event of any argument every member is in a position to do what Mr. Speaker does every once in a while:	He can go back to
1800 and take a ruling made by someone, and offer it as a precedent to justify a decision now being made.
We should consider very carefully before we pass this kind of legislation. As I said before, the committee acted in a flexible manner in respect of the bills that went before it. Many good amendments were made. This was one of the points at issue, and I think it deserves reconsideration on the part of members in the House of Commons. There should be no effort to drive in a wedge at this stage of the session. It would be a very bad precedent and, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has said, it would shake the confidence of veterans across the country. It would take from members of parliament the right to vote money, and that is another bad precedent.
I believe someone on the government side, preferably the Minister of Veterans Affairs, should say, "Let us try this for another year." We have had it since 1919. It has not done any harm. The commissioners are not underpaid, and as far as I am concerned I have always thought that when they came before the veterans affairs committee they came as representatives of the veterans in an independent position. If they come in next year as appointees with salaries fixed by the treasury board, as far as I am concerned they will no longer be independent. They will be there as representatives of the government, because he who controls my job and pays me controls me. That is true in any walk of life that you may get into. I join with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in what he said. He put the case very well; there is no need of my repeating it. All members on the committee from our group take the same position.


Victor Quelch: This clause has been what you might call the main bone of contention in the veterans affairs committee. The government has tossed it to us and said, chew on it for a while. I listened to the interesting speech of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. He made a pretty good case for rescinding this clause. He asked for explanations from the government as to why it was necessary to change clause 2. I understand that this section has been in the act since 1919. Therefore it is rather strange that in 1954 the government decides to change the

method by which the commission shall be paid. The explanatory note merely says:
This is a new subsection which provides that the salaries of the chairman, deputy chairman and commissioners, including ad hoc commissioners, are to be fixed by the governor in council rather than by the statute as heretofore.
There is not one word of explanation there as to why the change is made, in spite of the fact that members on this side of the house and members from all parties have asked the government and the Minister of Veterans Affairs to give an explanation. So far we have not had a single squeak from the government. Surely it is about time that we received some information as to why this change is necessary.
When we go back to our constituencies and address meetings of veterans and they ask us why this change was made, what will be our reply? What explanation can we give to them as to the reason why the change is being made? We have not had an explanation. We hear a lot of explanations being given by members of different groups but they are not the type of explanations that one would like to give to a veterans' meeting. It is said the change is made in order to make it possible for the government to raise the salaries of the commission without going through parliament; that it is being made in order to give the government the whip hand over the commission so that if they grant pensions that are too high then they can be threatened with a reduction in salaries. If, on the other hand, they do just exactly what the government want them to do they will increase their salaries as a reward. I do not agree with that, but we must have an explanation.
The Minister of Finance shakes his head. I think he should shake his head. He should do more than that. He should rise in his place and explain to the committee why this change is necessary, because we are going to have to make an explanation, and if we are not given an explanation by the government, we shall have to give an explanation of our own. I am afraid that if we give an explanation of our own it will perhaps not be as good an explanation as could be given by members of the government. Therefore we shall be bound to vote against this clause unless the government can give some good reason why the section should not remain in the act.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I have a brief word on clause 2. First of all we should consider what sort of a body the pension commission is. Is it a quasi, or semi-judicial body, or is it not? If it is not a semi-judicial body, then there should be procedure for

appeals from it to the courts. If it is a quasijudicial body, then it should be as independent as possible, and the salaries of the commissioners should be fixed by parliament and not by order in council. It is either one or the other. It would appear from what we have had intimated to us by members of the government that it is a quasi-judicial body. That seems the whole tenor of the intention of the act all the way through, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has already pointed out. If it is a quasi-judicial body, I do not think there is a member in this house who seriously would get up in his place and say that the body should not be as independent of the government as possible, since that is the whole purpose of quasi-judicial bodies, to be independent of the government.
Explanations have been offered by members on the government side of the house as to why this is being done. It is said that it is more expedient; that it is quicker; that parliament sits too long now, and that rather than having to introduce a bill to change the salaries of the pension commissioners it could be done much easier by order in council. I have never heard any argument presented before, on behalf of any kind of democratic government, that used expediency as an excuse. There were certain states in the world that used expediency as an excuse for their existence, but fortunately several of them have passed out of the picture.
Let us look at this question of expediency. How often would the government have to introduce a bill to change the salaries of the pension commission? That is one of the explanations that has been offered. Would it have to be done every year, every session of parliament, or once every parliament?


Frank Exton Lennard: Once every ten years.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Perhaps once every ten years but not more often. If the raising or the lowering of the salaries of the pension commissioners was justified, it is quite likely that the bill would go through without any trouble. If it was not justified there would be a lot of debate about it. If there was some objection to lowering or raising the salaries of the commissioners there should be a debate about it. That is what I always understood we were sent down here for. If there is some objection to anything like that, it should be debated.
There are one or two other remarks I should like to make with regard to the matter, but it was adequately covered by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Cape Breton South. However, I should like to mention the fact that the Canadian Legion, which represents by
Pension Act
far the greatest number of veterans in Canada and certainly could not be described as a splinter group, went into this very carefully in their brief, and they objected strenuously to it.
The other thing is whether the cabinet- and I do not think anybody actually believes that the cabinet would-would interfere with the pension commission. I do not think that is fair criticism. But whether they would interfere or not, the fact that the pension commission might think that they would might affect the commission's actions. If you think that your independence is going to be threatened you might behave in a little different way from what you ordinarily would. Of course there is the other matter, too; that it is possible by order in council to raise or lower the salaries of the pension commissioners without the introduction of a bill, and parliament would not have to pass on it. It has been suggested that that might be the reason this change is being made in the act.
The last thing I should like to mention is this. There is another answer given by government members as to why we should not argue this matter. They say it is only a trivial change in the act, and since it is trivial, why should we waste the time of the committee or the house arguing about it? If it is such a trivial thing, after all the objections that have been put forward by the Canadian Legion and by all the opposition and by one member on the government side of the house, why is the government hanging on to this amendment to the act with such bulldog tenacity. There must be some reason; otherwise they would save all the time that is being taken by deleting section 2. There must be some reason for hanging on and I think hon. members are entitled to an explanation of what it is from the minister.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I opposed any change in section 2 most strenuously in the committee, and I want to take this opportunity this evening to repeat the opposition to the change here in the committee of the whole house. I can state my viewpoint quite briefly so as not to labour the point. I think the proposed change in section 2 violates a fundamental principle regarding the sovereignty of parliament. It is because of that that I opposed it in committee and repeat that opposition at this time.
During the first half of the present century there has been a tendency for the consideration of governmental business to shift from the floor of parliament to the offices of the executive arm of government. No matter how you look at this change, the only answer that comes out is that it is just another subtle erosion in the same direction. It is removing

Pension Act
discussion and control from the floor of the House of Commons and vesting it in the executive arm of government. That process has been described as the "passing of parliament" by authorities on our parliamentary process and procedure. That is the reason why I oppose what has been described by government members on the committee as a small attempt to shift the governmental centre of gravity from the floor of the house and place it in the hands of the executive.
This issue in some respects reminds me of a struggle which took place in this house shortly after I first came to parliament when a seemingly innocuous bill was introduced by the then minister of public works which, if carried, would have interfered with the principle of tendering for government contracts. A great outcry arose from all sides of the house with the result that the bill was defeated in a resounding fashion. It is my hope that as a result of this renewed discussion on the floor of the house tonight all hon. members will take a firm stand against any further invasion of the sovereign rights of parliament, because in the long run it is not the large issues which have brought us to this sorry pass, as far as parliamentary procedure is concerned, but the small nibbling away at our parliamentary processes.
This has been said before but I repeat it now. The only argument which has been advanced in defence of this measure, and it was done in a halfhearted and feeble fashion by those spokesmen on the government side who usually tackle points of discussion with vigour and enthusiasm, was that of administrative efficiency and, in other words, the streamlining of the parliamentary process. If that is the objective why not do away with parliamentary discussion altogether? The basis of our democratic parliamentary system is the public discussion of important issues. Because of that fact, Mr. Chairman, I would very strongly urge hon. members of this house to adhere to the same principle in regard to the control of the salary of the members of the pension board as that which applies to the judiciary in Canada at the present time; for this board, as has already been pointed out, is more or less a semijudicial body.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I very seldom take any part in a debate on veterans affairs because in this group we have a number of members who make a study of veterans legislation and bills of this kind are usually left to them to our entire satisfaction. I am not speaking now because I am not satisfied with what has been said on this matter by the hon. member for Cape Breton South; I am merely supporting the position he has taken.
fMr. Dinsdale.l
From the moment I saw this provision in the bill when it was first introduced in the house I felt it was a proposal that should be opposed by every hon. member in this house who has any concern for the freedom of members of parliament and for increasing the influence of parliament in our life. I think it is a most dangerous thing to have a body such as the pension commission have its salary set without reference to this house. I have had considerable dealings with the pension commission at various times and always of a satisfactory nature. By that I do not mean that they were always able to provide a satisfactory solution to the problems I put before them, but I am quite sure they provided a satisfactory solution in so far as they were able to do so within the ambit of the legislation. But now we are not to be allowed to have some say on the salary of the commission members. That being the case I do not see how we can have any say in setting the salaries for other commissions. I would urge the government not to force this bill through the house on a majority vote. That would be doing violence to the constitution of this house.
Such bills, as an hon. member said over here a few moments ago, do not come up every year or several times a year. Increases in salary, or decreases-and that might happen some time in the future if things keep on going the way they are now-come up only on occasion, and if hon. members do not take a little time to debate the issue then it is not worth while. I would therefore urge the government as strongly as I can to take another look at this matter and leave the act as it was in this respect.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Mr. Chairman, while there may not be very much to add to the arguments that have been advanced I wish to put myself on record as supporting the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and others who have spoken. In the last few days I have received several letters from branches of the Canadian Legion in my part of the country inquiring whether I was supporting the Canadian Legion brief. I have had no hesitation in saying that I am supporting their brief, because I am sure what they ask is quite reasonable.
As regards this particular legislation I think the government has advanced a very weak argument by claiming it is not important. If it is not important then why ask us to pass it? I have heard that argument advanced now with respect to several pieces of legislation recently and it seems to me the government should not bring in any legislation which is not important. That was the argument advanced with regard to the

National Harbours Board Act. If that is the case, who is wasting the time of the house? If the government brings in legislation that is not important we are not going to get anything but criticism from the Canadian Legion and the veterans. If the government says this is not important then they are going to come to the conclusion that what any member of the government party or any member of this parliament says is not important.
Without spending any time whatsoever on the matter, may I say that I think those who are responsible for bringing this legislation forward should take another look at that particular section because it is not going to be popular. There may not be any harm done, but it leaves the impression that harm can be done; and I do not think it is a good type of legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, for the last two hours or almost two hours the committee has been listening to criticism with regard to this unusual piece of legislation. The Prime Minister has been here in the chamber. I remember so well the Prime Minister, when he was president of the Canadian Bar Association, expressing himself in the strongest possible terms on the need for the preservation of the independence of all judicial and quasi-judicial institutions. The minister may say that he has not yet had an opportunity of answering the question that is in the minds of the members of this chamber, particularly of those who view changes such as this one as major intrusions on the independence of boards that should be above any suggestion of executive control. Surely the minister can answer an extremely simple question. I am sure no hon. member on this side of the house will interfere with him or prevent him from rising and having the opportunity to do so. Indeed at this very moment, if the minister will rise and answer one question, I will give him the opportunity to do so.
The question is this. Why is this power asked for? What is the reason for this change? Why are the salaries to be fixed by the governor in council or the cabinet? What has the government in mind? What is it afraid of? Certainly we now sit long enough to enable measures such as this to be introduced. Why does a measure like this find its way on the order paper in the last days of the session if the purpose is not to push it through? We want to know why the government asks for legislation that the veterans of Canada do not want. My own branch of the Canadian Legion, as well as practically every other branch of it, has taken its stand against this legislation. What is the government trying to do? Is it trying
Pension Act
to pronounce the death warrant on the judicial independence of this commission? Is it trying to make this institution that has been above politics a meaningless fiction in so far as independence is concerned? The minister is here. He could answer that question simply.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: But he will not do it.


John George Diefenbaker: His parliamentary assistant is with him. Indeed the matter is of so serious consequence that I am surprised that the Prime Minister, during the time he has been here, has not seen fit to rise in his place and explain why this measure is introduced. Why stultify this commission? Why place it under the control of the cabinet? Why make it a pawn? I know that the people of this country must be beginning to realize the fact that this government has developed a deep-rooted tendency to invade the rights of the individual and to destroy the independence of many of our institutions. Why apply legislation such as this to the one body in this country that has been above political considerations, namely the pension commission? Those are questions to which I think any fair-minded person would ask an answer.
Is this commission to become a pawn to be pushed around and to be controlled by the cabinet? That is the power, if it is granted by parliament, that will conceivably be placed in the custody of the cabinet. If one of the members of the commission does not act as the government would have him act, what is there to prevent, by order in council, reducing that person's salary or the commissioners' salaries in general? What is the purpose of this legislation?
I have sat here and listened to the debate. Even the chairman of the veterans affairs committee is here. I have heard him fulminate in the Saskatchewan legislature against this kind of thing. 1 have heard him speak of the danger to democracy in control over commissions and boards. I hope he will rise now and give this committee the benefit of his experience in that legislature in which he over and over again spoke of the danger of control by the executive over the instruments set up independently to administer the law. I cannot believe that he supports this measure. I should like him to make one of the speeches he made in the legislature of Saskatchewan. Powerful speeches they were and powerful were they in their arguments. I should like him to make here in this chamber one of those speeches against this measure which constitutes one of the most

Pension Act
serious invasions of the power of a quasijudicial body that has ever been brought before the House of Commons.


William Earl Rowe: He likely will.


John George Diefenbaker: There are other ministers here besides the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I should like them to speak on this measure.


William Earl Rowe: The Minister of Agriculture.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like them to speak on the power of the executive to control a body created by itself by having within its control the right to determine the salaries to be fixed. I remember hearing the late Mr. King speak so often about the rights of the individual and the need for the preservation of the independence of bodies set up by the crown and of their freedom from invasion by the executive and the representatives of the crown. If ever there was a piece of legislation that has within its simple wording the threat of the undermining of the independence of one of the greatest bodies that has been free from political influence within our country, it is this one. That threat is contained in these simple words: The chairman, the deputy chairman, and the other commissioners and ad hoc commissioners shall each be paid a salary to be fixed by the governor in council. As far as we are concerned, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. It may be late in the session but this is one thing we are going to fight in order to maintain the independence of judicial commissions and quasi-judicial bodies.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, I think we are indebted to the members of the House of Commons who served on the veterans affairs committee and to other hon. members who have also spoken this evening in drawing the attention of the committee to this legislation which they and others of us find to be objectionable. I am happy to be able to participate in this debate because I have been waiting for over a year to have another word with the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It is just over a year ago that we had an exchange of opinions in the House of Commons, when the minister was at great pains to point out to me that he had nothing to do with the pension commission, that he had no jurisdiction over it and that he could not interfere with it in any way, although I did not ask him to do so. He was very emphatic in indicating to the house that the commission was an independent body and that the minister had nothing whatever to do with it. As evidence of that let us look at his words as found on pages 5136 and 5137 of Hansard

of May 11, 1953. The minister was replying to me in the course of our exchange of information and he said this:
The hon. member also knows that this parliament has given the Canadian pension commission sole authority and exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate on all claims under the Pension Act. As minister I cannot make any comment on any of the decisions of the commission, nor can I intervene.
Then he goes on to say:
I believe this was wise legislation on the part of parliament. Otherwise it can readily be seen that if a minister could intervene in any of the decisions of the commission his office would be used as an appeal court on all pension matters where applicants were not dealt with as they felt they should have been.
Then he concludes with this sentence:
This legislation was passed by parliament as a result of requests by veteran groups.
I think that was a clear exposition of the position of the pension commission and of the position of the minister. Why are we now faced with the situation where the minister wants the power to intervene in some way with the pension commission, the power to intervene, as other members have pointed out tonight, through the medium of the salaries of the commissioners? If this clause is passed the Minister of Veterans Affairs will have something to say with regard to the pension commission. Last year he had nothing to say and wanted to have nothing to say. He did not want anybody to express opinions to him with regard to findings of the pension commission and so on. He washed his hands of the pension commission. Why does he now wish to have something to do with the pension commission?
A few minutes ago the hon. member for Prince Albert said-and I think these are his words-that the government now asks for legislation that the veterans of Canada do not want. A year ago the minister pointed out that this legislation was passed by parliament as a result of requests by veterans' groups. If the legislation was passed by parliament in response to the requests of veterans' groups and through all these years has been considered very satisfactory, why is the government now attempting to do something that is contrary to the wishes of the veterans' groups? We are hoping that we will have an explanation from the minister with regard to the encroachment upon the pension commission that will be achieved if this particular clause passes which will give to the governor in council a means of influencing the pension commission.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am rather surprised at the violent tone that the debate on this particular section

of the bill to amend the Pension Act has at times assumed. When second reading of the bill took place I had the illusion that I had very simply and clearly explained the reason for this amendment. I explained at the time that the only purpose in amending section 2 of the Pension Act, which at the present time fixes the salaries of the members of the pension commission, so that these salaries would be determined by the governor in council was to make the act more flexible in administration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hugues Lapointe: My hon. friends may laugh but I suggest that if many of them had to wait a couple of years until parliament made up its mind to give them an increase in salary to which they were entitled they possibly would not laugh so much. I explained at the time that it was solely for the purpose of being able to adjust the salaries of the pension commissioners in the same manner as adjustments are made from time to time among senior civil servants who belong to the same class of salaried government employees. I explained that in the past occasions had arisen where general increases had taken place but where members of the pension commission had not obtained the increase immediately and had to wait for a pretty long period of time until the Pension Act was amended so that they could benefit from the general increase given throughout the country.
That is the only purpose. We have heard hon. members opposite say that by introducing such an amendment to the Pension Act the government is challenging the independence of the pension commission. It has also been said that we are taking away from parliament the right to vote moneys and are going to do it by order in council.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that almost every member of the house is very well acquainted with the members of the Canadian pension commission. I would suggest that almost every hon. member has had to deal with the Canadian pension commission and has been able to satisfy himself as to the integrity and independence of every member of the commission. I doubt that any hon. member opposite would think that any member of that commission which adjudicates on the pensions to be given to veterans would be affected by the fact that the government has introduced this amendment to section 2 of the act.
It is all very nice to attack the government by saying that by such an amendment we are challenging the independence of the commission, but how is the commission
Pension Act
created? Subsection 8 of section 3 of the Pension Act is the one which, so to speak, constitutes the commission so far as terms of appointment are concerned, and it reads as follows:
Each commissioner, except an ad hoc commissioner, holds office during good behaviour for a period of ten years from the date of his appointment, or for such lesser period as may be specified by the governor in council in the instrument of his appointment or reappointment, but any commissioner, including an ad hoc commissioner, is removable at any time for cause by the governor in council.
That section has been in the act for I do not know how many years, certainly for many years before I had the privilege of holding the portfolio of Minister of Veterans Affairs. In other words, each one of these commissioners is appointed by order in council. He can be appointed for a year; he can be appointed for two, five or ten years, but not more than ten years. When his term of appointment is up, even if it is an appointment for one year he can be reappointed only by order in council, and should any reason arise, which fortunately has never happened, he can be removed by order in council.
Now, I sincerely ask hon. members in what manner will the present amendment add something that will affect the independence of that commission? Hon. members say we are taking away the responsibility of parliament to control money. They all know that as the matter stands now the salaries of these commissioners are provided by statute, and become a statutory item in the estimates. Parliament, from year to year, does not even consider the statutory item covering the salaries of the commissioners. If these salaries are fixed by order in council, every year the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who is responsible for providing funds to administer the commission, has to come before this house and request approval of the necessary funds to pay the commissioners' salaries. Every year hon. members who are so ardent in their defence of the right of parliament have occasion to either approve, diminish or make any suggestion concerning the salaries of the commissioners they desire, whereas they would not have that opportunity under the present statute.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion that is the crux of the question. I repeat that I believe every hon. member who has to deal with the Canadian pension commission will admit this body has always been above political considerations. I can assure hon. members in this house that if I had thought for one minute that by bringing forward this

Pension Act
amendment I was challenging the independence, the autonomy of that body, I would not have recommended it to my colleagues in the government.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have listened with interest to the arguments that have been made on this side and now with even greater interest to the arguments of the minister. I was struck, first of all, with the phrase he used as an excuse for this change, that it would be more flexible in administration. Of course, every acquisition of power makes things more flexible in administration; that is a classic argument which could be used in eroding all the power, such as it is, that is still left in parliament. I do not think that argument carries us very far.
Secondly, we come to another classic red herring, and that is the character of the commissioners; by seeking to maintain a principle apparently we are assailing the characters of the commissioners. That was a red herring which I thought was very unworthy of the minister. Nobody on this side is assailing the character of the commissioners. What we are trying to do is prevent a situation arising where it may become more and more difficult for them to discharge the duties that are left to them. Those were the chief points, it seemed to me, the minister made. So far as I was concerned, they did not even begin to answer the arguments which were made on this side.


Mr. Hahn:: I would say section 2 of Bill No. 339, if it is passed, will probably be the most important piece of legislation that this house has had the privilege of passing. I make that claim in this particular respect because I remember for so many years teaching that one of the fundamental principles of every parliament under the British empire is the control of the purse strings. From the time of King John to the time of the Westminster Act of 1911, it was a struggle for the people of Britain to try to get control of those purse strings. If there are 200 members in this house today, every one of them should be getting up here and saying, "No!", in no uncertain terms.
I feel very strongly, despite what the minister has said, Mr. Chairman, that this part of the bill should not be passed under any circumstances. I would go so far as to say that it will be possibly the darkest day of this great Liberal government about which we have heard so much-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frederick George Hahn: -if this ever does become law.


Hugues Lapointe: I will take you up on that.
XMr. Lapointe.]


Frederick George Hahn: You will possibly wish you had not taken me up on that. I will say, sir, that there is more at stake in this thing than meets the eye. Nobody is questioning the integrity of the pension commission. Nobody in this house, whether they are on this side of the house or whether they are on that side of the house feels that our pension commission is not one of the best Canada will ever have. What we are questioning is the fact that the power to grant money by order in council should be given to any government, whether it happens to be the Social Credit government we shall have some day or whether it happens to be the present Liberal government.


An hon. Member:: You are spoiling your case now.


Frederick George Hahn: I am not spoiling my case one little bit. I stand for one principle in this house. The people have sent me here to guard their rights. Whether or not I return here at another time is not an essential matter. I want to know that the man who is sent here to represent us will have control of the purse strings that I expect him to have. I do not except this government or any government to take it upon itself to say, "We are the masters". The power was lost to us for so many centuries until 1911 that I do not think we have the right to turn around and say to this government, "It is yours for the having, gentlemen".


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister devoted the major portion of his remarks to trying to refute the arguments which had been made on this side of the house as to why this is a bad piece of legislation, and as to why it would impair the independence of the Canadian pension commission. He attempted to make only one argument in favour of this change. He said that it was solely, and these are his words, to adjust the salaries from time to time; that was the only purpose for making this change. The salaries of the pension commission could be changed readily from time to time whenever there was a general change in the civil service.
I cannot see that that argument has any validity whatever. Every year for the last nine years parliament has been in session for about six months in each year. This leaves only a short period of time during which, if an increase or decrease in civil service salaries had been decided upon, the pension commission would have to wait before that increase or decrease could be made applicable to the commission. In other words, the only argument advanced in favour of this change is no argument at all. It is quite apparent that a delay of three or four months or even the full six months,

would not constitute any injustice, which it was inferred by the minister had been caused the pension commissioners in the past. The bill could be introduced and the matter submitted to the scrutiny of parliament, as it always has been in the past, and as it is in connection with judges' salaries. I think there is no question that that procedure we have used in the past should be followed in the future.
In considering veterans legislation, both in the House of Commons and in the committee on veterans affairs, the primary test applied has been this: Will it benefit the veterans? If we applied that test to this piece of legislation I do not think one member on the government side of the house would get up and say that this change will benefit the veterans. There is no benefit to the veterans involved in this matter at all; and there is a very great danger of the opposite effect. In other words, there is danger of the veteran having to suffer as a result of this legislation, because of a loss of independence on the part of the commission.
As evidenced by the brief submitted by the Legion, from which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra read, a large number of veterans in this country believe that a change in the method of setting the salaries of the commissioners is going to or might affect their interests. They will have less confidence in the pension commission if this goes through than they have had heretofore.
As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Greenwood no one on this side of the house has attacked the pension commission. No one on this side of the house has attacked its integrity, nor has anyone any ideas along that line. I do not know why the Minister of Veterans Affairs has introduced into this discussion something which has been described by the hon. member for Greenwood as a red herring. The matter of the integrity of the pension commission is not involved here at all. One of the chief reasons why we on this side of the house have been so insistent upon preventing the passage of this provision has been to protect the integrity of the pension commission, and to safeguard the high esteem in which they have been held by the veterans in this country, in the hope that it may continue into the future.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs referred to the method of appointment. I would ask him this question: Essentially, what difference is there between the method of appointment of members of the pension commission and the method of appointment of judges? They are both appointed by the government in power
Pension Act
at the time. But certainly the Minister of Justice is not suggesting-and I hope he will not suggest-that the salaries of judges should be set by order in council. The only difference between the appointment of members of the pension commission and those of the judiciary is that in the one case the appointment is for ten years, or such lesser term as is provided, while in the other case-


An hon. Member:: There is a big difference.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -the appointment is made during good behaviour. They are both appointed, of course, during good behaviour.


An hon. Member:: No.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In the case of judges there can be a removal from office by an address; in the case of members of the pension commission, they can be removed by the governor in council, for cause, only. That is the only difference. But that argument, that there is a slight difference in the method of appointment, really has no bearing on the question we are considering, that of whether salaries should be set by parliament, as they have been up to this date, or whether we should turn that over as a prerogative of the government.
I would certainly hope that the government would reconsider this matter and allow the situation to remain in the satisfactory condition in which it has been ever since the pension commission has been in operation.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Chairman, the only reaoon the minister gave, so far as I could discover, was that he did not want parliament to delay any request the government might make for increasing the salaries of the commissioners. He asked the question how we would like our indemnities to be held up for two years. I think the minister should tell us when the House of Commons held up an increase in commissioners' salaries for two years, when that request had been made by the government. If there is any such case on record, then the minister should give us the actual date of that request.


Hugues Lapointe: That is not the statement I made.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The integrity of the commissioners is not questioned. What will happen is that this legislation will give the government and the minister just a little more control, a little more power over that commission. No matter how the commission acts or what decision it may make, veterans across this country will suspect that the commission is under the thumb of the governor

Pension Act
in council, and that it is carrying out government policy instead of the independent policy of the commission.


Mr, Diefenbaker:: Mr. Chairman, I was
interested in an expression used by the minister. His explanation of the reason for the legislation was a need of flexibility. I find the definition of the word "flexible" in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is this: "That will bend without breaking; pliant, easily led, manageable." I was wondering whether that is what he had in mind, because that is exactly what we have suggested-that the placing of this power in the hands of the government would make it possible for the government to exercise control. I would ask the minister this question:	What has happened in the last year or so that has accelerated this demand for flexibility in the legislation? Has any member of the commission been almost lost because of a lack of flexibility? What is the reason for the haste in this legislation? What has taken place that has demanded this drastic action which, in my opinion, denies the inviolability of this institution? I think the house would listen with keen interest to the minister were he just to reveal what has happened that has placed the government in a position where it has decided that a commission that has been in existence for more than 30 years must have its constitutional background completely changed. What event has placed the government in the position of demanding this so-called flexibility?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Hugues Lapointe: I think I have already given the explanation. As I said before, it is simple. My hon. friend has referred to my use of the word "flexibility". Maybe it was not the right word; my knowledge of English is not as extensive as his. But I used it in opposition to the word "rigidity". He might read that in the dictionary, and find out what it means.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a very interesting contrast which the minister suggests.


Hugues Lapointe: The contrast between
Liberals and Conservatives.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes; the Liberals are so flexible that they can disregard completely all principles. But the point is that the pension commission was set up on certain principles. And those principles were that, under the control of parliament-not under the control of this government-the commission should do the best possible job for the veterans. And it is that principle which we would like to see adhered to.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And what does that mean?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It means what it says. Possibly the Minister of Finance cannot understand the meaning of words. I do not think I used any word of more than four letters.


Hugues Lapointe: Four-letter words, from the comics?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If there is any word the minister does not understand, I will be glad to explain it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, I understand the words; I did not understand what the sentence meant, though.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The house and country will understand very well what the sentence meant, and the principle I have in mind. The principle, of course, is that the affairs of the Canadian pension commission, including the salaries of the commissioners, shall be under the control of parliament. That is the principle which has been followed since the end of the first world war until the present time. It is a principle which the government now seeks to change by the bill before us, and in no particular is it more substantially changed than by the provision that salaries of the commissioners shall be in the gift of the government, so that parliament itself loses control to that extent over the salaries of the Canadian pension commission. The minister himself used the word "flexible". That is an interesting word. He said he used it in contrast to the word "rigidity". I suggest to him and to the government that with respect to its control over the salaries of the Canadian pension commission this parliament desires rigidly, or should desire rigidly, to insist upon its right to say what shall happen in respect to the Canadian pension commission and in respect to all affairs of the Canadian pension commission, than which of course there can be no more important aspect than the state of their salaries.
It would be interesting, Mr. Chairman, to hear from the minister in what way the affairs of the commission have been prejudiced by what I can only take from the minister's words to have been found by experience to be undue rigidity. Are the commissioners less able to look after the interests of the veterans because their salaries are rigidly fixed? Would it conduce better to the conduct of the affairs of the commission and the awarding of pensions if their salaries were to be flexible? Is that the suggestion the minister makes? I should hardly think so, and yet I would be interested to hear him explain what other interpretation we are to put upon his words.
The minister suggested a moment ago that there was some effort here to indicate that

perhaps he did not use the English language with due facility. I wish I used the French language with the same facility that the minister uses the English language; I do indeed. The minister knows fairly well that we are not seeking to catch him out. What we are trying to do is to find the meaning and the final result of the change in the statute which he himself has introduced, and he needs no quarter on account of the use of the English language.
What then does the minister mean? Does he mean that the affairs of the commission have been unduly hampered by the fact that the salaries of the commission are set by parliament? If that is not the meaning, for what reason is this bill introduced and this provision made necessary? I should like to hear the minister say how the affairs or the administration of the commission's responsibility are prejudiced by the fact that its salaries are set by parliament at the present time.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the committee ready for the question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the minister did not hear my question because he was engaged in conversation at the moment with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Hugues Lapointe: I heard the hon. member's question; I could not help hearing it. He repeated it many times in a different form. He made allusion to a statement that I was purported to have made and which I did not make in the course of my remarks.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister will appreciate that I was not a member of the veterans affairs committee, owing to the fact the government has unduly restricted the size of its membership, and therefore I have not had the advantage of those previous exchanges with the minister; but I have asked him a perfectly simple question which is capable of a perfectly simple answer, if there were an answer. In what way have the activities of the commission, in the discharge of its responsibility, been unduly restricted by the fact that its salaries are set by act of parliament?


Hugues Lapointe: I never made the statement that they were.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am asking for an answer to the question.


Hugues Lapointe: I am answering you.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry, the minister does not understand. I never suggested he had made that statement. I am asking him in what way would the discharge of its responsibility by the commission be impeded if the
Pension Act
statute were not being changed? In what way would they be less better able to discharge their responsibility if we left things as they are now, instead of making this change?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, it has nothing to do with this clause, and my hon. friend knows it. This statute, which creates the pension commission, and gives the right to the pension commission to adjudicate on veterans pensions, like other similar statutes, has to have sections which determine how salaries are paid. That is the only amendment that is being made, and regardless of whether the amendment is passed by this chamber, or whether the present section remains, it has nothing to do with the flexibility or the rigidity that the commission might have in making awards of pensions to veterans, and my hon. friend knows it as well as I do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is exactly what I have-


Hugues Lapointe: But nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, if I may continue, like any other one of these bills we must have sections that look after the administration of the body, and this is one of them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In what way does it look after the affairs of the public better than the present position?


Hugues Lapointe: That is a matter of opinion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am asking the minister to explain. We are always open to conviction.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You were not here earlier.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are always open to conviction.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Read Hansard tomorrow.


Hugues Lapointe: Read Hansard tomorrow and you will find out.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is very easy to say: "Read Hansard tomorrow" but to say "read Hansard tomorrow" does not indicate that the explanation will be any more valid than it is at the moment, so far as we have had it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Don't answer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Finance says "don't answer". That is a typical attitude of the Minister of Finance, "don't answer".


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member should have spent the evening here instead of somewhere else.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Other members of the Liberal party say "sit down".

Pension Act


Douglas Charles Abbott: If my hon. friend had been here and listened he would realize that the answer has been given two or three times already.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Casselman:: When did you come in?


Frank Exton Lennard: How long have you been here?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If an answer has been given, and if the answer is a valid one, then why should the Minister of Finance be unwilling to have it repeated? But he says "don't answer" because he knows there is no valid answer. I suppose we are left with the situation as it has existed so often before, that where the affairs of veterans are concerned, as where the affairs of so many others of the Canadian people are concerned, control is to be removed from the House of Commons and from parliament and to be invested in the governor in council, the government. That may be the formula of words advanced by the government in explanation of this provision, but I assure you, sir, that it is not a satisfactory answer to us in the official opposition and will not be accepted as a satisfactory answer by the veterans and the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Howard Charles Green: I have been very disappointed that we have had no word of support for this proposed change from one government supporter on the veterans affairs committee. We had the parliamentary assistant there; we had the hon. member for Spadina and we had many other leading lights from the government side of the house. And yet not one of those hon. members has stood up in this debate to try to justify this change because they know it cannot be justified.
We have had the minister stand up and try to justify it. The minister did not attend the meetings of the committee very often; he was there once or twice. There have been ministers of veterans affairs who have attended all the meetings of the veterans affairs committees. I recall that the late Right Hon. Ian Mackenzie invariably-


Hugues Lapointe: I did not think you could be so small.


Howard Charles Green: -attended meetings of the veterans affairs committee and took great interest in them. The present Minister of Veterans Affairs does not even bother to do that.


An hon. Member:: Dirty!


Douglas Charles Abbott: Shame!


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Finance is interrupting here to give his views about what other people should do. Let him stand on his feet once in a while and make a proper interjection so we may be able to deal with him.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He will stand on his feet when he needs to.


Howard Charles Green: Here we have government members who were actually on that committee and who sat in on all the proceedings and yet not one will get up on his feet to justify this change.


An hon. Member:: They are ashamed.


Howard Charles Green: Of course they are ashamed. When the minister spoke he let the cat out of the bag.


Mr. MacDougall:: A tom cat?


Howard Charles Green: Some cat is right. He explained why they are making the change. He wants to raise the salaries of the pension commissioners and he is adopting this method of doing so. He could very easily have written into the bill before he presented it to the house the amount he wishes to pay the pension commissioners. That has been the course that has been followed in other years. But he did not bother to do that. He wanted this flexible method of doing it through the cabinet. Members of the house will then have no control.
He then compared the pension commissioners to senior civil servants and in doing so he demonstrated his utter failure to realize the judicial nature of this pension commission. The pension commission is not an administrative body. The administrative work in the Department of Veterans Affairs is carried out by the deputy minister and his assistants. The pension commission is a judicial body but despite this fact the minister gets up in this house and attempts to compare the pension commission with senior civil servants who are doing administrative work. That is exactly where we part company with the minister on this suggestion-


Hugues Lapointe: I did nothing of the sort.


Howard Charles Green: -that salaries should be set by the governor in council rather than by parliament. He failed entirely to appreciate the fact that one other similar board under our governmental structure, namely the board of transport commissioners, have their salaries set by statute. Just a year or so ago we increased the salaries of the members of the board of transport commissioners, which is a body very much like the board of pension commissioners. It has a great deal of judicial

work to do and it is important, in order that the board of transport commissioners may retain the confidence of the people who appear before them, that they should be completely independent. Their salaries are set by statute and an increase was provided for them during the 1951 session. I have here chapter 22 which amended the Railway Act and which was introduced during the second session of parliament in 1951. There we find that the new section 26, subsection 1, written into the Railway Act reads as follows:
The chief commissioner shall be paid an annual salary equal to the salary of the President of the Exchequer Court; the assistant chief commissioner shall be paid an annual salary of fourteen thousand dollars, the deputy chief commissioner shall be paid an annual salary of thirteen thousand dollars, and each of the other commissioners shall be paid an annual salary of twelve thousand dollars.
In the minister's own department there is another board similar to the pension commission which has salaries set by statute. I refer to the war veterans allowance board. The salaries of the members of that board are not set by order in council, but are written into the War Veterans Allowance Act. If that is justifiable, and I think it is, then the salaries of the board of pension commissioners should be treated in exactly the same fashion.
Once again I urge the Prime Minister and the members of the government to take a second look at this particular section. Some of them at least must realize that they are running a grave risk of weakening the standing of the Canadian pension commission in this country by making this change. Every one of them must realize that this is a derogation of the rights of parliament and that it is against the best interests of the veterans of this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I have listened attentively in the hope that we would have one word of explanation as to why there should be a departure from the ordinary practice of fixing the amount paid to those who will serve the people on appointment by the government in this case. But not one single reason or justification of any kind for this departure from the established practice has been put forward.
The statements that have been made have in no way answered the suggestion that the minister should tell us why this is necessary. Has any member of the board of pension commissioners said that he was going to resign because of the present salary? Is there any person about to be appointed who
Pension Act
will not be appointed if the salaries remain as they are? These would be reasons if the minister could state that that was so. If it is not so, and there requires to be an increase, then let him say so:
But not one reason has been put forward. If the idea that the government can deal more easily with those persons under an arrangement of this kind is to be taken as a valid arrangement then is it possible that the reason we have not got the bill to amend the Judges Act before us is that the government is perhaps going to fix the salaries of the judges by order in council? Do not let the Minister of Justice laugh. This is just as much a departure from the established practice as would be the decision to fix the salaries of the judges by order in council.
We have been wondering why that bill, which was announced so long ago, is still withheld from the knowledge of members of parliament. Is that the reason? If this is such a good reason then is the government going to come before us and say they would have a chance of getting better admirals, better generals, and better air marshals if they were able to deal privately with these senior men by order in council?


An hon. Member:: It would be more flexible.


George Alexander Drew: It would be more flexible, there is no question about that. But the very asking of that question indicates the extent to which we would break down the authority of parliament over those senior officials who carry out the functions which are allotted to them by parliament itself.
Before we are called upon to vote on a clause of this kind, Mr. Chairman, the minister should give some explanation. No explanation of any kind has been given. There can be no possible answer to the people of Canada if we are called upon to vote in committee, as the situation stands, except that the government bit by bit is whittling away at the authority of parliament and without explanation is going to use their majority to impair the rights of parliament still further.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, if a person looked around this house this evening and attempted to find out what all the debate was about he would probably find it in what has been said here so often, namely that the rights of members of parliament who represent the people are being infringed upon. The surest sign that the government is losing touch with the people is when it attempts to endanger the democratic processes of parliament and curtail the power of the members sent here who have as much right to

Pension Act
have a say in the spending of the money of the people as have the members of the government. They were not given any prior right to stand up and order the affairs of this government in the secret and quiet precincts of the cabinet.
Hon. members who recognize this measure as a threat to their rights should stand up here and protest. If they do not do so, it is only to be assumed that they agree that this is the right thing to do. Posterity is built on such things as this. In the history of democracy and its growth the story of demagogues, men who grew and obtained power because they wanted the flexibility to do things that would override democratic rights, is old. Historically when people stand up and oppose this procedure they are doing the thing that is right and are making a contribution to democracy. Members on this side of the house from end to end are going to oppose this legislation with everything they have. This government can remember that we stood up here and opposed it because we believed it was the right thing to do. The people of Canada should know that we are opposing this measure because we look upon it as a threat to the very basic and fundamental democratic principles.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Alfred Robinson: In view of the fact that the debate has been a somewhat protracted one, perhaps I should read the question which is on the amendment of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration moves:
That section 2 of Bill No. 339 be amended by striking out subsection 1 thereof and substituting the following:
(I)	Subsection 11 of section 3 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(II)	The chairman, deputy chairman, and other commissioners and the ad hoc commissioners shall each be paid a salary to be fixed by the governor in council, except that the salary to be paid to the ad hoc commissioners and the said other commissioners shall be fixed at the same rate.
Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Alfred Robinson: Those in favour of the amendment will kindly rise. Those opposed to the amendment will kindly rise.
Amendment agreed to: Yeas, 82; nays, 58.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the amendment carried. Shall clause 2 as amended carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, on the clause as amended, may I say that it occurs to me that the government has at one stroke, by

the very amendment which it has now forced through the committee, destroyed the whole argument against the section as amended. The Minister of Veterans Affairs, if he has attempted to advance any justification at all, -and the justification is inadequate-has suggested that the present provision of the statute is somehow or other detrimental to the affairs of the commission because it imposes an undue rigidity. Yet by the very same amendment which the government itself has now forced through the committee, it has imposed upon it the rigidity which, with respect to the whole section, it seeks to suggest is not proper, in that the government says that it will be rigidly bound with respect to the salaries of ad hoc commissioners. If it is proper to have rigidity in one branch of this matter, why is it not proper to have rigidity in the whole section and to have the salaries of all the commissioners fixed by parliament in the statute instead of by the governor in council?
Of the absurdity and the unsound nature of the government's argument in favour of forcing through this section and of imposing its will and its desire to make the pension commission the creature of the government instead of parliament, there can be no more complete illustration than the amendment which the government itself has just moved. If, Mr. Chairman, the principle of rigidity in one part of the section is appropriate and proper, then why should not the salaries of all the commissioners, including the chairman, the deputy chairman and the ad hoc commissioners, be fixed by parliament? Why should they not accept that measure of rigidity? The measure of rigidity consists only in this. If the government is prepared to go before parliament and to justify the need for an increase in the salaries of the commissioners, then it could be obtained; but without justification, if the act stood as it at present stands, of course that increase could not be obtained. Hence the only possible support or justification for the present amendment represented by this bill is that the government wishes or may wish to give increases which are not justified and which it fears to put before parliament because it knows they would not receive the approval of parliament.
I hope that the Prime Minister himself, who has come in just at this stage where the amendment moved by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has indicated how unfounded is this fear of rigidity, will realize that the very proposition which the government has just advanced and put through the committee indicates the unwarranted nature of the amendment represented by the whole

of section 2 as amended. Since the Minister of Veterans Affairs has unfortunately not been prepared to advance any justification for this section on the merits of the situation, now that the Prime Minister is here I hope that he himself may possibly agree that the section will be taken under consideration, that the government will be willing to think over what has been advanced from this side of the house and to bring in tomorrow a proposal which would have the result of restoring to parliament its control over the affairs of the Canadian pension commission.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause as
amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In deference to the Prime Minister and in view of the suggestion I have just made, I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to call it ten o'clock.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Do not be so considerate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do so in order that the right hon. gentleman may have the opportunity to think the matter over tonight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is heaping coals of fire upon their heads.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall I report progress and request leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we
shall take the third readings that are ready. Then we have two bills, one with reference to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and
Business of the House
the other respecting extra-provincial motor vehicle transport, both of which we should like to take some time during the day, but we would have to fit them in to suit the convenience of hon. members. Then we will move to go into supply, taking first trade and commerce as was understood today. I hesitate to name many other departments, but we shall take national revenue and secretary of state, in that order, after we dispose of trade and commerce, then we shall take any others that there may be time for.


William Earl Rowe: What shall we do during the rest of the day?


George Clyde Nowlan: Do you not plan to sit tomorrow night?


Mr. Speaker:: Votes and Proceedings for yesterday, Monday, June 7, are to be corrected because of some clerical errors in the division list. On page 710 the word "nays" should read "yeas". On page 711 the word "yeas" should read "nays". On page 711 the name of Mr. Henderson should be inserted in the list of nays and the name of Mr. Anderson should be deleted. Hansard should also be corrected at page 5560 by inserting the name of Mr. Henderson in the list of nays and by deleting the name of Mr. Anderson. These are clerical errors. Is it agreed that the Clerk of the House be instructed to have the appropriate corrections made wherever they are necessary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting, but I omitted to state that after third readings tomorrow morning we will continue with this debate.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.