1957-03-04

ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Minister of National Defence, may I be allowed to make a short statement with reference to the tragic air accident which occurred near Uplands airfield at Ottawa last Friday night.
The deaths of the commanding officer of air materiel command and seven other officers and men aboard the aircraft are serious losses to our Royal Canadian Air Force and to our country, and I would like, on behalf of the Minister of National Defence and, I am sure, of all members of this house, to express deep sympathy with those who have been so tragically bereaved.
A thorough investigation into the cause of the accident has been launched.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in connection with the statement he made on behalf of the Minister of National Defence concerning the crash of an air bomber. In view of the fact that in recent days two aircraft of this type have crashed, may I ask the minister whether or not in the interests of our air crews all other such aircraft now in service are being grounded pending investigation?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the question to the attention of my colleague.



HIS EXCELLENCY GUY MOLLET


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green):
That the address of His Excellency Guy Mollet, Prime Minister of France, delivered before the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons of Canada in the chamber of the House of Commons on March 4, 1957, together with introductory and related speeches, be included in the House of Commons Debates and form part of the permanent records of this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(For text of address above referred to, see appendix, pages 1867-72.)


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 208, to amend the Immigration Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The purpose of the bill is to provide a uniform method of dealing with appeals from the decisions of immigration officers, and to provide for publication of the proceedings on such appeals.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HEALTH INSURANCE


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize contributions to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund to provinces in respect of costs incurred by them in providing insured hospital and diagnostic services pursuant to provincial law and to agreements made in accordance with the said measure, to commence when at least six provinces, containing at least half the population of Canada, have entered into such agreements and qualified for the receipt of such contributions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. If he feels it should be taken as notice I have no doubt that is what he will do. In view of preiss reports of concern expressed by at least

Inquiries of the Ministry two of the provincial premiers, can the minister say whether it is true that payments under the hospital insurance plan cannot be made to any province until all six agreeing provinces have their plans in operation, or will it be made clear that once six provinces have agreed to the plan federal payments can and will be made to those provinces whose plans are in operation?


Walter Edward Harris: I will take it as notice, Mr. Speaker.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Zaplitny:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and/or any other communications exchanged between the federal government or any department thereof, and the government of Manitoba or any of its departments, since January 1, 1956, with respect to port facilities and grain terminals at the lakehead.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Winters:: Subject to the usual reservation, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, subject to the usual reservation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address two related questions to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The questions are, will the price rebates for export flour announced over the week end place Canadian millers in a position to compete with United States millers, and to what extent does this move mean the institution of a two-price system for wheat and flour in Canada?


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to these questions I might give the house some of the background that led up to the new policy with respect to flour which was decided upon by the Canadian wheat board and announced on March 1.
First of all, I should state that exports of wheat from Canada in the form of flour amount to about 40 million bushels per year. It is a considerable item in our wheat trade. The flour trade falls into two main categories. In the first place, the flour goes to some countries which also import wheat, and in

markets of this kind flour exports tend to establish quality standards and have a bearing on the amount of Canadian wheat which can be sold. In addition, however, there are a large number of markets, especially in tropical and semi-tropical countries, where there is no milling industry and the entire breadstuffs market is based upon the importation of flour.
For some time now the wheat board has been carefully watching the flour export position as the market has become increasingly competitive. The most severe competition comes from the United States and from Australia. In both these countries certain advantages are given to flour exports as compared with the export of wheat. This preferred treatment has become an increasingly important competitive factor.
It is this situation that the wheat board feels it must meet. Consequently, effective at 1.15 p.m., March 1, the wheat board announced that, for competitive reasons, it would adjust the position as between export wheat and export flour destined for particular markets. According to the wheat board the adjustment rates on export flour will be announced each day at 3 p.m., Winnipeg time. The adjustment may vary from day to day and also may vary in accordance with the different routes used in exporting Canadian flour. The export flour adjustment which was announced at 3 p.m. Winnipeg time Friday last was as follows: Via Canadian Atlantic or United States Atlantic ports, 4i cents per bushel; via St. Lawrence and Churchill, 3 cents per bushel, and via Canadian Pacific or United States Pacific coast ports 8 cents per bushel.
I should say that the new policy will apply to countries which import mainly flour. The policy will not apply on flour shipments to the United Kingdom, to Europe or to the United States or any United States territories or possessions. The policy announced by the wheat board is definitely a break with tradition. It has been reluctantly adopted by the board because of similar practices in other countries. The wheat board reserves the right to cancel its export flour adjustment policy at any time without notice.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder whether the
minister would now answer the two questions I asked. He has made a statement which is similar to the one released over the week end but he has not answered the two questions I posed with respect to whether these price rebates will put Canadian millers in a position that they can compete with United States millers and, second, to what extent does this move mean the institution of a two-price system fop wheat and flour in Canada?


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, I will take those questions as notice. The explanatory memorandum I have given to the house I think contains the answers. But if they are not contained in it, we will see about the matter.


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the announcement made by the parliamentary assistant that the rebate from the wheat board of 4J- cents to 8 cents for export flour on shipments to certain countries mean that the Canadian farmers are once more being asked to subsidize the millers?


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, that question will be taken as notice. The policy has been announced and the hon. member can read it for himself.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Speaker, in order to clear the matter up may I ask this question? Do the Canadian farmers absorb the costs of the rebate made to the millers?


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, that question will have to be taken as notice.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: A question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce: Would the parliamentary assistant say whether before making the innovation he announced in export flour prices the government considered providing a subsidy out of the treasury instead of forcing this further burden on the wheat producers of western Canada, since this is a serious departure from normal pricing arrangements?


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to accept all the implications of that question, but I would point out to the hon. member and to the house that the announcement was made by the wheat board and not by the government.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, is it not correct that, prior to the announcement being made, the government and the wheat board were in consultation on the question? If that is so, did the government not give consideration to meeting the cost of this?


John Horace Dickey: I have no knowledge of any such consultations.


Hazen Robert Argue: You should read what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said in the house.
Inquiries of the Ministry



PROTECTION OF QUALITY OF FLOUR SHIPPED UNDER CANADIAN BRAND NAMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorkion):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What steps have been taken to protect the quality of the flour being shipped under Canadian orders from United States millers under Canadian brand names? I believe the minister is preparing a statement for the house.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, that question will have to be taken as notice.



LEAD AND ZINC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce but I shall direct it instead to his parliamentary assistant. Is the minister aware that the lead and zinc producers of the United States are making strenuous efforts to have their government raise the tariff against imports of these metals from Canada? If so, are any representations being made by the Canadian government to the United States government against the imposition of such a raise in tariff?


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, that question will also have to be taken as notice.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. F. L. Hanna (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the district court at Edmonton has disposed of the case of the Hobbema Indians, would the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration now make a statement to the house on the much-discussed Indian Act of 1951 and suggested amendments thereto.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will do so with the greatest possible satisfaction. It has not been particularly pleasant, I might say, to have one's tongue curbed when others were quite unbridled. Hon. members will have learned from the press that Chief Judge Buchanan decided that protests against the membership of these persons from the Samson
1826	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry band of the Indian reserve were not properly made and that proceedings to have their names removed from the band list were therefore not valid. As soon as I heard of the judge's decision I made the following statement to the press:
I am delighted by Chief Judge Buchanan's decision because I have felt that these people, who have always been regarded as Indians, should continue to be regarded as Indians.
But I also felt it was my duty-
And I think it was the duty of every other member of this house.
-to carry out the law made by parliament and to give both sides in this dispute their day in court.
They have had it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Fleming:: It looks as though you have had it too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The statement continues:
I am only sorry the appeal was not made much sooner.
It will be evident to hon. members that if the appeal had been made to the courts as soon as the decision of the registrar was made, this case would have been settled several months ago without a great deal of unnecessary agitation and misrepresentation.
Ever since the act of 1951 was passed there has been, particularly in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, a persistent misrepresentation of the purposes of the provisions of the act which clarified the definition of an Indian and provided for the preparation of official band lists.
The Minister of Finance, when he was minister of citizenship and immigration, stated the purpose of these provisions to the special committee which was considering the bill, on April 12, 1951, in the following terms which I intend to read because I think it would be a good thing if the public knew what this bill really did:
We have provided in sections 6 to 15 of the bill-*
I am quoting Mr. Harris.
that there should be a new definition of "Indian" and that there should be a rather careful means of appeal from any decisions which have been made. We provide that band lists, which have been in the course of preparation since this recommendation-
That was the recommendation of a previous committee.
-and which are now practically complete, should be posted in the band council building or in the usual places where the band assembles, and that that list should be on display for a period of six months during which times appeals can be taken by any member of the band or band council to add names to the list or delete names from it.
The decision is made by the registrar who will be one of the officials from the department and within three months after that, an aggrieved person


or the band council may take appeal from his decision to a judge of the county or district court- presumably the one nearest to the band headquarters but not necessarily so, e.g., should there happen to be a vacancy in that appointment.
I am still quoting from Mr. Harris.
In this way, in the course of another year or something like that, we will have for the first time-
I emphasize those words, "for the first time".
-a more or less complete list of Indians. In so far as the lists are confirmed, they will not then-
And this is very important.
-be subject to change except for fraud, and of course there will be continuing additions and deletions by reasons of marriage, death and things of that sort.
In spite of that statement made at the time the bill was before parliament, it has been represented over and over again, particularly in one or two newspapers, that the purpose and effect of those amendments in 1951 has been to deprive a great number of people who were Indians of their Indian status, and that it is part of a systematic policy of expelling Indians from reservations. I believe hon. members would like to know what the facts really are.
Before the Samson case was settled, 359 other protests had already been settled and the number of persons confirmed in membership in Indian bands as a result of those protests was 1,732.


Mr. Speaker:: Presumably the house will wish to hear the statement the minister is presenting to the house at this moment, but may I suggest to the minister that it strikes me his answer to the question put by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is rather lengthy. If it is understood to be a reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona I think we should also understand that the minister is now making a statement which, perhaps, he could have made under motions. However, I understand that it is the wish of the house that this statement be made. I have intervened precisely to point out that this should not be taken as a precedent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I submit, in reply to Your Honour, that the hon. member asked me precisely whether there was any need for any amendment to the act. These various statistics I was in the midst of giving at the moment Your Honour interrupted me I think demonstrate rather conclusively the very point I was wishing to make in answer to the hon. member. I was seeking to direct this answer very specifically to his question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Can't you say yes or no?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I can say both, but unlike hon. gentlemen opposite I have never learned how to say both at the same time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister has been talking out of both sides of his mouth today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I was saying to the house, sir, the number of persons who, as a result of the act which was put through by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, have been confirmed in their membership in Indian bands was 1,732. The number of persons whose names have been taken off the band list is 21.
There are still, as I said to an hon. member the other day-and I want to make sure these facts are absolutely accurate-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -there are still four cases before judges, none of them in Alberta. In two of these cases 18 families are involved and the registrar has held that these families are Indians. In the other two cases, five families are involved and the registrar held they are not Indians. The number of persons in Alberta whose names were removed from the band list is four. One of these was the child of a white father. This child was living with his grandmother on the reserve-


Douglas Scott Harkness: How do you know?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I quite understand the hon. member for Calgary North does not like hearing these facts.


Mr. Sinclair:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that if the minister had undertaken to make this statement under motions, as is customary, the house would have heard him. The vehicle that is being used is the answer to a question which was asked by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
In asking a question, or in replying to a question, the rule, which is not always observed, is that a member is not supposed to advance any facts other than those necessary to lay the foundation either for the question or for the reply; but the foundation has always been laid in a very concise form. Now, it seems to me, in order to find out as to whether or not the department or the minister has to bring in an amendment, which is the question of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, it could be answered without the lengthy foundation which the minister has been laying down for some time. I think the minister should shorten and conclude his reply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be glad to conclude this just as quickly as possible. As I said before, there were only four people taken
Inquiries of the Ministry off the band list in Alberta; only one of them had ever lived on the reserve, the other three had not. With these facts alone, it would appear to me, sir, that there is not much foundation for any suggestion that the act should be changed.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any supplementary questions on the reply?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Now that the government has been defeated in the courts on the Hobbema question-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that generosity should work on both sides.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I assure you I will be very short and not imitate the minister.


Mr. Murphy (Lamblon West):: Who would want to imitate him?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Now that the department has lost this particular case in the courts, will the minister bring in an amendment at this session to remove the basic cause of disquiet and fear on the part of the Indians by amending the Indian Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the department did not lose this case.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It certainly did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The department was not involved in this case at all. This was a case -and it would appear, sir, that no amount of factual information can ever penetrate the minds of certain people inside and outside this house-


Douglas Scott Harkness: It certainly cannot penetrate yours.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and particularly the
minds of hon. gentlemen who seem more anxious to ask questions than to listen to the answers.
The fact is that this was a case between two groups of Canadians. The department was not involved as a party on either side.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It certainly was.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The case was decided by the judge in favour of the larger group, and I am very glad it was decided in favour of the larger group and that the petition-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Who ordered the Indians off the reserve?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Indians, sir, were never ordered off the reserve-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, they were.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: -at any time at all, and if the hon. gentleman would ask me more leading questions like that I would be glad to give him the answers because I might then get the facts into some people's minds. The fact of the matter is, sir, that certain people protested and certain other people contested the protestation. It was taken before the courts, as this parliament provided. The hon. gentleman and I both seem to be satisfied with the court's verdict.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister whether the department was not involved in any way in this case? Are we to understand that counsel who appeared for the crown are going to be paid personally by the minister?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No counsel appeared for the crown. If the hon. gentleman would like to know the facts, we agreed to pay reasonable counsel fees for the appellants, and I would remind the hon. gentleman that the appellants were the people who were stricken off the list. When they learned that the department was willing to pay counsel for the appellants, the protestants, if I may so describe them, also asked to have their counsel paid and it seemed reasonable that both sides should have their counsel paid and the Minister of Finance saw eye to eye with me on that question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You say the department was not involved?


James Sinclair: The lawyers had a field day. An agreement was made to pay lawyers on both sides.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question relating to this matter of the Hobbema Indians. When was it decided to provide or pay for counsel for the petitioners, inasmuch as on January 21 when I asked the minister to consider this he said: "They already have counsel, and there is no difficulty in that regard at all." And is it not a fact that the delay in bringing on the trial was largely caused by the delay in obtaining the services of counsel?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The question arose at the precise moment when the barrister who acted for them before the court approached the department and asked if we would be able to pay reasonable fees. No such request had been made before the hon. gentleman asked me his question; he might have put it into the minds of the people concerned. But up till that time, we had not received such a request. When the request was made I consulted the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and we both agreed that it was very
[Mr. Harkness.l

important in the public interest to have this case determined, as the law provided, by a judge, and that we ought to make sure that this happened by acceding to the request.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Inasmuch as the matter had been raised directly in the house, does the minister not consider it would have been appropriate to have informed the house as to the subsequent development?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have done my best to try to inform the house of certain things today, with some difficulty.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister requested the agreement of the premier of New Brunswick to table the letter with regard to the bridge at Campobello island referred to by him in answering the question I asked on Tuesday, February 26? If so, has he received the requested agreement?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did request permission in a telegram I sent to the premier of New Brunswick on the same date, February 26. I received an acknowledgment but so far I have received no permission to table correspondence.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in view of a statement the minister made in the county of Huron last week. Now that the minister has finally hinted at assistance to the sagging farm prices, despite the fact that it is four years late, would the minister advise the house if when the budget comes down it will contain a suggestion for raising support prices on farm commodities?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think the obvious answer is that the budget speech will be delivered in due course and whether it will contain anything about this subject would of course remain secret until that time.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance affecting all citizens of Canada. Is the minister prepared to accept the resolution of the mayors' conference held last week at Arnprior to the effect that the federal government should pay the major cost of civil defence? If not, will the Minister of Finance explain why in his estimates which are now before the house the government allocates a great part of its revenue for offensive and defensive action and makes only a relatively small contribution to civil defence?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to answer that question.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of the meeting of the mayors at Arnprior last week on civil defence. Does the government agree with the unanimous recommendation of the mayors that there should be a national program of urban highway improvement, with costs shared by all levels of government, as a civil defence measure?


Walter Edward Harris: The association of mayors and reeves is a very responsible body, and any conclusions they reach after serious consideration would, of course, be a matter of weight with the federal government; but I would not want to indicate whether or not we agree or disagree with this particular one.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker,
may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Are Nova Scotia fishermen permitted to buy bait from government-operated fish depots in Newfoundland?
An hen. Member:	They get it free.


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, that arises out of an incident last week when a Nova Scotia long liner was refused bait from one of the government bait depots in Newfoundland, and it
Inquiries of the Ministry illustrates the fact that though Newfoundland has now been in confederation almost eight years, custom dies hard. There are still Newfoundlanders who regard Canadians as foreigners and there are even some Nova Scotians who regard Newfoundlanders as foreigners.
Before confederation the government of Newfoundland operated a government bait depot service which supplied bait at less than cost to Newfoundland fishermen. Such bait of course was not sold to fishermen from other countries whether those countries were Canada, Portugal or any of the other nations that fish the Grand Banks. We in Canada have never had government bait depots. We have left the supplying of bait to private enterprise, to the fishing companies. We have encouraged the bait depot supply by offering a subsidy of $10,000 to any fishing company which would build with their cold storage plants a bait supply depot and supply bait to the fishermen at the going rates.
Under the terms of union, however, the government of Newfoundland insisted that we maintain the government bait depot service in Newfoundland without fundamental change and we have done that in Newfoundland. It costs us more than $300,000 a year. Because of the custom which had grown up of these bait depots serving only Newfoundland boats, and because Nova Scotians did not obtain bait there before confederation, it has been only in the last week or two that the problem has arisen.
I have issued instructions to all bait depots in Newfoundland to supply all Canadian fishing vessels with bait from these depots at the going price.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: 1
would like to direct to the Minister of Public Works a question of which I regret I was unable to give him earlier notice.
Would the minister please inform the house of the details in respect to an announcement made by the Minister of National Defence at a meeting on behalf of the Liberal candidate, William M.ott, at New Westminster, to the effect that a speeded up dredging program has been decided by the federal government at Ottawa owing to the increasing importance of the port of New Westminster?


Robert Henry Winters: I have not seen the reference to the matter to which the hon. member refers,

Inquiries of the Ministry but I am sure he will know that we are always contemplating measures to speed up the dredging program in the Fraser river.


Frederick George Hahn: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works arising out of the one I asked earlier. In view of the answer the minister gave me, does he mean that his department has not decided to take the action that the Minister of National Defence said is being taken?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I am not sure what the Minister of National Defence said in his statement. I have not seen it and I would prefer to read it before I comment.



IMPORTS FROM CUBA ENTERING CANADA FROM UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Warner Murphy: would like to direct a supplementary question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce concerning flour shipped by the United States in Canadian bags. Is it possible that these shipments would receive imperial preference? I ask this because of a fact which I am putting in the form of a question. Is it a fact that Cuban sugar going into the United States can be put up in five or ten-pound bags and shipped into Canada as American sugar?


John Horace Dickey: will have to take the second part of the question as notice. My understanding is that the flour to which the hon. member refers is milled in the United States, and carries only a Canadian trademark, not any representation that it is produced in Canada, and therefore that it would not qualify for any preference.


Joseph Warner Murphy: May I suggest that the same situation applies with regard to the Cuban sugar which is manufactured in Cuba, shipped to the United States, and rebagged in smaller bags for distribution to other countries?



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Hosking (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Public Works a question. Has a tender now been let to build the entomology building at the


Ontario Agricultural College at Guelph? Were tenders called before, and if so, why was the building not proceeded with at that time? If the tender has been let, when does he expect this building to be completed?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Robert Henry Winters: I am not aware of all the details, and will have to take part of the question as notice. We invited tenders some time ago and received only one response. We considered it to be too high, and subsequently called for new tenders. We got satisfactory bids, and awarded a contract. Whether or not the work has been started I am not sure.



ELIMINATION OF USE IN HARNESS RACING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the following question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister or his department recently received a resolution from district No. 11 trotting association, embracing the maritime provinces, requesting the Canadian Department of Agriculture to take such steps as may be necessary before commencement of the harness racing season of 1957 to institute tests for the purpose of eliminating the use of drugs, stimulants, depressants, etc., which might influence the outcome of a harness race? If so, what action is being taken?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I wish to thank the hon. member for having sent me a copy of the question. I checked my files and found that this letter did come in during last week, but it only reached my desk today after I had received the question. The answer has not yet been sent to the trotting association, district No. 11. However, we did have inquiries from a number of other interested parties at earlier dates and replies have gone to those parties. The fact is that if we did take any action it would not be to institute tests for the purpose of eliminating the use of drugs, stimulants, depressants and so on which might influence the outcome of a harness race. I understand those tests have been there for many years; they have been instituted by others, and continue to be in existence. The only suggestion is, I think, that we should take over the financing of these tests. We have suggested, up to the moment, that so long as the work is being properly done and is being financed by others we have not seen any reason for taking over the handling of this matter. As a matter of fact, we think it might be more successfully handled in the way it has been in the past.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Has the department given any assistance in any other part of Canada for this particular type of work?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. The suggestion being made is, as a matter of fact, that since we made arrangements in this house last year or two years ago for the treasury to have a larger part of the fees which are collected in connection with horse racing to provide better inspection, we should consider making these payments which, in the past, have been made by others. It is not so much a matter of making the payments as it is of enforcing the regulations that are in existence in, I think, all parts of Canada in connection with racing and because of that we have hesitated to agree.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Comox-Alberni asked if I had been requested to investigate the reported importation into British Columbia of California potatoes which have been dyed red in order to create the impression that they are new potatoes.
In reply I may say that I am advised by the officials of my department that a small shipment of potatoes was received recently in Victoria, B.C., from the state of Nebraska, not California, which had been dyed red. There is no record of any similar type of shipment in Vancouver or other points in British Columbia. These potatoes meet import requirements as to grade and other provisions established under the fruit, vegetables and honey regulations.
Some retail stores in Victoria were selling these dyed red potatoes as Florida new potatoes. This is a violation of both the provincial and federal regulations which provide that "no person shall misrepresent .. .origin...". The fruit and vegetable inspector ordered all stores to remove the signs indicating that the potatoes consisted of new stock from Florida.
The samples of the dyed red potatoes have been submitted to the food and drug laboratory in Vancouver for analysis and necessary action should there be a violation of the Food and Drugs Act.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



STATEMENT ON ACCIDENTS AT BELLS CORNERS LEVEL CROSSING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport if he is in a position to answer my question of Friday? I asked him how many accidents have occurred at the level crossing which was the scene of Thursday's accident at Bells Corners and whether there is any wigwag or other protective device at this crossing.


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: I was about to answer the question when the hon. gentleman rose. He asked on Friday how many accidents have occurred at the level crossing at Bells Corners and whether or not there was any wigwag or other protective device at this crossing.
According to the records of the board of transport commissioners, there were accidents on the following dates: June 11, 1919, August 2, 1926, September 24, 1931, July 1, 1950, and February 28, 1957.
In answer to the second part of the question, I would say that there are no automatic signals at the crossing though there is a crossbuck sign, and reflectorized advance warning signs have been placed at the crossing by the Ontario highways department. I may also add that the board has no record of any application for automatic protection at this crossing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do the statistics which the minister has in his hand indicate whether there was any loss of life in any of these accidents?


George Carlyle Marler: I understand that there was loss of life in two of the accidents, those in 1926 and 1950 but not in 1919 or 1931.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the record now of some six accidents at this crossing-


George Carlyle Marler: Five.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Counting the last one?


George Carlyle Marler: That is counting the last one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, five; but is it necessary that an application be made or does the board of transport commissioners not have the right to use its own initiative to provide some protection at this crossing?


George Carlyle Marler: I would say that protection is usually installed on the application of some interested body, but I believe the board has the power to direct the installation of protection and protective devices on its own initiative.

Inquiries of the Ministry



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say whether he has inquired into the drop in price of grade A hogs within the last ten days amounting to $4 to $5 a hundredweight to ascertain whether it has been brought about by any combine amongst the packing firms to force down prices? If not, what is the explanation for this tremendous drop in hog prices within a few days?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very pleased to look into the situation. I did not check the markets this morning and I did not have the information which has been brought to my attention. I am not sure that prices have dropped that much but I presume they have since my hon. friend has said so. I would also presume that if prices have dropped that much on grade A's they have also dropped on the other grades as well, and that would be for some reason which my inquiry may indicate.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, in fairness to all parties I think I should add to my answer given a few moments ago about hogs. I shall also inquire into the question of why hogs went up 10 cents a pound within a short space of time earlier and whether the packers had anything to do with that.


Hazen Robert Argue: In making his inquiry would the minister ascertain whether or not when the price went up 10 cents a pound or $10 a hundredweight there were very few hogs coming on the market, and now that hogs are beginning to come on the market in numbers the packers are taking advantage of the situation?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a better explanation than the other one.


James Sinclair: The law of supply and demand.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister able to give any information with respect to whether or not the allegations of a man under sentence of

death that he was a secret service operator for the R.C.M.P. are true? In view of the fact that the minister has always taken the position that he cannot give any information in the House of Commons on the secret service operations of the R.C.M.P., is a member of the House of Commons, who is not entitled to an answer in the house on an interesting and important question, entitled to get in confidence any report that the minister has received?


Hon. Siuarl S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend's rather complicated question is one of a type that I should like to take as notice.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the fact that a man will die pretty soon unless the matter is settled, may I ask the minister how long it will take to get an answer?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Quite soon, Mr. Speaker. I received the article in the paper from my hon. friend and it has been under active consideration since.



REQUEST FOR STABILIZATION OF PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say if the government has given consideration to undertaking a plan to put eggs on the Canadian market at prices which would be reasonable to consumers and at the same time provide adequate producer prices rather than the present method of support prices which is mainly a guarantee to processors and has a tendency to build up egg stocks?


James Garfield Gardiner: The main reason for difficulties in the area from which my hon. friend comes is the fact that we have had no co-operation whatsoever in utilizing the plan of support from the government of his province.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is nonsense.


Edward George McCullough: Can the
minister tell the house why a similar condition with regard to egg prices is also prevalent in Ontario and many other areas of Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Hazen Robert Argue: What about Manitoba?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, no matter what the condition is in the province of Ontario and no matter what the condition is in the provinces of Manitoba or Alberta, the worst condition of all is in the province of Saskatchewan. I know that, from long experience in dealing with the situation which exists there. The prices are lower there. There is

more than one reason for that, but the fact is that we have had no co-operation whatsoever from the government there in maintaining prices which bear a proper relationship to our supports.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister recall a single occasion when a member of the opposition has brought to his attention any improvement in the agricultural industry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not since he has been minister, because there has not been any.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether I might ask the minister a supplementary question?


James Sinclair: Let him answer that one first.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the reason that sometimes prices in Saskatchewan are lower than they are in some other provinces the extremely high freight rates that Saskatchewan has to pay? Is that not the reason why wheat in Saskatchewan is lower in price than it is in some other province?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is one of the reasons but it was not one of the reasons that was suggested by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough). The reasons were quite different. But the first member who ever brought this question to our attention was the hon. member who has just spoken and, rather peculiarly, he brought it to our attention two or three months before an earlier election. Probably the election has something to do with his bringing it up now. I am going to suggest to him that there was a real reason for eggs being only ten cents a dozen in certain parts of the district from which he comes, according to his own representation, and that that reason can only be removed by a provincial government and it could be removed by a provincial government in that case.
In so far as the other matter is concerned, the question which was just asked me, by the member for Charlotte, I think the inference in the question applies to one section of the opposition, not to the whole of it. There is one section of the opposition that probably has never found anything good in anything done by the Department of Agriculture, namely the section that has been questioning me for the last few minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, may I ask hon. members, as of tomorrow, to revise their questions. It seems to me that all hon. members on both sides of the house are in a great mood for arguing rather than asking for or supplying information.
Private Bills PRIVATE BILLS



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 22, consideration in committee of Bill No. 16, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company and certain wholly owned subsidiaries-Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Railways and undertakings vest in Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether or not the sponsor is willing to drop the names of these two companies which were mentioned during the debate on second reading. If not, we feel that we should emphasize our desire in that respect by moving an amendment. As far as I am concerned, I placed my views before the house on second reading and I do not want to take up the time of the house at this moment. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will move:
That section 2 be amended by deleting the words "the Kaslo and Slocan Railway Company" and the words "Nakusp and Slocan Railway Company".


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, when this bill
was in committee previously, on February 22, the hon. member for Kootenay West and I explained why we were suggesting that these two particular subsidiaries be deleted from the bill. I have no intention of going over that submission in detail again today. However, for the benefit of those hon. members on both sides of the house who were not here on that occasion may I point out that these two subsidiaries-I refer to the Kaslo and Slocan Railway Company and the Nakusp arid Slocan Railway Company-are the owners of a short line of railway in the mountainous area of Kootenay West in respect of which the Canadian Pacific Railway was given permission about a month ago to abandon the line.
One of the conditions of that order was that the right of way must be conveyed to the provincial government before the abandonment could take effect, the reason behind that term of the order made by the board of transport commissioners being that they did not wish to have the residents of the district left without adequate transportation. It was felt that, although the railway line had to be abandoned,-with which conclusion I have some quarrel; I do not believe that order should have been made-the board of transport commissioners would take this step to see that at least there was a highway.
That was only a month ago. The C.P.R. has written to the provincial government about turning over the right of way. When

Private Bills
the bill was last under discussion the hon. member for Ottawa West told us that a reply had been received from the provincial government merely acknowledging the letter from the C.P.R. It will take a little time to work out this transfer of the right of way to the provincial government. Our only purpose in making the suggestion in this amendment today is that in that way public attention is focused on the need of the people in the district for a highway, and we are hoping that having attention so focused will result in much prompter action by both the railway and the provincial government to construct a proper highway over at least part of the right of way which is to be conveyed.
It is not as though the C.P.R. would suffer at all if they deleted these particular subsidiaries from the bill because they are working on a general program of taking over 36 or 37 subsidiaries; the hon. member for Ottawa West can correct that figure if I am wrong. Last year they put through a bill affecting 12 subsidiaries. This year I think there are 13 subsidiaries, or 12 again. The remainder will be dealt with at the session of 1958. Hence if these two were deleted from the present bill and then were included in the bill which will be before parliament next session, the final objective of the railway company would be attained; and by a delay of this kind we at least do something to help the people of the district get a highway to replace the railway. So far as these two lines are concerned this is really unfinished business, and we suggest that the two companies be not dissolved until that particular business has been completed.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: As I said when this item was last before the committee, I cannot see that the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Kootenay West has any relevance to the bill before the committee. It is quite clear in the bill that all the obligations of the subsidiary companies are taken over by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Indeed, the order of the board of transport commissioners to which reference has been made is an order against the Canadian Pacific Railway. Since the point raised, and the whole argument, is quite irrelevant to the bill before the committee I am at a loss to understand the request to have the names of the two subsidiary companies deleted. Nothing has been said in argument relating the point raised by the hon. members to the bill before the committee.

Since that is the case, I regret that I can see no other course than to reject the amendment put forward.
On this question of delay, I think I ought to make it quite clear that there has been no delay on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and indeed, so far as we are aware, no delay on the part of the British Columbia government. I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the condition is that as soon as the operation is abandoned the reconveyance is to be made. According to the order, the operation is abandoned as of February 1, 1957. The Canadian Pacific Railway started proceedings to convey the lands on February 6, 1957. If hon. members will look at their calendars they will see that a weekend intervened. They will see just how little delay there was. Since there is no delay and, so far as I know, no suggestion that there is any delay, I cannot see any point in even the irrelevant part of their argument. This being the case, I find myself in the unhappy position of having to respectfully differ from the two hon. members and reject their argument and ask that the amendment be voted down.


Frederick George Hahn: Before the question is put, there is one point of clarification I should like to get from the sponsor of the bill. Did I understand him to say that the lands have been transferred to the British Columbia government?


George James McIlraith: No, they have not yet been transferred. They are in the process of being transferred.
Amendment (Mr. Herridge) negatived: Yeas, 18; nays, 57.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Companies dissolved.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to what the sponsor of the bill had to say. I do not think he quite appreciates the local circumstances that exist as does the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. Therefore, on the basis of the arguments used on second reading and the argument put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra on clause 2 of the bill, I move:
clause 4 be amended by deleting the words Nakusp and Slocan Railway Company".
Amendment (Mr. Herridge) negatived: Yeas, 18; nays, 55.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.

On the preamble:


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: For the same reasons that were mentioned previously on second reading and during the committee stage of this bill, I move:
That the preamble be amended by deleting the words "The Kaslo and Slocan Railway Company", and the words "Nakusp and Slocan Railway Company".
We hope to goodness the people get either a railway or a decent road out of this.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: You are preventing them from getting a road.
Amendment (Mr. Herridge) negatived: Yeas, 18; nays, 52.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fairey for the second reading of Bill No, 15, respecting Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo).
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory note says:
The purpose of this bill is to subdivide each of the shares without nominal or par value into five shares without nominal or par value. The reason for the proposed subdivision is that the company wishes to achieve a wide distribution of its stock among investors in Canada. At January 8, 1957, the shares of the company had a market value of approximately $115 each. This relatively high market price discourages investment by small investors.
My colleagues who have spoken I think have established the point that the alleged reason for bringing this bill before parliament is not the real reason. It would appear to us that the sponsors of this proposition are really not concerned about the position of the small people in Canada.
When the bill was first before parliament in 1951 I find that the present sponsor, the Hon. Senator McKeen, had this to say in the Senate on February 20, 1951:
I may say that this is an all-Canadian route, and the pipe line will end in Canada.
The Bechtel organization which proposes to build this pipe line, and which is now asking for the charter, is one of the largest and best-equipped pipe line contracting firms in the world.
The company which will build this pipe line is set up in Canada, and will be financed in Canada. The parent body is the Bechtel organization, with headquarters in San Francisco.
This, hon. senators, is not a promotional effort; it is an actual project to be carried out by people who are in the oil pipe line business. All oil companies who wish to participate in the financing and the shipping of oil through this line may come in, and assurance has been given by many of the
Private Bills
major companies that they will use this line to transport their product to the Pacific coast.
There will be an issue of shares to those participating in the line and there will be debentures with warrants available to the general public in Canada.
Well, as my colleagues have pointed out, this line was completed and it has turned out to be a very profitable proposition. The Hon. Senator McKeen, in introducing this proposal this year, had this to say:
This is a very simple bill; its purpose is to subdivide each of the company's shares without nominal or par value. By subdividing these shares and issuing five for one a wide distribution will be ensured, and there will be greater participation by the general public. That is the only purpose of the bill.
I think it should be pointed out that although the legislation authorized the issuing of five million shares, only one and one-half million have been issued. I think this proves that the alleged reason is not the real reason. If this company is concerned about having more people participate all they have to do is to issue another three and one-half million shares. Of those shares which have been issued, again only 450,000, only one-third of those which have been issued have been made available to the general public in the country.
It seems clear that this alleged reason to get more people participating is merely a cloak, or a screen, which is put up to get this measure through parliament. I think we should have a look at what is happening to those who are interested in this. According to Moody's Industrials, Pacific Petroleums Limited has been listed as one of the large outfits which is interested in Trans Mountain Pipe Line, and Pacific Petroleums in turn were the sponsoring company of Westcoast Transmission. I am indebted to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for some information which he drew to my attention last Monday in another debate when he discussed Westcoast Transmission. If it had not been for his research I am sure I would not have run across this information, which the minister mentioned when we were discussing the fortune that Mr. Tanner appears to have made last year.


Mr. Blackmore:: On paper.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On paper, which was
peanuts compared with the money that Mr. McMahon made. The minister referred to the prospectus put out by Westcoast Transmission. That prospectus points out that the McMahon interests were able to get 500,000 shares at a nickel apiece. Those shares are now being quoted at $35 a share. It would appear that those 500,000 shares cost $25,000. At their current selling price they would be worth $17,500,000. It would seem that for every dollar one had put into Westcoast

Private Bills
Transmission Company in 1945 he would have $700 now. I submit to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and to the hon. member for Lethbridge, who is doing me the courtesy of listening, as he always does, that in Trans-Canada in five years the paper profit of $935,000 which Mr. Tanner could take now will probably be up in the same range of the profit made by Mr. McMahon, which was drawn to our attention by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


John Horne Blackmore: There could be a loss.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, there could be a loss, but that has not been the record of the West-coast Transmission Company and I am sure the hon. member for Lethbridge would be the last person in this chamber to suggest that Trans-Canada is not going to have a story similar to Westcoast Transmission.


John Horne Blackmore: We have hope but no assurance.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is right. This proposition is presented by His Honour Senator McKeen. Just in passing I might comment that in my opinion Senator McKeen is much too busy to be bothered with the divorce bills that appear to occupy so many of the honourable senators for so much of the time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Order.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I say this only in passing. I have observed that his name has not appeared on any of the divorce cases and I think it is quite in order to comment that His Honour does not appear to have time to bother with them. I understand the senators who do work-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a very unpleasant innuendo.


Robert Henry Winters: And a very unnecessary one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is totally unnecessary and against the rules.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I do not believe it is
against the rules and I think His Honour the Speaker will call me to order rather than the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration unless the minister has taken over the chair in addition to looking after the other duties he handles so poorly.


Robert Henry Winters: Another unnecessary remark.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I find that His Honour Senator McKeen is president of Straits Towing Limited, Standard Towing Company Limited, Nanaimo Towing Limited, McKeen and Wilson Limited, Coast Scow Company) Limited, and Heatley Avenue Wharf Limited. He is also a director of British Columbia Ice and Cold Storage Limited, Beach Avenue

Shipyards Limited, Burrard Dry Dock Company Limited, Alberta Pacific Consolidated Oils Limited, Pacific Salvage Limited, Deeks McBride Limited, Westward Shipping Limited, World Wide Trading Company Limited, Union Steamships Limited, Frank Waterhouse of Canada Limited, and The Union Steamship Company of British Columbia Limited.
The point I am trying to establish is that His Honour Senator McKeen is a director of the Alberta Pacific Consolidated Oils Limited and this company in turn is interested in some ten oil companies and five gas wells, according to the Financial Post survey of oils for 1956. The Alberta Pacific Consolidated Oils Limited among other companies is interested in the Richfield Oil Corporation and the Pathfinder Petroleum Company. I question the propriety of an hon. member of either chamber taking an active interest in the promotion of a proposition such as the one we have before us now when, according to the information that is available in the Financial Post, it would appear as if his very wide investments will be affected if and when this particular legislation goes through.
It is interesting that none of the hon. members who are speaking in support of this bill have tried to establish that its passing will construct one more mile of pipe line, will help to develop one more well or establish one more industry in Canada. As a matter of fact when the legislation was passed in 1951 it was argued by government supporters that the passage of this bill was going to be a great asset to Canada and would result in new industries coming to this country.
I noticed in the Financial Times of March 11 an announcement to the effect that there is to be a refinery boost on the west coast to again increase oil exports. It is pointed out that the Richfield Oil Corporation, which as I mentioned before is associated with the Alberta Pacific Consolidated Oils Limited and in which apparently His Honour Senator McKeen is interested, has taken up a 1,000-acre site at Everett for another major installation. I cannot understand why with so many able-bodied Canadians anxious to find employment it has been necessary to divert so much of our Canadian resources to the building up of an important industry outside of this country. Certainly all the members who took part in the debate back in 1951 were under the impression that the construction of this pipe line was going to result in new industries in Canada and tremendous new development in that part of British Columbia.

Those who have taken part in this debate today have two different points of view. Apparently hon. members of our group are alone in this chamber-


Joseph Warner Murphy: Thank God.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -in the view that it is not proper that parliament should be asked to pass legislation that will give to a small group a chance to make great profits.
On the basis of the gross national product of Canada it would appear that we have about $2,000 worth of production for every man, woman and child in the country. If you take a group of 1,000 people it would appear that that would represent about $2 million worth of production. It is as plain as A B C that if one person out of 1,000 takes for himself $1 million out of the production of Canada, as Mr. Tanner would appear to be doing if he were to sell now, then the other 999 persons have only another $1 million to distribute and that is the reason why our old age pensioners are limited to $480 per year while one citizen considers that he is entitled to have $1 million as his share of the production of Canada for one year.
We consider that all the people of Canada by their labours produce the gross national product. We have not suggested that the gross national product can be divided into 16 million equal shares because the wealth is constantly changing, but we do think the system which is apparently supported by the three other parties in this house who are supporting this legislation-a system that approves of grabbing as large a piece of the pie as you can regardless of the plight of old age and other pensioners and other groups on fixed incomes-is a position that does not deserve support.


Charles Edward Johnston: Why don't you nationalize the oil industry in Saskatchewan, then?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I had planned to discuss the crown corporations of Saskatchewan but I believe the subject has been covered fairly thoroughly by my colleagues on a number of occasions. However, I would like to say to the hon. member who is interrupting me that his leader in Saskatchewan made his maiden speech in the provincial house last week and in it he was very careful to refrain from suggesting that if and when there should ever be a Social Credit government in that province-


Charles Edward Johnston: You can leave out the "if".


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -they would do away with government insurance or the splendid hospital and health services we have in the province. The speech he made in fact was not much different from what it would be if
Private Bills
it had been made by a member of either the Liberal or the Conservative party. As far as my group is concerned, we feel that to give all the people a chance to participate in the benefits which accrue to modern society by using this new fuel and transporting it from one part of Canada to another we should not place on our people the sort of toll which is involved when one group of individuals is able to buy shares at 5 cents a share and realize $35 a share for them just a few years later.
While we probably will not succeed in having accepted the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron), we believe that in the long run the people of Canada will consider our position sound.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the main motion lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the more we study this bill and its effects the more strongly we feel that it should not be passed by the House of Commons. There are those in the house who seem to think it is a good thing for a few individuals to make a lot of money but it is our view that when some people make money without working for it others work without getting paid for what they have produced. In our view the stock splitting arrangement proposed by the bill fits in with the current trend so far as oil and pipe line stocks are concerned and is designed to bring about a further increase in the wealth of the shareholders of this company. That increase in wealth must come from somewhere and we know that it will come out of the work, sweat and toil of our people.
We are opposed to devices of this kind which in effect impose a tax on the real wealth produced by our people for the benefit of a privileged few. It was brought out a few days ago in the question and answer period and also by a study that one can make of the appropriate legislation that gains of this kind are known as capital gains and therefore are not even subject to ordinary income tax. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because of our strong feeling of opposition to the bill I have risen for these few minutes to propose another amendment. Despite our opposition to the bill

we were willing to have its subject matter- but only its subject matter-considered by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Our proposal in that respect having been rejected by the house, we are left with no alternative but to oppose the bill outright. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden):
That Bill No. 15 be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Before you put the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few more words on the bill. I feel that a great many people, including a great many members of the house, are content not to investigate the real results of the course of action proposed in this particular measure. We have been hearing a great deal in recent months of the dangers of inflation in our economy.
We have the government attacked by members on this side of the house for their alleged tight-money policy to control inflation. I do not intend to go into the merits or demerits of the government's policy in that regard. However, I would point out that it is not much good the government having a tight-money policy and it is not much good members of the official opposition denouncing that policy if at the same time they are prepared to condone actions which, if multiplied sufficiently, might well prove to be extremely serious inflationary factors.
We have a proposal at the present time which is, in short, a proposal to promote stock market gambling in the shares of a certain corporation. Let there be no other description of that proposal. I do not think anyone in this house seriously contends that this bill is intended to introduce new capital into this company. In fact, the necessity for introducing new capital into the company would now seem to be a highly debatable point considering the financial record of the company which has created the situation upon which these gentlemen wish to make their newer gains.
I think we can find the answer to this demand for melon cutting-for that is what it is-if we examine the latest statistical summary of the Bank of Canada. In this summary there is a table devoted to the index numbers of common stock prices covering the years 1955, 1956 and January of this year. It is notable that among the types of common stock that are listed here, there is one which is head and shoulders above all others when it comes to vast increase in the index number of the common stock prices,

and that is that of the oil companies. The oil companies' stocks in the last year have increased on the average, as indicated by this index column, in market price nearly 50 per cent across the board. We all know that these pipe line companies are in essence the creatures of the oil companies. They are usually closely connected with similar directorates and very often they are wholly-owned subsidiaries. However, that is where the money is obviously being made today.
It is notable that, in contrast with an almost 50 per cent increase in twelve months for oils, such an industry as the pulp and paper industry, which is usually considered to be one of our more profitable ones, has actually had a decline in the last year in the index number of stock prices. The same is true throughout almost the whole range.
Here I think we have the answer to this demand that these people be permitted to divide their stock by five. For what purpose do they want to do this? To take advantage of the anticipated increase again which will doubtless be revealed next year. When the Bank of Canada produces its statistical summary no doubt we shall see there that the same process which has been going on quite steadily for the over two years covered by this column will continue, and the fortunate gentlemen who have made five blades of grass grow where one grew before will be reaping a very heavy harvest of pay from the people of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will be green stuff all right.


Colin Cameron: It is green stuff, yes; and which they did not sow, as my colleague the hon. member for Dauphin suggests.
I want to deal again with the problem that I think every member of this house should take quite seriously, namely the dangers of encouraging and indeed permitting practices of this sort which are in essence invitations to stock market gambling. I think every hon. member should realize just what effect there may well be on our economy if this encouragement continues in these fields where these enormous gains are being made at the present time. There can be observed also from the report of the Bank of Canada the way in which those who deal in stocks borrow from the chartered banks for the purpose of their stock dealing; and every borrowing from the chartered banks is an inflationary factor in the economy.
We seem to consider it to be respectable to engage in and to encourage this type of gambling; yet, of course, we frown very severely on the old ladies who go and play
Private Bills
bingo every Saturday night. However, the old ladies who play bingo, if they are doing anything, are merely hurting themselves; but the gentlemen engaged in stock market gambling in the stratospheric area of the millions and billions of dollars are seriously endangering the livelihood of their fellow Canadians.
I want to stress again a point that I myself stressed earlier and that my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North stressed the other day, namely the illusion that so many people have that we may permit these gentlemen to make money, as the phrase is, without in any way affecting the economic position of their fellow Canadian citizens. I believe it is the use of that term "make money" that deludes people. There is only one agency in the country that makes money, namely our integrated central bank and the chartered banks. What the rest of us do, Mr. Speaker, is to attempt to collect money that is already in existence. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the use of the term "make money" suggests that in some way these people add something to the general well-being of the country when they, by manipulation, add a market value to their holdings of shares in these corporations whereas, of course, what they are doing is collecting claims on wealth that will buy just as much in the way of bacon and eggs as will the money that the wage earner gets in his pay cheque or the money that the salary earner gets in his salary; and the more they are permitted to accumulate, the less there will be for the rest of the economy.
Do not let us try to dodge away from that particular issue. They are given the right to accumulate claims on wealth and they can be held by only one person at a time. If A has these claims on wealth, B cannot have them. If A is an astute and acquisitive stock market operator and if B is a wage earner or an old age pensioner, then I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the only position for responsible representatives of the people to take is that the requirements of B-that is of the wage earner or the old age pensioner-[DOT] must be met before these ludicrous gains are permitted to people who engage in no useful occupation whatever. It is not the fact that they contribute anything whatever to the operation of these pipe lines; it is not the fact that they build the pipe line, manage the line or man the pipe line when it is in operation. They merely gamble on the claims on wealth that belong to the people of this country. For that reason I think that if this parliament is going to give encouragement to this type of gambling, with its serious dangers for the economy and its gross injustice to the vast majority of the people, then it will also be obliged to give consideration to the

Private Bills
possibility of clipping the wings of these gentlemen who make at present untaxable capital gains. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against the adoption of this measure. I have not yet heard from those who have been supporting this bill a single argument that would persuade me that any honest and responsible representative of the people could do anything but vote against the bill. It is not going to promote more pipe lines. It is not going to result in an increase in wealth. It is merely going to result in a transfer of existing wealth into the hands of those who have done nothing to contribute to its production.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: There are several divorce bills on the order paper for second reading. Is it agreeable to the house that all of these bills be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Donald Edmund O'Neill.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Joseph Robert Gilbert Croteau.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Eve Giasson, otherwise known as Lucien Giasson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Ingrid Malten Prokopp.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Edward Douglas Taylor.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Jacqueline Waite Chew Keen.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Stanley Smith Wilson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Marjorie Alice Holdron Thorbergson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 189, for the relief of Irene Kluch-nyk Shyshko.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of Beatrice Lillian Sidaway Mudry.-Mr. Henderson.

Bill No. 191, for the relief of Bernard George.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Helen Rose Bickerdike Ovenden.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of Catherine Violet Mooney Leger.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Laurice Michel Malouf.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 195, for the relief of Helene Vic-torine Monseur Sharpe.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Kenneth Franklin Hallas.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Joan Betty Mae Barnard Laframboise.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Lemuel Alvin Henry Ward.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Joseph Raoul Guy Felix Labelle.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Gene Koklyte Gedvila.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Lillian Martin Cyr.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Ange-Aimee Jacqueline Lacoste Paquette.-Mr. Henderson.



THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE SALVATION


Howard Charles Green: the second reading of Bill No. 203, respecting the governing council of the Salvation Army, Canada East, and the governing council of the Salvation Army, Canada West.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is sought by the Salvation Army, and I am moving the second reading on behalf of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris who is unable to be here today and who, as many hon. members know, has been throughout his whole adult life very active in the work of the Salvation Army. I am sure we all agree that in his daily contacts here he lives the beliefs of the army.
The bill seeks to remove the limitation which is placed on the amount of real estate that the army may hold. They have two separate divisions, one being -what is known as the governing council of the Salvation Army, Canada East, and the other the governing council of the Salvation Army, Canada West. The first council, that in eastern Canada, is in charge of the buildings from the Manitoba boundary east and has a limitation that was placed in 1916 of an annual value of real estate amounting to $350,000. That means, of course, that the annual rental or income value cannot be higher than $350,000. In the provinces west of the 82715-117
Private Bills
Manitoba-Ontario boundary the annual value of the real estate is set at $200,000.
Now, in the last three years the property held by the army has increased greatly in value. Furthermore, they have under way a development program which will amount to an expenditure of quite a large sum of money, I think $12 million. The result of this increase in the present value of the real estate and of the building program will be that the annual value of real estate will be very much higher than the figures which were set in 1916, and the army are asking that this limitation be removed entirely so that there will be no limit on the real estate they can hold.
They are also asking that the provision be made retroactive because apparently at the present time their real estate is over the figure allowed by their private statutes. May I point out that in recent years no other religious body has had a limitation of this kind placed in the charter.
I suggest it is entirely reasonable that the Salvation Army should be freed from that limitation.
Of course they have always done splendid work in Canada. I believe the work commenced in 1882. At the present time they have 35 hospitals and homes, three children's homes, 20 homes for aged men and women, 22 men's hostels and in addition they own places of worship and residences for their officers, training schools and other buildings. The properties are used to promote men's and women's social services, prison and court work, the relief of distress, fresh air camps and church work as an evangelical denomination. I understand they have social institutions such as industrial departments, general hospitals, maternity hospitals, girls' homes and eventide homes for aged men and women.
I personally came in contact with the Salvation Army in the first war and I believe that every Canadian veteran who returned from that war has nothing but good words to say concerning the work of the Salvation Army. I know they have carried on in that same wonderful way in British Columbia and I presume in other parts of Canada as well. No organization is more deserving of praise and I think in asking this assistance today in the way of an amendment to their bill the Salvation Army are asking something that is completely reasonable and something which I feel every hon. member in this house this afternoon will be only too glad to give them.
Mr. Speaker, if this bill is given second reading it will of course go to a committee and there the officers of the Salvation Army will appear and answer any questions which hon. members of the committee may wish to ask.

Private Bills


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we in this group support this bill wholeheartedly. It seems rather odd that an organization like the Salvation Army should have been limited as to the value of their real estate holdings and since the limitations were placed upon them 41 years ago I think they should be removed.
It is a good thing that the House of Commons of Canada should give support to such a worthy institution as the Salvation Army. The work they have done at home and abroad in time of both peace and distress throughout the years constitutes a record that makes them worthy of having this slight request granted. The purpose of any limitation as to real estate value is not well known to us. We see very little reason for such a limitation and surely on behalf of such a splendid organization the House of Commons should be only too glad to grant this minor request and wish this organization every success in their good work.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, I wish to endorse everything that has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. From my experience I would say that this is an organization which should receive the support of every hon. member of the House of Commons.
I can assure my hon. friends that their record in the east over the years is exactly the same as in the west. It is a pleasure to endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. I am sure we will all agree this is something they perhaps should have had before but it has been delayed or neglected, and since they have now come to parliament asking for this assistance I believe it should be given without any hesitation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as the representative in the government of the province which I believe has the largest number of members of the Salvation Army of any province of Canada I should like to endorse what has been said.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, all previous hon. members who have spoken said what they believed in commendation of the Salvation Army and I feel most certain, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Charlotte that there will not be any one who will not support this bill which is designed to assist the Salvation Army.
There is no question whatever of the great work they have always done and which they are continuing to do even today. I know

that over a quarter of a century I have frequently had to appeal to the Salvation Army on behalf of others and they have never failed to come through with assistance. They are indeed a most magnificent organization.
I would like to make one suggestion, sir, if I may concerning this bill on behalf of the Salvation Army. I would suggest that some consideration be given on the principle of this bill to what I feel is an added protection required by this great organization. The bill asks for an increase in the property holdings of the Salvation Army with which I completely agree but it does not deal with the	application or	use	of those property
holdings.
One of the greatest services rendered by the	Salvation	Army is	in the use of itsproperty holdings to assist those in need, sometimes at a slight charge. A recent ruling of the Department of National Revenue says in effect that	those	who	make a charge inthe	operation	of a	real	estate holding are
no longer eligible for the exemption of donations from income tax. Because I am interested in this matter it is my hope that when the bill is in committee full consideration will be given to the effect of the recent ruling of the Department of National Revenue on the operations of the Salvation Army. This ruling could seriously hamper the operations of the Salvation Army. I hope it will be made clear-if necessary by legislation-that we not only grant, as far as I am concerned unlimited, real estate holdings to the Salvation Army, but that it will also be made clear that if they make a slight charge, not even sufficient to cover their costs, this will not be considered a business operation and the recent decision of the government concerning the exemption of donations from income tax will not apply to the Salvation Army.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. Claude Richardson (St. Lawrence-St. George) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 204, respecting Alliance Nationale.


Howard Charles Green: Could we have an explanation?


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Mr. Speaker, this is not a very complicated bill. In 1893 this company now called Alliance Nationale, which has its head office in the city of Montreal, was founded in the province of Quebec. In the year 1917 it obtained a federal charter, and in 1945 its charter was amended. It then became a mutual life insurance company.

It is now desired, first of all, that the name of the company be changed so as more accurately to represent the type of business it carries on. The new name, it is suggested, will be "Alliance Mutual Life Insurance Company" with the appropriate name in French. Second, it is proposed that section 8 of its statute be repealed. The provisions of section 8 were transitory and of a provisional nature, and are long since not required. In addition, the bill makes provision regarding the qualification of those who may vote at annual meetings of the company, and of members who may act as directors of the company.
If the bill receives the approval of this house its provisions will come into force not retroactively but on January 1, 1958. Should the bill receive approval on second reading the officers of the company will be available before the committee to give appropriate explanations.


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

Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 205, to incorporate the Kings Mutual Insurance Company.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, by a provincial act of the Nova Scotia legislature passed in 1904 there was incorporated the Kings Mutual Fire Insurance Company. It was a mutual company largely doing business at that time with the farmers of Kings county and the Annapolis valley.
During the years the activities of this company have grown until they now cover the whole province of Nova Scotia. It has had a remarkably successful record, and because of its growth it is desired and thought advisable that it should be brought under federal review rather than remain within provincial scope as is now the case; and what is proposed by this bill is the creation of a federal company with power to take over the provincial company when the necessary approval by hon. members of this house and by the superintendent of insurance for Canada has been obtained.
The bill has been submitted to the insurance department, and has been approved by the superintendent of insurance. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it will not become effective, even when passed, until such date as may be 82715-117J
Pensions
fixed by order in council following a certificate from the superintendent of insurance.


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

Mr. Irvin Sluder (Swift Current-Maple Creek) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 207, respecting Canadian Co-operative Credit Society Limited.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Irvin William Studer: This bill is of a technical character designed to permit the Co-operative Credit Society of Manitoba Limited to become a member of the Canadian Cooperative Credit Society Limited as was intended by parliament when the Canadian society's act of incorporation was passed in 1953.
Under the Co-operative Credit Associations Act membership is limited to provincial credit societies which are declared to be eligible by an act of parliament and which also meet the statutory requirements for certification by the treasury board. The Manitoba society was declared eligible to become a member by the act incorporating the Canadian society in 1953, but was not able to meet all the technical requirements for certification within the three-year time limit imposed by the Co-operative Credit Associations Act.
The Manitoba society is now in a position to comply with these requirements and desires to become a full participant in the Canadian society, and the purpose of this bill is to make it again eligible to become a member of the Canadian society. Because the bill involves no principle and is of such a technical character, it is eminently suitable for discussion in committee when representatives of both credit societies and the superintendent of insurance will be available to answer questions.


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


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to increase the pensions of civil servants who were retired when salaries were low, so as to bring such pensions more in line with those of the present.

Pensions
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the hon. member for Vancouver South, because of his practical common sense, to support this resolution. I have raised this question in the house twice a year for the last three years, in the debate on the speech from the throne and during the discussion of the budget.
We place it before the consideration of hon. members now for two reasons; first because of the need; and second, because I believe when the government sees the need, when that need touches human lives, and when it is all-Canadian, the government rises to the occasion and the need is satisfied.
I can prove this contention from the record of the government over the last 20 years or more, but I will just use one example. I had a resolution up for three years dealing with the handicapped. When the government saw the need, after the last election, they passed a bill dealing with the handicapped.
This resolution is very simple. It deals with men and women who gave long service in the armed forces, in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and in the civil service at a time when wages were low. Conditions of service then were not what they are today. There was no 40-hour week; people had to work ten hours a day. One section of the civil service, the postmen, were on duty six days a week, and when snow was on the streets and the streets were not cleared they often worked more than ten hours a day, though they never received any overtime pay.
When I think of the need, I think of people I know. I get my information not from the press or from members of parliament but from my own experience and as a result of my own investigations at first hand. I have known men who have cut out certain luxuries because they could no longer afford them. One man had to give up smoking his pipe. When I was a boy they used to say that the two great comforts of a man were his pipe and his wife. So in cutting out his pipe he had cut out one of his main comforts. It occurs to me that if some members of this house had to give up smoking their pipes they would be kicking like an irritated mule. When a man has to give up a luxury like that, it hurts him. But a man who can do something like this to enable his wife or companion to have the necessities of life must be big enough, and is surely deserving of our help.
The United Kingdom have dealt with this matter, and we plan our legislation along largely the same lines as the United Kingdom does. In 1920 they increased their pensions,

in 1924 they increased their pensions, in 1944 they increased their pensions, in 1947 they increased their pensions and on April i, 1956, they increased their pensions. They did so because men and women in different classes of employment had different types of salaries, and the British government felt that it was necessary to deal with them as the years went along.
The United States have a different type of government but they too have increased their pensions and, like the United Kingdom, they have made an attempt to examine the whole situation and ascertain on the basis of justice what would be a just, decent and reasonable minimum standard for those civil servants who retired on low pensions.
I am told that the average pension is $60 a month. There are some retired civil servants who had big salaries and they would get larger pensions, but those under $60 a month are greater in numbers than those above. The average pension for widows is $20 a month. When we think of the need of these men and women surely we shall rise to the occasion. I should like to read a portion of a letter from Mr. S. Carberry of the association of superannuated civil servants of Manitoba. This is what he says:
The purchasing power today is worth less than half that amount.
He means less than half what it was when these people retired.
When the government of 1924 brought into force the Superannuation Act, it stated the main reason for doing so was that it wished their retired civil servants not to be dependent on charity. It seems unfair that superannuated civil servants who have laboured through the years and helped to establish a pension or superannuation allowance find that it is not sufficient to maintain themselves now.
I know it is not sufficient. When a small boy I was told by a great Scotsman that the light that shines farthest shines brightest at home. The retired civil servants belong to the big family of the government of Canada. We can see this dark spot which is helping to blur the light of this great Canada of ours, and as long as we allow this situation to exist we know it is going to hurt all Canada.
To sum up briefly, many of these retired civil servants had a salary of $120 a month. Today workers in the same positions would get $300 a month or close to it, and with far better conditions of work. Many of these retired civil servants are getting $60 a month or less, and their pensions should be doubled. We put this situation before the government and in considering the question today I am sure the government will not put the matter off until after the election but will grant relief to these people, some of whom are not

getting three meals a day. We see the need and so does all of Canada. I thank the government in anticipation of their granting this request.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker-


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: If you will pardon me, I did not close properly. I was going to suggest ways by which the government might raise the necessary money. Those luxuries that are no help to the human body and are not food should be taxed at a little higher rate in order to increase the pensions of superannuated civil servants.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the members of the official opposition are very glad to support the motion, which is in these words:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to increase the pensions of civil servants who were retired when salaries were low, so as to bring such pensions more in line with those of the present.
In moving his motion the hon. member for Fort William has said that the government always meets the need. Of course he has great faith in the government; I think far more than most of the members on the government side of the house.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I have reason to.


Howard Charles Green: This is one case in which the government has been a long, long, long time meeting the need. I remember the demands for action of this type that were made in the house as far back as 1949. In that year both the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself urged just such action as is envisaged in this notice of motion. These demands have been made every year since, but the government has never seen fit to move one inch.
This year the Minister of Finance has again made a statement which certainly does not give much hope. On January 14 he was asked a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre about the plight of the superannuated civil servants and, as found at page 166 of Hansard, this was his answer:
We have considered the question of superannuated civil servants and their pensions at some considerable length, Mr. Speaker, and have had discussions with various groups of persons who would be interested in it, including a deputation from the superannuated civil servants themselves. I do not want anyone to conclude from this that any action is imminent because these things are only announced in due course, if they are announced at all.
That was not a very hopeful statement and, Mr. Speaker, I believe the attitude of the government on this question has been not only indifferent but also absolutely and utterly
Pensions
callous. This need should have been met a long time ago. In my opinion Canadians today have the finest civil service in the world. I do not think our service has to take second place to that of any other country.


Walter Edward Harris: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: It has been built up in large degree by these men and women who have retired on very small superannuation. Practically all these retired civil servants spent their lives working for this country. They had no relationship with private firms. This is a situation directly involving the government and its own ex-employees. These Canadians can look in no other direction than to the government for a solution of this problem, which is not a problem of their own making.
They made their contributions to the superannuation fund from their salaries in the belief that when they retired their superannuation would be sufficient to enable them to carry on in the way to which they had been accustomed. No one can contradict that statement. The deductions taken from their salaries down through the years were such that these civil servants were entitled to believe that when they retired their superannuation would be of a value equivalent to the value of money at the time they made their payments.
I am sure the Minister of Finance will not contradict the assertion that civil service salaries were extremely low until recently. I have here an example of a collector of customs, who retired in 1937. At that time he was getting a salary of $2,600 a year. The man occupying his position today is getting $5,000 a year. Yet the man who retired in 1937 of course draws superannuation based only on the salary he was getting at that time. The cost of living has increased. It is increasing now every month. These worthy Canadians are caught in the squeeze.
I have here from the wife of one of the civil servants a letter which sets out the situation clearly. She says:
During the war years no increases were granted, income tax, etc. jumped and people like my husband, forced to retire due to ill-health (wartime overwork) were and are very hard hit. The money paid in during working years was worth its value, 100 cents to the dollar; present value less than one-third. We are only one of many in this situation, and a large percentage very much worse off than we are.
The other day we were given the figures as to the pensions paid by the government. These figures are to be found at page 1272 of Hansard and were given in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson). He asked these questions:
How many are receiving monthly pensions of (a) $1,000 or more;-

Pensions
The answer to that question was "nil".
-	(b) between $500 and $999-
And the answer was "28".
-	(e) between $100 and $499-
And the answer was "7,067".
-	(d) between $40 and $99-
And the answer was "8,618".
-	(e) less than $40?
And the answer was "5,644". Then the third part of the question was:
3. What is the average pension paid in each of these groups?
When you look at the average in these groups the picture is even worse, because in paragraph (c) of the answer we find that in the group who were getting between $100 and $499 the monthly average is nothing like $499; it is $165.59. In the group getting between $40 and $99 the average again is nothing like $99; it is $67.61; and in the group getting less than $40-that is 5,644-the average is only $21.03.
Mr. Speaker, those pensions must be brought more in line with those of the present day. Other governments and many corporations have recognized that need. The hon. member for Fort William referred to the United Kingdom. I think his figures went away back before the second war. In any event some of them did. But I believe the United Kingdom has raised these pensions to superannuated civil servants several times within the last few years. The Americans have done the same thing. Some of the provinces of Canada have also raised these pensions to their superannuated civil servants. The Canadian Pacific Railway is one corporation which has done the same thing. The government will therefore not be setting any precedent if it moves to make some provision for the superannuated federal civil servants. They will be a long way down the line in the list of those who will have received the treatment to which they are so justly entitled.
Their requests have been supported by the civil service associations representing the men and women still in the civil service. It is not a question of the civil servants of today objecting to the superannuated civil servants receiving some additional benefits. These present-day civil servants for years have been demanding that the superannuated civil servants be treated fairly. For example, I have here a clipping under date of March, 1954, three years ago, which sets out that for two years prior to that time the civil service organizations had been requesting action of this type.
I have referred to the stand taken in the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, by myself and by many others.

Last year the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Drew, made a very strong speech urging action such as that which is urged in this notice of motion before the house today. The present Leader of the Opposition dealt with the matter in the only way in which he could do so, namely by a question, on January 18, to be found at page 387 of Hansard. On that occasion, questioning the Prime Minister, he said:
Can the Prime Minister assure the house that any increase in that regard to meet the continuing depreciated value of the dollar will be extended to the superannuation payments to retired civil servants, members of the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
The Prime Minister replied and then the Leader of the Opposition asked a further question:
I then asked the Prime Minister whether the interpretation placed on the optimistic words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare yesterday is well founded because, after all, the minister chose to indicate that something was going to be done; and he having indicated that, certainly X think I have the right to ask whether similar treatment is going to be extended to those whom I have mentioned that find themselves in a serious plight.
We are in deadly earnest about this question on the opposition side of the house.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: So are we.


Howard Charles Green: The actions of the government do not show it, even though the hon. member for Fort William may be very earnest about it and I am not doubting that he is.
The suggestions as to the manner in which this could be done will be varied. I had one suggestion put up by the superannuated federal civil servants of British Columbia in a letter dated January 11, 1957, which is subsequent to the opening of the house. In that letter they made this suggestion:
The only alternative therefore that suggests itself is to grant a measure of relief in the form of a flat rate bonus, thus giving the larger percentage benefits to those in the lower brackets whose need is the greater.
That may or may not be a sound suggestion, but it is put forward by that particular organization of superannuated federal civil servants which, of course, is made up of those drawing superannuation in varying amounts.
One might go on arguing at great length in support of this motion, but I do not believe it needs argument of that type, Mr. Speaker, because it is so obvious the government must stop dragging its feet on this question and take steps to meet this need. As I pointed out before, these civil servants who served Canada in the past had a very clear understanding. That understanding was the basis of the superannuation act itself when it was first introduced, that they would

receive a stated percentage of their pay when they retired, which would be sufficient for them to maintain approximately the same standard of living they had reached when they retired. What is needed today is that we bring about a closer relationship between current salary rates and these superannuation benefits.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will be able to give us some statement in the course of this debate which will be a great deal more promising than the statement he made on January 14.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the introduction of this resolution. We are glad, too, that the Minister of Finance is in the house for this debate. We hope he will take part in it. I may say we hope for even more than that; we hope that in the course of whatever contribution he makes to this debate he will give us the assurance that something is going to be done about this question at this session.
Other hon. members have referred to the great number of questions that have been asked on this matter across the years. Indeed, if one were to put them all on the record there would not be much time left to make a new speech on this question. I have been encouraged, however, by the fact that the Minister of Finance has not answered the questions that have been asked at this session on this matter. In previous sessions this minister and his predecessors have referred us back to previous answers. This process simply turned one back to refusal after refusal to meet requests for an increase in the pensions of civil servants already retired.
This year, however, I could not help but notice that the Minister of Finance put me off on one pretext or another. I do not quarrel with his having done that. I take hope from the fact that he did not say no again this year, as he has done on previous occasions. It may be that before the session is over the answer will be yes. That is my hope.
I even take hope from the fact that a government member, the hon. member for Fort William, has placed this resolution on the order paper. Not only has he placed it on the order paper but he has moved it, and it is now before the house for consideration.
I trust that the rumours that are around that there are going to be increases in social security benefits of one kind and another are correct, and that when these increases come through they will include increases in
Pensions
the pensions of retired civil servants, particularly those whose plight we have been laying before the government for these many years.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra who has joined in these requests across the years, suggested that he and I, at any rate, have been asking for action on this matter as far back as 1949. In looking the matter over a few days ago I found that it goes back still farther. It goes back at least to 1947. I have in my hand a copy of Hansard for February 17, 1947, which is a little over 10 years ago. I find on page 469 of Hansard for that day these questions;


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1.	Has consideration been given by the government to increasing the pensions of superannuated federal civil servants by the addition of a cost of living bonus or other supplement?
The answer was given by Mr. Mayhew, then the parliamentary assistant to the minister of finance, and the answer was "Yes".
My second question was in these words:
2.	If so, what is the result of such consideration? Is the matter receiving attention at the present time?
This is the answer the then parliamentary assistant to the minister of finance gave on behalf of the government on February 17, 1947:
This question is still receiving consideration and the government's policy will be announced in due course.
Ten years have gone by and many of the people on behalf of whom we pleaded in 1947, and in the succeeding years, have since passed away. Those who have managed to live during the years on the miserably small pensions that some of them are receiving have accomplished a miracle. I hope that at long last the announcement that was to be made in due course, as indicated back in 1947, will soon be forthcoming.
The hon. member for Fort William gave a few figures. He made reference, in fact, to what he called an average pension for retired civil servants. I do not believe anyone in this house needs to be warned against the use of averages. I think it is more significant to place on the record once again some figures as to the number of retired civil servants who have to get by on pensions which, by today's standards, are ridiculously small. There is still on this year's order paper a question of mine which would bring this information up to date, and no doubt this question will be answered soon. In the meantime, the latest information in this field can be found on page 785 of Hansard for February 1, 1956. On this page hon. members will find a lengthy table giving the number of retired civil

Pensions
servants and the number of widows drawing pensions in the various categories.
It is not my purpose to put all these figures on the record again, but I would draw attention to the fact that 2,710 retired civil servants are drawing pensions of less than $50 per month. This includes 355 retired civil servants who are drawing pensions of less than $20 per month. It is cold comfort to the people down in those brackets to be told that the average pension is $60 a month, as if even that were adequate. The same table shows that there are 4,196 widows of civil servants who are drawing pensions of less than $50 a month. This figure includes 1,077 widows who are drawing pensions of less than $20 per month. The total number of retired civil servants drawing pensions, according to the information given a year ago, was 13,022. The total number of widows of civil servants drawing pension at that time was 6,459.
These tables, and others, will support the contention which is sometimes made by the government that those who have retired in recent years, particularly if they were employed for a normal length of time and hence were able to take advantage of the amendments made recently to the Public Service Superannuation Act, are doing fairly well.
One does not deny that. I for one am prepared to give credit to the government for the improvements that have been made in recent years in the Public Service Superannuation Act; but our complaint, Mr. Speaker, is that during the time improvements were being made in the act for the benefit of those who were still working, nothing has been done by this government to improve the position of those who had retired previous to the occasion of such amendments. That includes quite a few people whose retirement dates back over a number of years, or whose pensions are based on salaries that were earned a number of years ago when those salaries were low. As former employees of the government they are just as deserving, they are just as human and just as needy as any other group of federal civil servants, and for the life of me I cannot understand the approach of the government that refuses to do anything for this particular group of its former employees.
A headline in tonight's paper reads, "Up Pay of 6,000 Ottawa Civil Servants". On the same front page is another headline reading, "Living Cost Rises Again". One is in 72 point type and the other is in 36 point type. Of course the one in the smaller type will catch up with everybody. My point is that the government does face up to some of the problems of the people who work for it. It

does face up sooner or later to problems as to the wage and salary rates of its employees, and it does do something through the years with regard to the Public Service Superannuation Act, looking to the future; but in all these changes that have been made this other group has been left out in the cold. Nothing has been done for them, although through the years that some of us have been pleading their case in this house many of them have died off.
I certainly hope this 10 year effort on our part is at last going to bear some fruit. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Fort William have pointed out that there are many people who support the contention that something should be done for these people. They have their own organizations in a number of centres across Canada. There is one in Quebec city; there are some of them in Montreal; there are some of them here in Ottawa and in Toronto who are organized, and there is a very active organization in Winnipeg. There are active organizations of retired civil servants in Vancouver and Victoria, and perhaps in other parts of British Columbia as well.
These people are not only presenting their own case; they have the support of other bodies. I note in particular that in the brief presented to the government of Canada on January 23 of this year by the Canadian Labour Congress a request was made on behalf of retired civil servants. It is to be found on page 31, where President Jodoin and the other members of that delegation made this request:
Adjustments should be made in the pensions of retired civil servants to replace their purchasing power.
The point should be noted that a body such as the Canadian Labour Congress, like others, is concerned not only for those who are still working, not only for the pension plans which are still being built up, but are concerned about the plight of those who are already retired, who are forgotten by their former employers, but who are just as deserving Canadians as any other group in our society.
I should like to point out once again that other jurisdictions have done something about this matter. Mr. Abbott, prior to the present Minister of Finance, and Mr. Ilsley before him, one by one have stood up time and again and argued that this was a contractual arrangement, this was something that the government could do nothing about. The contention has been that these people get what they are entitled to by virtue of the amount of time they worked and the amount of money they paid in.

I remind the government again that other jurisdictions have dealt with this matter. The hon. member for Fort William must have read one of my former speeches, in view of the dates he was quoting today. In the case of the United Kingdom, for many years it has been the practice of the government of that country, under all the parties that have- been in power, to provide pension increases not only for those still in the service but for those already retired, the value of whose pensions had decreased because of the rising cost of living, or decreased in relation to the rising standard of living.
The United States federal government has taken action along this line; likewise many of the state governments have taken action to raise the pensions of retired civil servants. At least two provinces in this country, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan, have taken action to increase generally the pensions of their retired civil servants. In addition the province of Ontario has taken action with respect to its retired teachers. Teachers' pensions in the province of Ontario are not too bad, but even that province recognizes that in the case of those who retired prior to a few years ago conditions have changed, the cost of living has gone up, and their pensions would not meet today's conditions and today's standard of living, and so in their case improvements have been made.
A number of private companies have taken action along this line. Some of them are not too magnanimous in what they have done, but at least some changes have been made.
I confess that in one or two cases of which I am aware advantage is taken by such companies of the Old Age Security Act. In other words, those increases apply only up until age 70; but there are other instances where a genuine and permanent improvement in the pensions of retired civil servants has been made. Therefore it is not a new idea, Mr. Speaker; it is not a radical departure to request that something like this be done. It is just one of the facts of life that other governments and other employers have faced, but which this government seems to feel it does not need to worry about.
I am reminded, of course, of the fact that the same questions and answers to which I referred, as found on page 785 of Hansard for February 1, 1956, include information as to the distribution of our retired civil servants and their widows across Canada. I find that they are scattered in all the various provinces. There are only 79 retired civil servants in Newfoundland; there are 616 in Manitoba, and 2,159 in British Columbia. I am not going to give all the figures. I do this just to indicate that these people do
Pensions
not constitute a large block in any one area or, shall I say, in any one constituency where they could wield any great political influence. I must confess that there are times when some of us have felt that maybe that was the reason we could not get action out of this government, the fact that they were too small and too scattered a group. Mr. Speaker, I plead that any such consideration-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that the hon. gentleman's standard?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, it is not my standard, and precisely because they are so small a group they do not affect anybody's vote in any constituency represented in this house either for or against a particular member. There are very few in any single member's constituency. But I am suggesting that it strikes some of us that this may be one of the reasons they have not received better consideration at the hands of the government.
I say again I hope that the straws in the wind do tell us which way the wind is blowing and that this year, when things are being done just before a certain event that is not far off, one of the things that will be done will be the provision of a long needed and long deserved increase in the pensions of our retired civil servants.
One of the arguments that has been used repeatedly, of course, is that our civil servants draw their pensions by virtue of a contract, and that so long as the government lives up to that contract it is doing all it needs to do.
Like the Minister of Finance in a speech he was making the other day I am reluctant to quote myself-one is reluctant to go back and read a speech that one made on a former occasion-but maybe I will get caught in the same trap he got caught in and find myself doing it before I am through.
No, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to do that, but I would like to remind the Minister of Finance of a quotation I read to him in a former debate from the Hansard of the United Kingdom. This was on February 21, 1956, in this house as reported at pages 1418 and 1419, when I drew his attention to a debate that had taken place on this matter in the parliament at Westminster on March 3, 1944. The particular quotation which I drew to the attention of the Minister of Finance then I think is one that bears repeating to him now. The quotation is from Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, a Labour member of the British house in 1944, who was supporting the coalition government of that day which on that occasion was bringing in an

Pensions
increase in the pensions of retired civil servants. Mr. Pethick-Lawrence had this to say:
I would like now to say a word on the broad facts. I am in agreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that legalistically interpreted the public pensioner has no precise right to any increase in his pension. The strict law of his contract has been kept,-
I break in, Mr. Speaker, to remind you how often that has been said to us in this house. Mr. Pethick-Lawrence said, if I may continue:
-but the fact is that underlying all contracts for payment at some future date there is an assumption, unwritten and unspecified, but nevertheless implied. That is the stability of the purchasing power of money. Unless this is substantially maintained all time-contracts are meaningless.


Walter Edward Harris: Do you agree with that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. Precisely because the government does not maintain the purchasing power of money it cannot insist that these time contracts such as we are talking about now have to remain unchanged through the years. Further on in the same speech Mr. Pethick-Lawrence said this:
There is this further point when we are dealing with employees of the state. A private employer may argue that he had nothing to do with fixing the value of money, that it is an act of God so far as he is concerned, God being the state or possibly the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
When the state makes a contract, however, it itself has the power of altering the value of money, and, therefore, the state cannot quite get away with that excuse. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion and I think it is the same conclusion to which the Chancellor has come, although he may not have put it quite so bluntly, that in equity the state must review its contracts to meet the situation.
That is what the hon. member for Fort William is asking for in his resolution. That is what some of us on this side of the house have been asking for ten long years.


Harold Edward Winch: Twelve.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend the hon. member for Vancouver East says 12; I do not doubt we have been asking for this action for even longer, but it just so happens that I have the record before me going back for 10 years.
Mr. Speaker, that is what we are asking for now, that the state as represented by the government across the way review its contracts with these old and deserving employees to meet the situation which they now face. They cannot and should not be asked to live on pensions of the size some of them are receiving. I make that plea not only in the light of the higher cost of living which as I say, according to this evening's Ottawa Journal, is still going up; I make it because we feel that as time goes by and 
as society improves its standard of living generally, our older people have a right to share in that improvement even though they may riot be working at that particular time.
A pension is not just the right to retire and be kept alive in a state of mere existence. A pension should be-and several writers on the subject whose works I have scattered on the desk before me have made this clear- a person's claim on a share of the standard of living in the society he has helped to build. This applies to all our older people. It applies to all our older citizens and old age pensioners generally with equal force, but in this particular instance we are thinking of the government as an employer.
The government does have these two functions. It is the maker of legislation affecting the people generally, and it is the authority that can impose taxes for redistributing wealth amongst our people generally. But it is also an employer, and as such it has a responsibility to its former employees which we feel has not been fully met.
I have no hesitation in saying to the Minister of Finance that the government of which he is a member deserves credit for the improvements it has made in the Public Service Superannuation Act. It is a much better piece of legislation today than it was 10 years ago, but it is better only for those who are still working and who can take advantage of the improvements that have been made in that act. In the meantime nothing has been done to improve the situation of any persons who were retired prior to the amendments that improved the Public Service Superannuation Act.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that on one former occasion-I believe it was last year; yes, on July 17, 1956-I pointed out to him that some people have been giving study to this matter and have made concrete suggestions as to changes that might be made in the act to take care of this problem in the years that lie ahead.
The minister would probably say to me that if we improve the position of these people I have referred to in the statistics, what about 10 years from now? That is a good question. Ten years from now those who are presently benefiting from a pretty good Public Service Superannuation Act may find that the situation has deteriorated and that they will not be doing as well then as they now believe will be the case.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I will finish in about five minutes when we return at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the
house rose at six o'clock I had just about concluded my remarks in support of the appeal being made by the hon. members in all parts of the house for action this session to improve the position of retired civil servants, particularly those whose pensions are in the lower and middle brackets.
I was just about to remind the Minister of Finance of something I drew to his attention on July 17, 1956, when I asked him to consider proposals which had been outlined in the magazine put out by the professional public servants' institute. My point in drawing the minister's attention to that article last year was in part to indicate that other people are studying this matter, and in part to indicate that this is a problem which must be solved on a permanent basis.
The problem of making pensions that are designed in one decade adequate for the later decade in which the persons concerned are to draw those pensions on retirement is a continuing one, and I suggest that it should be possible, as has been pointed out, to build into a superannuation scheme the necessary provisions to take care of rising costs, improved standards of living and other factors which may make desirable a higher pension than was called for at an earlier stage.
We hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance will look at this problem not only in terms of the needs of the categories of people to whom we have referred in the course of this debate-the needs of retired civil servants who are suffering serious handicaps at this time-but also that he will think in terms of trying to solve this problem on a long-range basis. That should be done not only for those who are covered under the Public Service Superannuation Act, but also in respect to pension and retirement plans generally.
However, Mr. Speaker, that is a problem of a long-term type, and it will require a good deal of study. For the moment our immediate concern is with those who are suffering now because of the small pensions they are drawing; and we hope that as a result of the efforts that have been made across at least 10 years, as a result of the pleas being made to the government today, action will be taken at this session to raise the pensions of our faithful retired civil servants, particularly those whose pensions are in the lower and middle brackets.
Pensions


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, the speeches which have been delivered so far will be exceedingly valuable to have on the record. It was a great thing for the hon. member for Fort William to have introduced this measure; the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra made a valuable contribution, and a similarly valuable contribution has just been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The members of our group, that of Social Credit, will be solidly behind the proposal which the hon. member for Fort William has put before the house in this resolution, and solidly in line with the support which the other two hon. members have given.
I know the Minister of Finance will ask two questions. He will say, "Where am I going to get the money with which to pay these additional grants to our superannuated civil servants?" and "How can I possibly raise taxes in this country adequate to provide the money which will be required?" Then he will begin to compute the amounts of money it would cost to give these additional sums to all the superannuated civil servants, to old age pensioners and recipients of family allowances, to people in receipt of blind persons' pensions, to people who have retired from the armed forces, to disabled people and so on; and the amount of money required will run into a tremendous sum. That is perfectly obvious from the figures which have been given by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.
So the minister will say, "Where can I possibly obtain that money?" I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I believe even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, even if he had at his disposal a team of experts and a year in which to work, would find it exceedingly difficult to offer suggestions to the Minister of Finance which would enable him to raise the money by taxation.
Then the minister will say, "We are now suffering from inflation." May I insist that it is not inflation; it is only an apparent inflation. But he will say-and he will insist on saying what the people behind him who advise him insist on saying-"This is inflation, and consequently if we put more money into circulation we shall be adding fuel to the flames of inflation." May I refer particularly to an article to which I have already referred on one occasion, namely the article by Bruce Hutchison in the March 2 issue of Maclean's magazine, as evidence of the kind of false doctrine which is being spread all over Canada by the apologists for the people who believe as the minister and his financial advisors do?


Mr. Elmore Philpoft (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to support the resolution and especially to give moral support to my old friend the honourable and venerable member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). I do not know whether I will ever have the opportunity of knocking for admission at the pearly gates, but if I ever do and there is an argument I can at least say that on the good side of the ledger there should be chalked up the mark I helped to get elected to the house a great many years ago the present honourable and venerable member for Fort William. Looking back on those ancient days of 1935-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You were C.C.F. at that time.


Elmore Philpott: No, I was C.C.F. lor 14 months from 1933 to 1934, so I think that should be sufficient.


Mr. Martin:: Everybody is leaving the C.C.F.


Elmore Philpott: In 1935 I had the great honour of helping to elect to the house the hon. member for Fort William and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).
Before I get into the subject matter of the resolution I think I should spend a few minutes on the question of private members' resolutions, especially private members' resolutions originating from the government side. In the years I have been here I know that many times I have been on the horns of a dilemma. At times there have been resolutions or even bills originating from the opposition side and I have found myself in the uncomfortable position of either having to vote for them, seemingly against the government, or of being forced to take a passive attitude which was rather contrary to my general long-range inclinations.
I want to point out what I think is one of the mistakes we make in the house. I believe that private members' resolutions, regardless of where they originate, should be considered entirely on their merits. They should be considered entirely on the basis of the terms in which they are framed. Since I have been thinking about the matter I have been looking into the past history of occurrences in the house over the years. I think anyone who looks into the great political career of the present senator from Quebec, Chubby Power, over the years when he was a private member almost always sitting on the side of the government, can find plenty of evidence of a robust independence, and even of the initiation or suggestion of things which were not yet government policy.
If we go back farther into history we can find the most famous case of all involving a member on the Conservative benches in the days when there was a Conservative government headed by Sir Robert Borden. At that time the then Conservative member for Kingston City introduced his famous resolution calling for the abolition of titles. The more I think of that the more I think what a tremendous feat of moral courage it must have been for a Conservative private member sitting on the government side of the house to move a resolution calling for the abolition of titles when his own leader, the then prime minister of Canada, bore a famous title honoured over the whole world and when the leader of the Liberal opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was equally distinguished in that regard.
Pensions
So, Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest that in my opinion it would be of advantage to the work of the house if we did not go beyond the terms of the resolutions themselves, and if there was a disposition on the part of the opposition as well as the government to treat these private members' resolutions entirely on their merits and not try to read into them things which are not there.
Mr. Speaker, to me this seems to be perhaps not one of the great world-shaking issues with which we are called upon to deal every now and then, or perhaps one not even in the major league with regard to social welfare. We know that even this week we are going to be called upon to deal with one of the great forward steps in the setting up of a better social security system in Canada when we get around to dealing with the latest great achievement of this government, sparked by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), when he brings in his national hospital insurance scheme. Some of us have even greater hopes in connection with another matter which I will not mention right at the moment for fear of being called out of order. However, I am still hoping that we shall reach it on my resolution if we get around to having another day's discussion on private members' motions. As I say, Mr. Speaker, this is perhaps not one of the great major issues. However, I think it is an important issue.
I believe the government should give every possible consideration to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Fort William, above all for two reasons. I believe the government-and for that matter this whole house-* has a double responsibility to see that the lower-paid retired civil servants have their pensions brought up to something like equality with the pensions of those who have retired at a later date. I remember, Mr. Speaker, when I had the sad duty last year of having to carry on some of the unfinished business of the late hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, the late Dr. Jack MacDougall, and when on his behalf I had the great privilege of raising a matter which he had promised to raise, namely the pensions of retired C.P.R. men who were getting less than a living pension.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, how members on all sides of this house lent the full weight of their moral support to the suggestion that the C.P.R. was at least morally bound to give a living pension to the men who had borne the heat and burden of their operations in the earlier years before the value of money had begun to go down. I know that in my capacity as a private member of parliament

Pensions
or, for that matter, even before I was a member of parliament, I more than once had to write to the president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Donald Gordon, asking for this same general reform with regard to C.N.R. pensioners who were drawing less than a living pension, in some cases because of war services which took them out of service in the years they would have made their contribution to build it up to enable them to get a living pension when they retired.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a good principle that you should never suggest to anybody else that he should do a thing if you yourself are not willing to do that same thing. It seems to me that we who are members of parliament have at least a moral obligation to see that the employees of this great Dominion of Canada have all the rights of employment that a good private employer would give to those same employees. I therefore think we, as members of parliament or as members of the government, have a moral obligation which is above and beyond the strict letter of the law with regard to pensions.
But, Mr. Speaker, I submit that we also have a larger responsibility, those of us who sit in this house. While it is not through any fault of the government, and not through any fault of this parliament or of any one party in this parliament, the fact remains that since the beginning of the second world war the purchasing value of money has steadily gone down year by year. I think anyone can make out a convincing argument to prove that when these people were making their contributions to the pension fund they were paying in dollars worth so much in eggs, so much in bacon, or so much in oatmeal porridge if you will. I think we have at least a moral obligation to see that they get out of their pension repayments something equivalent in value to what they paid in.
In the years that I have been a backbencher of this House of Commons I have sometimes sat here in amazement at the fact that, as far as I can find out, everybody in this house is in favour of higher prices. Many a day I have sat here and looked around this house and asked myself this question: Where are the people in this House of Commons who favour lower prices on everything? All the talk I hear year after year, month after month and even week after week is about higher prices. In fact I heard it only three quarters of an hour ago in a television broadcast, which I saw in the next room, about the necessity for higher supports right across the board to keep prices up.

My point is this. I am certainly not criticizing the government for the fact that we had a second world war, or that we had a cold war which followed the second world war and forced this country into a vast rearmament program which had the indirect effect of lowering the purchasing value of our money. But I am suggesting this. As this parliament as a whole is responsible for the fact that the purchasing power of the money has been allowed to fall-for very good reasons; for reasons which we could not avoid- we therefore have a double obligation. Over and above our short-range obligation to the men and women who have served this country well we have a larger national obligation to those same civil servants because of economic upsets and economic deficiencies over which they have no control.
As I know that there are many others who wish to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker,
I do not intend to prolong my argument, except to say that it is a great honour for me to give the fullest possible moral support to the fine resolution moved by my venerable friend the hon. member for Fort William.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to increase the pensions of civil servants who were retired when salaries were low, so as to bring such pensions more in line with those of the present.
It seems to me amazing, Mr. Speaker, that it should be necessary to call the government's attention to such a worthwhile resolution. Surely the government has been giving consideration to this matter. Members on this side of the house for years have spoken about the necessity of providing some additional pension to those civil servants who were retired years ago. There have been letters written by the superannuated federal civil servants' association; therefore it comes as a shock to me to think that a member on the front benches on the government side, who must be in close touch with what the government is thinking, who must attend the caucuses of the Liberal party and must have heard the proposals which were made by the various cabinet ministers, should find it necessary to introduce this resolution. I would have hoped that this matter had received consideration, and that before the end of this session some definite pronouncement would be made which would have ensured a substantial increase in the pensions of those who have retired, in some cases many years ago when their pensions were very small and the cost of living was very low.
I have a letter from the superannuated federal civil servants of Vancouver which was

written at the beginning of this year, and which respectfully requests that the superannuation act be amended so as to provide a closer relationship between current salary rates and superannuation benefits presently being paid to those retired. Then the letter goes on:
It is obviously unfair to place retired civil servants and widows of civil servants who are more or less unemployable into a position of semidestitution through the reduction of the purchasing power of the dollar-
Then this is put in block letters.
-a condition never contemplated by government or anyone else when provisions of the superannuation act were drawn up.
I do not think I need to emphasize the point that the cost of living has gone up. We know that if you take 1939 as the basic year equalling 100, by 1949 the cost of living index had gone up to 186. Then there was a revision in the cost of living index, and it was based on 1949 equalling 100. Still this index has been going up, and I noticed that according to tonight's paper there has been a further increase. I quote from the Ottawa Journal of this day's date:
Living costs rose again in January, pushing the consumer price index to a record 120.5, an increase of one fifth of a point from 120.3 in December.
The article goes on to set out the main causes for such an increase. Over the week end it was being pointed out by Ottawa newspapers that a survey had been made to ascertain the actual conditions under which superannuated civil servants in this city were living. Earlier in the year the Victoria Daily Colonist carried out a survey in my own city in order to examine how some of the old civil servants were able to exist on the very small pensions they were receiving. So it may be really brought home to us in this house, let me quote from the Ottawa Journal of Saturday, March 2:
A growing minority of Ottawa residents contrive to live on an income far below the level necessary for "marginal" comfort. Age, for them, has brought the indignity of daily bread in small, measured doses.
A Journal survey has shown without doubt that extreme hardship is the daily lot of many pensioners and superannuated civil servants in the lower income brackets. Forced by circumstance to retire from the active earning force, these "senior citizens" are losing ground month by month in a tragic struggle to make ends meet. They are in fact underprivileged citizens caught hopelessly in the spiral of rising living costs.
We are all conscious of rising living costs and the inflation which faces us at the present time. We know that some attempts have been made by the government to check this inflation. After having given it the original impetus by the tremendous spending of the various government departments, they are frantically trying to adjust the brakes in
Pensions
order to stop the runaway car to which they gave the original push. However, inflation is here, and something has got to be done for these senior retired civil servants.
If the government is not able to check inflation, then it seems to me only fair and just that the government must find some other means of helping those who are really the underprivileged class of the nation. I could read a number of letters I have received from Vancouver island during this session pointing out the plight of these people, but I shall not take up the time of the house by doing so. I merely repeat that these elderly men and women who have served this country in numerous capacities in the past are now in desperate straits. It is only by increasing their pension at the present time that some measure of relief can be brought to them, until such time as a government is able to check this inflationary trend.
I say "some measure", because other governments have been able to devise some means by which assistance could be given to retired public servants. As has already been pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, steps were taken in the United Kingdom to increase the pensions not only of civil servants but of ex-servicemen, the personnel of the regular navy, army and air force. The United Kingdom has found means by which their pensions could be increased. Substantial increases have been granted to retired pensioners in the United States. I believe that even in our own country there are schemes in certain provinces whereby provincial civil servants who had gone on superannuation some years ago were to receive a cost of living bonus which amounted to so much per month for every year of service before a certain date.
If it is possible for other countries which are not nearly as wealthy as our country, and for several provinces, to look after their superannuated civil servants, surely it should be within the realm of possibility for this government, with its enormous surplus, to find some means before this session is over of relieving the dire hardship in which many of these elderly citizens are living.
I noticed that when the hon. member for Fort William introduced this resolution he did not confine himself to its actual wording as it appears on the order paper, but he extends the provisions he was suggesting to include ex-members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and ex-members of the regular forces of this country who had been making their contributions in the past. I will say only this, that of all the pension schemes which have been in existence, that which paid pensions to the Royal Canadian

Pensions
Mounted Police, or the Royal North-West Mounted Police, as they were before, was the most unsatisfactory of all.
There are many ex-members of that great force who are today living in very straitened circumstances because when they were carrying out their duties of maintaining order throughout western Canada they were on very small pay and allowances, and the pensions were based on those pay and allowances until the new pension scheme was introduced. Those pensions were pitifully small. Therefore the personnel who are now pensioned and have to live on those pensions only are in very straitened circumstances. There was no opportunity for the average constable, sergeant, or even inspector, in the old Royal North-West Mounted Police to save any money from their small pay. Therefore I hope when the government does give consideration to this matter, as I feel sure it must now do since it must realize that it is the wish of members on all sides of this house that something be done about this matter at this session, it will also give further consideration to the possibility of including an increase in the pensions of the ex-members of the Royal North-West Mounted Police and of the permanent force of this country.
I do not helieve this house will be satisfied with listening to a lot of figures the Minister of Finance will put on the record later, perhaps only to show that it is going to cost this country a great deal of money. It is not for me to suggest any particular means by which the extra money could be raised. I believe it is readily available. We have a large surplus. All kinds of taxes are being put on. I am not at all sure that I am in favour of the particular method of taxation suggested by the hon. member for Fort William, but let the government decide how it is going to raise the money. As I say, this house will not be satisfied with a whole lot of figures to try to prove it is going to cost the prosperous citizens of this country something to help out the underprivileged, aged, retired servants of this country.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Fort William, on his persistence in focusing our attention on this matter. There is no greater humanitarian anywhere in Canada than the hon. member for Fort William. He is constantly championing the cause of the poor, the weak and the helpless, and it is most appropriate that he should introduce this resolution at this time.
[Mr. Pearkes.l
The hon. member has proposed his resolution in the following words:
That in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to increase the pensions of civil servants who were retired when salaries were low, so as to bring such pensions more in line with those of the present.
It will be seen that this resolution does not call for a general increase for all civil servants. It is limited to a certain specific group, namely those who were retired when salaries were low. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is a point in its favour, because with this restriction the cost of implementing the resolution will be much lower than would be necessitated by a general increase.
There are many groups of people in Canada, especially in the low income brackets, who are feeling the pinch of inflation, and were it possible we should like to help them all. But to offset the effects of inflation on all low-income groups by direct payments from the federal treasury is simply beyond the financial capacity of Canada even when we take into consideration our rapidly expanding economy. Besides that, for many groups there are other and better ways of helping, but there is no other way of helping the pensioners. Of all the low-income groups, of course, those with fixed incomes feel the pinch of inflation the worst, and no group has a greater claim than the particular group singled out by this resolution, namely the civil servants who retired when salaries were low.
The theory behind pensions is that having given the best years of their lives to the service of their government and their country, the civil servants are entitled to a minimum of security on retirement. This security was held out as an inducement when civil servants were recruited in the past, and it was also used as a justification for paying much lower salaries to civil servants than would be paid by industry and commerce for similar services involving comparable duties and responsibilities. This minimum security is almost in the nature of a contract between the government and the civil servant. A civil servant who has retired has fulfilled his part of the contract both by accepting a lower salary than he could command in industry and also by making his own direct contribution toward that security.
It is very easy to blame inflation on government and government policy. The truth is that we are all to blame. Inflation is mainly the result of the public will. Government spends money sometimes even when perhaps it should not, not because it wants to but because the public demand it. Fixing the blame for inflation is beside

the point. The main point is that inflation is a fact and has been a fact for so many years that many people, even economists, are now inclined to accept it as a normal condition.
Mild inflation even at an almost unnoticeable rate of approximately 2 per cent per year will depreciate the dollar 50 per cent in 25 years. Wage earners have a chance to keep abreast of this depreciation through wage increases which will perhaps give them $2 where 25 years ago they received only $1. Salaried workers also demand and receive salary increases to enable them to keep up with the decline in purchasing power. The poor pensioner with a fixed income, however, is stuck. He has no pressure which he can bring to bear, no bargaining power and no way of protecting himself. His only hope is that this parliament will take some action to protect him from the steady devaluation of our currency, some of which is actually built into our economy.
The civil servant who worked for a low salary in return for security on retirement and who made his contribution toward that security in good faith has a bona fide claim upon the government to provide that security. In fact he has a double claim, because the low salary which he accepted on the assumption of security on retirement prevented him from making his own provision for his later years. On the other hand the size of his pension remains the same while the dollars in which he is paid by way of pension are worth about half as much as the dollars he contributed.
The hon. member for Fort William cited $60 per month as an average pension for retired civil servants. If $60 is the average then it must surely follow that there are many pensioners who are trying to live on much less, and that would certainly include the group envisaged by this resolution. In my own riding there are several retired civil servants who are living on much less than even $50 per month. It must be remembered that the civil servant's pension is not for himself alone. It is not meant as a subsistence for himself alone but for his family as well, and in most cases two people have to live on the small pension. In many cases this pension which has been earned is less than the amount received in old age assistance or even the amount paid to old age pensioners. It must be remembered too that old age pensioners have no means of supplementing their income. At their age they are off the labour market; nobody wants them, and instead of giving them employment we require their jobs to take care of the increase in the labour force.
Pensions
Personally I believe that the retirement age of 65 is too low. When a person reaches the age of 65 and is in sound health I think it would be better if retirement were made optional instead of compulsory. A noticeable difference exists between a person who reaches the age of 65 today and those who attained that age 20 years ago. Our improvements in health standards have not only prolonged man's life but have prolonged his vitality, his energy and his ability to produce. It seems that in a country like Canada, especially in an expanding economy where labour may become scarce, it is not in the best interests of the country to fail to make use of the productive capacity of people over 65 years of age.
For the reasons I have outlined, Mr. Speaker, namely that the employment of civil servants involves conditions which are somewhat in the nature of a contract, conditions which they on their part fulfilled by working for lower salaries than could be obtained in comparable jobs in industry and also by paying contributions in dollars the purchasing power of which was far in excess of that of the dollars in which their pensions are paid, I believe the government has a special responsibility to this particular group. It is a matter not only of justice but of honour that their pensions should be increased to bring them in line with the purchasing power they represented at the date of retirement. For that reason it gives me much pleasure to support the resolution.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: As the hon. member for Lethbridge said when he was speaking, we in this corner are going to support this resolution, and along with others who have spoken I would like to commend the venerable and honourable member for Fort William for having given us the opportunity to say a few words about this very important matter.
I listened quite attentively to what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver South. The one thing he tried to stress quite strongly, Mr. Speaker, was that the government had a moral responsibility; I think that is putting it quite mildly. Yet he claimed that the fall in the value of the dollar so far as purchasing power is concerned was not the fault of the present government. Well, I am going to make the statement-it is not within the terms of this resolution to enlarge upon it, even if there were time-that since 1939 we have had fiscal and financial policies in this country which have reduced the purchasing power of the dollar by at least 47 per cent. And I maintain that the government, by wise leadership and by different financial

Pensions
and fiscal policies, could have altered that trend and made it a different situation.
It is perfectly all right to say that the government is not at fault, but the financial leaders, and those who set policies in this country are certainly at fault when they allow these things to run rampant; and the end is not yet in sight. We believe, and there is every reason to believe, that the cost of living will continue to rise in this country during the coming year. Some people speak of it as creeping inflation, though the word "inflation" is, I am sure, improperly used. Nevertheless we will borrow the term and go along with it. It is said that the price rise will continue throughout the coming year, and I am quite satisfied that this will be due in no small measure to the high interest rates and the credit restriction policies which can definitely be laid at the door of this government.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo-I do not know what he was trying to prove- was telling us about people in his riding who were living on $50 and less per month. When he used that word "living" he should have used the word "existing".
As I read through this resolution, I see it begins, "That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability-" and so on. I expect one of the members of this government will rise in his place and say, as we have been told on many occasions, that the government is always considering matters which will be of benefit to the people of this country who are living on low incomes. But I am going to tell this hon. gentleman before he rises that this problem can be killed by consideration, because if it takes them long enough to consider it then those who should be benefiting will be under the ground. I hope that will not be the kind of consideration they will receive and the kind of answer we will get from this government.
The resolution calls for an increase in pensions and, of course, that naturally means giving out more dollars. It has been pointed out that in large measure, at least, the trouble is due to the fact that the dollar today has not the purchasing power it had when these pensions were fixed 20 years ago, when a person could live on $50 or $60. Of course that is not the case today. Industry has become aware of that fact, and there are many plants across the country where wages to employees are tied to the cost of living and rise as may be necessary to support them in the standard of living to which they are entitled by the wage scale or by the power of their earnings. So it is not asking too much if we request that this government should consider these employees who have

given the best years of their lives to the service of the state, and who are existing today on a standard of living which is certainly not a just reward for all the years they have given to this country.
I shall refer, as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich did, to the mounted police. I happen to have a very personal friend in that category who retired from the service some years ago on a pension of less than $35 a month. I think many of us who happen to have been homesteaders on the prairies, or pioneers in any part of this country, will remember with a great deal of satisfaction the efforts of those redcoats as they policed the pioneer regions. At that time, Mr. Speaker, their wages were certainly not high. It was impossible for them to save any money from their meagre earnings; yet when they reached the age when they were of no further use to their employers they were expected to live on a pension of $35 per month or less.
This friend of mine is certainly in a difficult situation. He has a wife who was stricken with paralysis, so you can imagine the conditions in which they are trying to live. He came to me a couple of years ago and asked if I could do something for him. You know, these old members of the police force have a pride which tends to prevent them asking for what is looked upon as relief. Of course these days we have a different word; we call it welfare. But, anyhow, he did not want to stoop so low, as he put it, as to ask for welfare, and an effort was made to see if there was any possibility of having the pension increased. Of course that was impossible, and the only advice I could give him was that he should swallow his pride and make application to the British Columbia government for welfare payments, which he did, and as a result his troubles were alleviated to some extent. But that means getting help in a way which is not in accordance with what should be the high ideals of the Canadian government as the employer of these people.
So we must recognize that, as this resolution asks, pensions should be increased. Of course another way this could be done would be to decrease the prices of the goods they have to buy. I do not think we want to see such drastic action at the present time. It would upset our economy too much. But whether we give them extra dollars, whether we give them certificates for food, or in what manner we try to solve the problem, the main thing is that we must bring their pensions up to a proper ratio with the prices of the goods they need to sustain life.

I have great pleasure in doing all I can to encourage the government to give consideration to the matter, and by that I mean immediate consideration, not consideration that will carry on until these people have passed to the great beyond. Let the government give immediate consideration and see that justice is done to these people, and that they are given pensions in keeping with the services they have rendered to the country.


Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I shall only say a tew words in order that other hon. members may have an opportunity to speak. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Fort William on having raised this matter. It is not a new question. On many occasions I have had the opportunity to say something about civil servants retired on small pensions, especially those retired on pensions based on the salaries that existed some 10 or 15 years ago.
As I have said before, the civil service of Canada is the best in the world, and because our civil servants are the best they are entitled to the best treatment. I have also said before, and I am not afraid to repeat it, that the government should be the best employer. Although the superannuation act is very good and has been amended often to make it better still, I do not agree that we should base payments of pensions to civil servants entirely upon the contract. I think the government has a duty exceeding the bounds of an ordinary contract; and when its employees, who are human beings, have served their country during the best years of their lives and now find themselves in a position of need, it is up to us in parliament to raise our voices and give the necessary support to any legislation which will improve the standard of living of retired civil servants and place it on the same level as that of those who are now retiring on pensions based on present salaries.
I quite agree that it might be said that the resolution is a bit vague. If we were to accept the resolution as it stands it would no doubt mean a little more than some of us have in mind, because the resolution states in part, "to increase the pensions of civil servants who were retired when salaries were low." Of course that is relative, and I suppose all salaries were low then compared with what they are today. As the resolution is worded it would apply to those who retired some years ago when they were receiving salaries of $5,000 or $6,000 a year, whereas persons in similar positions today are getting $10,000 or $11,000. I am sure the hon. member for Fort William had in mind those who were retired on pensions based on low incomes compared with the present incomes of similar grades in the civil service. Such pensions do not afford
Pensions
a scale of living comparable to that of persons in similar positions retiring today.
As one who has lived in Ottawa all his life I am most anxious that something should be done in the direction indicated in the resolution. I recall too well the hundreds and hundreds of people in the city of Ottawa with only 10 or 15 years of employment who were let out on the streets during the depression of the early thirties with very low pensions, and who by the time of the prosperity brought about by the war were too old to seek further employment. They were left with the pensions handed out to them in the early thirties.
I do not want that situation to occur again, and I do not think it will because at present the salaries of civil servants have been geared much closer to the cost of living index. Nevertheless I am particularly in favour of the resolution if it means, as I see it, that it affects a certain group of people who have already been retired and whose pensions have been based on salaries which were lower than those existing at present in the civil service.
I do not think it is asking too much to ask that parliament should take action immediately. It is not as if it were going to be a continuing vote for many years to come. I think a calculation could be made very easily as to what amount of money would be required, because only a certain existing group of people are affected, and whatever the amount of the vote it would be fixed. The same situation would not occur each year. The amount would diminish every year, and I think it could be easily calculated by the Department of Finance.
As I have said before, I have great sympathy for those who have pensions of $5,000, $4,000 or $3,500, but I believe it would be much better if any sums of money parliament might vote following such a resolution were spent on alleviating the circumstances of those who are really in need, who only have very low pensions based on low incomes while employed in the civil service. I do not think it was the intention of the mover of the resolution to increase the incomes of those who are in comfortable circumstances.
You will see, Mr. Speaker, that I readily agree with the resolution, because I think the mover has in mind all the things I have said. I hope that the government will give the matter its immediate attention.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the resolution. I agree with the hon. member for Ottawa East, who has just taken his seat, that salaries and pensions should be related to the cost

Pensions
of living. I think that is the whole difficulty as far as this matter is concerned. I am pleased that the hon. member for Fort William has brought it to the attention of the house. I think most hon. members would have felt much better if the government had brought in a resolution to amend the superannuation act. That would seem more practical, because frankly I know that most of us in the house realize what private members' resolutions mean. They are simply brought in here and nothing practical is ever done about them.
This is a subject which requires the attention of the house; and unless the resolution is passed, unless the government takes action, nothing will be done this year just as nothing has been done in previous years. Having listened to the debate today, I am not going to repeat the many arguments that have been advanced because this is a subject that really speaks for itself.	>
As a matter of fact there is no necessity for a debate in this house at all. If you go anywhere across this country you will find that a great injustice is being done to the class of people mentioned in the resolution. It is a very hard and difficult world for those people who are trying to live on pensions and superannuation allowances which are practically 50 per cent of what they should be. They are based on the value of money 15, 20 and 25 years ago and on the cost of living at that time. They should be brought up to date.
Hon. members have mentioned the fact that this country of ours has expanded a great deal in the last 15 or 20 years. I suppose we are one of the wealthiest countries in the world. I suppose we have the greatest natural resources of almost any country in the world. From those natural resources and from the energy of our people we have an abundance, and there is prosperity. There is no question about that fact. There could not help but be prosperity in a country such as this. All people in all walks of life should share in that prosperity.
Our superannuated civil servants should share in that prosperity just the same as everyone else. When they have reached an age when it is impossible for them to do it otherwise, having given the service to the country years previously and having to a great extent laid the foundation for the prosperity we are now enjoying, they should be given this consideration and should have an opportunity to share in this prosperity.
If I may I should like to read an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Star just before the new year in speaking of this and kindred subjects. This editorial states:
The answer is that not all Canadians share our national abundance.

That is very true. Not all Canadians share our national abundance. The editorial continues:
A sad contradiction in our prosperity is the fact that good times mean not a higher, but a lower standard of living for many. Surely, in a land of plenty, in a country teeming with prosperity, our senior citizens, our recipients of mothers' allowances and others dependent on government pensions, should get more consideration. In the new year, let us resolve to find new ways of sharing our country's bounty by attending to these and similar problems. In this way we can transform "prosperity" from a national slogan to a real and meaningful way of life for all Canadians.
That is what would happen to many people if this resolution which has been brought in by the hon. member for Fort William had been brought in by the government and an amendment were being considered by the government at the present time. We all know that day after day and week after week prices keep going up, wages keep going up, the cost of living keeps going up, and the condition of these people keeps getting worse and worse. They are placed in an almost impossible position.
I should like to be in a position to say a few words with regard to veterans pensions, but I know I would be out of order in doing so. However, this is another class of people in this country who are not enjoying the prosperity of the country which all are entitled to enjoy. Just by way of comparison may I point out that last year, in 1956, the pension of a veteran was $1,500; for a soldier it was $1,932 and for a civil service cleaner, $2,760.
We all know that the soldier's pension was supposed to be based on the corresponding pay received by a worker in ordinary labour but the worker received $2,760, the pensioner $1,500.
There are many more things I should like to say, but most of them have been mentioned here tonight. The hon. member for Vancouver South spoke about government private members' resolutions. He said they should be considered on their merit, that is that we should have an open vote in the house. I have always felt that there is on the house a moral obligation to support matters of this kind which are brought up by private members.
I should like to say to the government members of this house that they have many opportunities which we in the opposition do not have. I am sometimes rather surprised. The only way we in the opposition can bring matters to the attention of the government and of the house is by means of a resolution. The hon. member who has brought in this resolution has the ear of the cabinet. Time and time again I have heard him in this house say that everything

was right with this world, that the government was in power, God is in his heaven and nothing they do can be wrong. The hon. member can consult with the cabinet. He can consult with his fellow members. He can bring this matter up in his caucus.
I should like to ask him here tonight how many times he has brought this matter before the cabinet and the other members of his party to see if he could not influence them in caucus and influence his cabinet to have this done. I sometimes think that unless a government member has done those things, unless he has exhausted every opportunity he has with his own people-before bringing a resolution before the house, it savours somewhat of hypocrisy.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I may be accused of many things but when a man says I am guilty of hypocrisy I think he is going a bit too far. The members of the government know whether or not I have brought this matter up in caucus.


An hon. Member:: Who has the floor?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If the hon. member is rising on a point of order, it is all right. I did not accuse the hon. member of hypocrisy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Yes, you did.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I say again, Mr. Speaker, that unless he has taken this matter up with his caucus, unless he has tried to influence his own members, and unless he has spoken to this cabinet which he says can do nothing wrong, it savours of hypocrisy and I leave the matter at that. I believe that and I will always believe it.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: You are wrong.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to talk any longer. I hope there will be a vote tonight, and I hope those members who have been interrupting will stand up and vote for the hon. member's resolution. We are in the position of wanting to see it go through. There is only one way this can be done and that is by the government doing it. If the government does not do it, I am sure the hon. member for Fort William will feel that he has performed another labour of love which is not receiving much attention.


Mr. Hector Dupuis (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Don't talk it out.


Hector Dupuis: -I hear some members on the other side of the house giving me advice about not talking it out. There must be some consistency once in a while. They look rather queer and funny to me, because when members on this side of the house do not get up
Pensions
to speak, they complain, and when they do get up to speak, they complain.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Get up and vote on it, that is what we want.


Hector Dupuis: I do not know how to please the members on the other side of the house. They have the opportunity to speak at their ease as they wish. Again I am going to tell those hon. members that I am going to speak any time I feel like it, especially in order to support such a good measure as the one which has been presented in this house today.
In addition, I will assure my colleagues on the other side that the government must be well aware of the wishes of this house in so far as the acceptance of this motion is concerned. I think we have the consensus of members here indicating they are in favour of this motion which is brought forward at this time and which is absolutely justified. At the same time I am going to say again that members on this side ought to be able to rise without hearing complaints from members on the other side when we feel it is time to speak.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to continue my remarks in French and to say, as I was saying a moment ago in a tongue which is not my own and which I use only with some difficulty, that I will take every opportunity to avail myself of the privilege of raising my voice in this house especially when the point at issue is the endorsement of a proposal as fair as the one which is now under discussion.
I am not surprised to find the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) introducing this resolution. For many years now I have had the opportunity to see how solicitous he is towards the less fortunate. I know with what devotion he has served, not only his constituents, but all those who have come to him for help. I therefore repeat that, coming from the hon. member for Fort William,' this proposal does not surprise me in the least. I may add that it is particularly timely, coming as it does on the eve of the budget for the fiscal year 1957-1958.
Moreover, I am convinced that this resolution will be taken into serious consideration by this government which, on all occasions, has lent a helping hand to those classes which directly or indirectly are dependent on it. Nor must it be forgotten that this government has been the great champion of the social measures enjoyed by the people of Canada.

Pensions
Let me suggest that it might also be advisable to consider allowing public servants to stay in office beyond the age of 65. They should be given the opportunity, the advantage, the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not they will keep on working beyond age 65, although there should be a limit set at 70.
Today, on reaching 70, people have not aged as much as in the past. Statistics prove that the span of life is longer today. Today's worker seems to be stronger or at least more resistant. Could it be that less strain is imposed upon him? I doubt it. At any rate, everyone agrees that today a man of 70 has aged less than was the case 30 or 40 years ago. Obviously, I am not talking about myself, who even remarried a short time ago, but of those who are familiar with statistics. They will certainly admit that I am right in saying that it is easier today for a man to work until he is 70 than it used to be for a man of the same age.
It is necessary, Mr. Speaker, to consider carefully the condition of the man who retired on a pension, say in 1939 or 1940. He had figured on a standard of living based on the value of the dollar at the time of his retirement. But what is the value today of a pension of let us say, $75 a month, when we think of how much our dollar has depreciated during those 17 years?
I am in favour of this measure for, after all-i do not know if I have the right word to express what I mean-I consider a pension as a retirement salary. A retirement salary is one on which the retired person must count to provide for his own needs and those of his dependents, if he has any. If everybody agrees that a pension is a retirement salary, we should therefore, in the case of pensioned people, consider the salary increase granted to workers who are still employed either in the civil service or in private industry. We should also take into account the difference in salaries between 1940 and 1957, and establish a pension with a proportional rate as high in 1957 as it was in 1939.
There is no shadow of a doubt that the problem facing those who depend solely on their pension is a serious one, and the mover of the present resolution is to be commended, for it is indeed pitiable to find that civil servants who have given the best years of their life to their country are often left in a worse position than their fellow workers employed by private enterprise, as I am told that some private industries have agreed of their own accord to grant a raise in pension

to those who have retired 15, or 20, or even only 10 years ago.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I only hope they won't accuse me of-
(Text):
I am going to take my seat before ten o'clock so hon. members cannot accuse me of talking out this resolution. I am not going to ask for the adjournment of the debate. I only wish to underline to my colleagues the fact that I have the right to express myself. I am not going to talk out this motion; I am going to follow the good example given by those who have spoken on this question, and I hope the government will consider what has been said here and that the resolution will be not only taken into consideration by them but that the objective will be put into practice.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that the Minister of Finance-


Hector Dupuis: Do you want to talk it out?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -has the opportunity to indicate that he proposes to accept the very kind advice which has been given to him by members in all sections of the house, particularly members in his own party. I think it is obvious that this is an expenditure which would not be inflationary, but which would be economically sound and politically popular.
I wish to thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra for placing on the record this afternoon certain of my questions that were answered by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. I am not going to read them; I merely wish to draw attention to the fact that the highest paid pension under the Public Service Superannuation Act is $875 a month, or $10,500 a year. That would appear to me quite an ample pension but, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that there are 5,644 of our fellow Canadians who gave their very best service to this country many years ago, when it was anticipated that the superannuation allowance would be adequate, who are now in the unfortunate position of getting $21.03 a month. I am sure there is no member in this house who thinks of that figure with any pride. It amounts to around 70 cents a day.
The last time I visited the penitentiary some years ago they told me it costs the tax-

payers about $6 a day to keep those who are in such institutions. It is hard tor me to understand that our economy should require upwards of $6 a day to keep people in institutions while we expect our superannuated civil servants should be able to get by on as low as $21.03 a month. I am indebted to the provincial secretary of the British Columbia superannuated civil servants' organization for a letter he sent to all members in February, 1954. At that time he pointed out:
For five long years we have repeatedly drawn the attention of parliament-without result or acknowledgment-to the present-day problems of many retired federal civil servants, from coast to coast, and surely it is not too soon to expect that appropriate action will now be taken to deal with this question, by granting to all those receiving less than $150 per month, a bonus graded accordingly, as conditions warrant.
This afternoon my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre drew our attention to the fact that years ago Great Britain and the United States recognized that retired civil servants are not able to go into the labour market and compete with the younger people and take advantage of the prosperity that younger people now talk about. They are the victims of the fact that the dollar they expected to have is now worth 50 cents.
In the United States, under Bill S2968, superannuated civil servants who were getting $1,000 a year were increased to $1,250 in 1948, and later to $1,562.50. In Great Britain on a number of occasions substantial increases have been granted, and I understand that our province of Saskatchewan is the only province in Canada that has made provision for additional bonus payments to civil servants who are on pension and find it impossible to meet the high cost of living with that inadequate pension. I hope the Minister of Finance will accept the proposals made from all sections of the house.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, may I join with everyone else who has given his nod of approval to the hon. member for Fort William for bringing the motion before the house. In saying that, I think the house will permit me also to say that we have found the hon. member prompted by sympathy and warm-heartedness for a great many people, and I am sure the sympathy and warm-heartedness which are part of his character and nature prompt him to assist people who he feels are living on inadequate pensions.
I go ahead, of course, at once to say that others in this house, before today and tonight, have joined in that approach to this question, and have moved the house and the government on other occasions to give con-
Pensions
sideration to the retired civil servants and the pensions which are being paid to them.
Unfortunately the Minister of Finance is in a position where he must try to determine whether or not the sympathy is not only just sympathy for people whose income is low, but also whether he ought to consider that it would be justified to expend public moneys in increasing the pensions and, if so, the terms on which the increase should be granted and the principle which should be involved in making the increase, together with any other decisions which might logically follow from such a change.
I wish to go back, if I may, to some of the remarks which were made during the afternoon and the evening, and in particular to the reference which has been made that this debate has gone on at least for 10 years in the House of Commons. It seems to me that if this were so-and I presume it is so-there must have been a reasonably good case made for not doing anything in the meantime, because it seems to me that a case which cannot change the mind of the government during that time may have certain difficulties attendant upon it which may be quite as important as the original case itself.
I have listened tonight to the arguments in favour of the resolution, and I want to go over some of them to test them to see if they are valid, and to see in the end what we have left by way of suggestions and proposals which might be made to meet the plight of these people.
Now, the first, the obvious and I think the continuing claim on behalf of those people is that the cost of living has increased since they obtained their pensions, and therefore allowance ought to be made for that by the government by way of increasing the pension. May I point out that while I recognize that the cost of living looms large in the thinking of those who have to maintain a household, and looms large in the minds of many people who look upon it as an easy index to use in any demands for wage increases, or pension increases, or any form of increase in income, it is hardly the final word on any subject; and in particular it is hardly the final word which the government could use in altering the expenditures made out of public moneys because of the very insecurity of the index and the constant change in it.
Hon. members ought to recall that in that 10-year period, if I am correct, we had a decline in the consumer price index, if I may use that term, from I think about 1947, which was the first date mentioned tonight, until 1949 or probably 1950. We had a substantial increase in the consumer price index during 1950, 1951 and 1952. Then I think we had a levelling off, if not a slight decline, until

Pensions
June or July of last year, and an increase since that time. I am speaking without notes, of course, but it does seem to me that for the 10-year period I have described accurately enough for our purposes the alterations in the consumer price index.
If it were the case that the government would be expected to alter its wage payments and its pension payments-based on the cost of living index, I shall say for the moment, alone-you would see there would be hardly a session of parliament when we would not be altering these to some degree. You would see as well, sir, that the civil service associations, having regard to their wage levels would hardly expect us to use this index when it went down; and I for one would not think they would not have a good case in making the objection, because one should have a continuity of employment and wage level with an increase based not only on terms of service and ability and the like but we would hope a steadily increasing wage level from year to year or at least, if the conditions were justified, from time to time.
On that basis, then, I suggest that while the consumer price index might be a suitable handle to use to argue any given case, it is not by any means too reliable nor should it be considered any more than a portion of any argument about wages or pension levels.
The second point I wish to make-and this is one which everyone who has spoken today has either overlooked or has passed by with only a passing reference-is the very large number of these people whose income by way of pension is low because of their short term of service in the civil service. Mention has been made of this by some speakers. I must confess that I am not able to present to the house the number out of the 13,000-odd we are talking about who had service of less than say 10 years. It is my fault that I have not been able to get the figures for this occasion, but as I think I pointed out on another occasion, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons hon. members have by way of argument in this case is the number of low pensions paid in Canada. I think almost without exception every speaker has not gone on in fairness to say why we have such a large number of low pensions and superannuation payments for civil servants.
The reason, as everyone who has looked at this question knows, is that Canada pays superannuation earlier than any other country that has been mentioned here tonight; so that by our very generosity-although it is not generosity, I think it is a very wise program -by the very fact that we give to civil servants an advantage not obtained in either

the civil service of the United Kingdom or that of the United States, we find that our records indicate low pensions to a great many who otherwise would not receive pensions. To that extent, then, hon. members are inclined to say we are not being fair with these people in paying them such low amounts.
The motion itself speaks of increasing pensions for those who were retired when salaries were low. I must apologize for not being in the house when the hon. member for Fort William began his remarks, though I came in as soon as I could. I do not know whether he defined what he meant by way of time or what he meant by way of a cut-off date. If you go back 30 years, of course, you will find pensions were low because they were in proportion to the income at that time, and the longer a person lives after retirement the more likely it is that there will be a greater disparity between the pension he is receiving and that which he would receive if he had retired the day before. That of course is obvious; but I am going to assume that the reference here is to pensions which were established shall I say before the war for the sake of argument.
The purpose of a pension is to provide a retiring allowance based on the income, length of service and the like, and is fixed with relation to a definite amount. That is, we have not a system whereby one can alter his pension of his own volition. It has been argued today by several hon. members that because the value of money has declined noticeably, especially for those who were retired a number of years ago, in some manner the government is responsible for this and therefore ought to accept the burden of righting the so-called injustice by making an increased payment.
I would not want that argument to pass without some answer; but I do want to say at this point, sir, that all my arguments are directed to seeing if this case has in fact a good basis other than one of natural sympathy for people who are not perhaps receiving by way of income what is required at the moment, just simply to see in the first place if there is any logical action that might be taken which would not lead us into other disparities quite as bad as the present with which we would have to deal.
The argument that the government is responsible for inflation and therefore ought to pay pensions based on present-day costs rather than costs at the time of retirement is based, I think, on the quotation cited by the hon.

member for Winnipeg North Centre in which he says, quoting Mr. Pethick-'Lawrence:
. . . at some future date there is an assumption, unwritten and unspecified, but nevertheless implied. That is the stability of the purchasing power of money.
Except for those contracts, Mr. Speaker, calling for the payment of the amount of the debt in gold I do not know of any such principle in any commercial transaction, and I have not seen any in my time. You will recall that I interrupted my hon. friend to ask if he agreed with that.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I would like to ask the hon. minister if he will consider those who are worthy; that is all I ask.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, may I answer that question at once by saying I was coming to the point of whether or not we were dealing with all these people or just with those whose personal means were such that they were in fact in need and required some consideration for that reason, rather than the reasons advanced with respect to just bringing everybody up to another level. 1 certainly will give consideration to the question, because I think that is the crux of the whole matter.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you.
On motion of Mr. Harris the debate was adjourned.
Committee on Estimates COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES



PERSONNEL OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house to revert to motions?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Has the hon. member consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Gilbert Weir: I move:
That the following members:	Messrs. Brown
(Brantford), Cameron (High Park), Decore, Enfield, Fulton, Laflamme, Leduc (Verdun), McLeod Michener, Mitchell (London), Monteith, Montgomery, Murphy (Westmorland), Philpott, Power (Quebec South), Power (St. John's West), Purdy Reinke, Richardson, Thatcher, Tucker, Weselak! White (Waterloo South), Winch, Yuill and Zaplitny shall constitute the membership of the special committee on estimates as provided by the resolution passed by the house on February 26.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Howard Charles Green: Could we be told the business for tomorrow?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. I believe we could take the first four bills on the order paper in the order in which they appear.


[Stage Direction]
At two minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
1866
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Reinke: What assistance is the federal government giving toward the establishment of the new Wentworth county health unit?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
Under the national health program the federal government is contributing more than $18,500 toward the establishment of the new Wentworth county health unit, to help provide full-time public health services for the
residents of the area, approximately 70,000 in number.


SAWMILL, PETAWAWA
Mr. Hodgson: 1.	Has the mill at Petawawa, operated by the army, for sawing lumber, been sold?
2.	If so, on what date, and were tenders called?
3.	What was the purchase price?
4.	Who was the purchaser?
5.	If not, is it for sale?
Answer by: Mr. Dickey. Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Defence Production:
1.	Yes, by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
2.	August 2, 1956. Yes.
3.	$2,800.
4.	J. H. Gervais, Westmeath, Ontario.
5.	See answers to Nos. 1 and 2.

The Premier of France


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
of
HIS EXCELLENCY GUY MOLLET President of the Council of the Ministers of France
to

[Stage Direction]
in the

[Stage Direction]
on
Monday, March 4, 1957, at 11.30 a.m.
Mr. Mollet was welcomed by the Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent, Prime Minister of Canada, and thanked by the Hon. Arthur L. Beaubien, Acting Speaker of the Senate, and the Hon. L. Rene Beaudoin, Speaker of the House of Commons.
(Translation):
Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister of Canada):: Mr. President of the Council of the French Republic, in extending to you a most hearty welcome on behalf of this parliament and of the people it represents, I do so with great personal pleasure.
In greeting you in this house we are fully conscious of the fact that we are receiving the representative of a great and friendly nation, whose friendship we consider an honour. We are happy to pay tribute through you to the French people who played a leading part in our history and to which our destiny has been and remains closely connected.
Your visit in Canada at this time, when the countries of the great Atlantic family more than ever feel the necessity of achieving closer co-ordination in the efficient defence of those principles which originally drew them together, takes on a character whose symbolism is particularly encouraging. We see in your presence among us, Mr. Prime Minister, striking evidence that your country remains anxious, as always, to protect human values which have been the basis of its dignity and fame, but, as in the past, intends to act in partnership with countries it honours with its friendship. Your visit in Washington and here is of special importance and interest.
(Text):
We are all keenly aware, sir, of the great contributions that your country has made and is now making to the progress of mankind. We are all aware also that in keeping 82715-1184
with its great tradition of pioneering in every field, your country, with typical and ever-inspiring generosity, is seeking original and humane solutions to the most pressing and difficult problems facing our generation.
Whether the question is one of defining a satisfactory relationship with the less developed countries, or that of determining to what extent fully developed and mature nations can pool their resources and exercise their sovereignty to achieve objectives which are no longer attainable in isolation-to mention only two of the more complex issues of our time-your country has come forward with most promising and inspiring proposals.
In all these fields, Mr. Prime Minister, you have not only been closely associated with the search for solutions but you have been one of the leaders in seeking to meet successfully some of the greatest challenges of our time. As a true son of France, you have sought your inspiration in the spirit of freedom which is the glory of your country.
You demonstrated during the war how steadfast, how unshakable, is your attachment to the democratic approach in the settlement of political problems. Wounded and taken prisoner in 1940, repatriated as an invalid in 1942, you joined immediately the resistance movement and took an active part in the fighting which followed the allied landings in Normandy in 1944. Since 1944 your life has been dedicated to the same cause and your name has become associated with the momentous decisions which have led to the establishment of new relationships

The Premier of France between your country and important North African peoples. You are one of the promoters of the renewed and determined attempt which is now being made to reorganize Europe, that great, that unique reservoir of experience which free men throughout the world have come to consider as part of their heritage and which has played such a vital role in the expansion of civilization.
The success of your several endeavours is a matter of direct interest to us. We hope that this great effort in political reconstruction will result in a further strengthening of our Atlantic community and of the free world generally.
Your visit, Mr. Prime Minister, gives us a welcome opportunity to pay tribute to the dynamic role which you, personally, and your country are playing in the affairs of the world. The conversations which we have had during the last few days have also made it possible for us to gain a better understanding of our mutual objectives and policies. In this fashion, your visit will affirm once again the close bonds which unite our countries and provide an illustration of the relationship which common *endeavours within the Atlantic family can promote between Europe and North America for the lasting benefit of the whole free world.
Your Excellencies, members of parliament, and distinguished guests, it is my privilege now to invite Monsieur Guy Mollet, the Prime Minister of France, to address you.
(Translation):
Ladies and gentlemen, I have the honour to introduce to you the President of the Council of the French Republic.


Mr. Guy  Mollet@President of the Council of Ministers of France: Mr. Prime Minister, the words which you have addressed, with so much sincerity and sympathy, to my country have touched me profoundly and they will go right to the heart of the French people. You have expressed in these words, <on such an elevated plane of thought, the significance of my visit here and the nature of the relations, so intimate and direct, which have never ceased to exist between France and Canada since the beginning of your country's history. For all this I should like to offer my warmest thanks, and also for the remarks, so full of friendship, which you have directed to me personally. No token of esteem could be more precious to me.
Mr. Speaker, members of the houses of *parliament, it is a very great honour for me to be able to transmit today to the
hon. members of the parliament of Canada the message of warm friendship which my country has asked me to deliver. I should like to do it at this time with all my heart and all my conviction. During these much too brief days which I have spent in your country, I have felt profoundly the rare quality of Franco-Canadian friendship, the strength of the bonds between us tightened by the battles we have fought side by side during two world wars. In the invitation which you addressed to me I saw a new manifestation of this friendship and I was proud to accept.
In recalling some of the great tasks undertaken by France, Mr. St. Laurent himself prompted me to tell you, in a few words, something of the achievements of French policy, something of our worries and concerns which, I know, are often much the same as your own.
To achieve the unification of Europe is one of our main objectives. I have striven to establish it upon a solid Franco-German entente, and I have felt a similar determination in Chancellor Adenauer and in the German government. We were thus able to reach an equitable solution of the problems which had long made relations so difficult between our two countries. Today Franco-German rivalry no longer exists; there is instead a confident co-operation which permits the establishment of ever closer ties.
With the way thus open to a needed European union, we have been able to make decisive progress in the economic integration of the continent, in bringing to a successful conclusion the treaties which will establish the European atomic community-Euratom-[DOT] and the common European market. Their signing will take place within a few weeks.
By Euratom, the six countries of the European continent will pool their atomic destinies. Their atomic industry, the expansion of which is already very promising, will be founded immediately on a European basis and may look forward to launching programs on a scale to which none of them, by itself, could have aspired. As for the common European market, it is designed to abolish customs barriers, harmonize social legislation and co-ordinate economic policies in a way that will constitute a vast market of 160 million consumers where the wealth, the merchandise and the people will circulate freely.
You can well imagine that the drawing up of these treaties, which will bind the future of our countries for generations, has been particularly delicate. I am not unaware that your country has expressed certain reserva-

tions about some of the clauses of the treaty of the common market. This would not be the place to discuss the details. But the point I should like to stress in particular is that, within a few months, a living and ever developing and expanding reality will have been created, the European economic community, the presence of which will profoundly modify present basic conditions. The prospects of commercial exchanges with a united Europe, in full development, will be radically different from those with our isolated countries and, no doubt, will be greatly expanded. So I beg you to have confidence in the dynamism of the new organizations, so that in their very working and operation the imperfections you criticize may be corrected.
Europe is the only way for the countries of that continent to recover true independence. It is the only way to guarantee a solid and enduring Atlantic alliance. The relations between the European and North American continents can then develop on the basis of true equality. There is nothing durable in the world if it is not founded on equality and on free co-operation.
Beyond the iron curtain, the union of the European peoples will also be a symbol of hope for all men living under oppression who have not lost their will to liberty.
Two weeks ago, six European prime ministers met in Paris, on the invitation of France, to take a major decision-that of associating with Europe the African territories today linked with Belgium and France.
As soon as it was formed, the European community decided to play the card of Africa. The industrial power of the whole of Europe will be mobilized to assure the technical equipment and social progress of Africa. I shall not conceal the fact that this historic step is largely due to the tenacious insistence of France.
The decision which I have just recalled is in line with the new policy that my government is applying in Africa-a policy which is, I fear, too little known outside my own country. Will you permit me to outline it briefly?
We are making almost revolutionary transformations in our overseas territories. The peoples are receiving the right to manage their own affairs democratically within the framework of union with France, to which they have freely consented. On March 31 next, this very month, single college elections will permit the populations of all French Africa to choose their own representatives- in full liberty-in the territorial assemblies, which will appoint, in turn, the ministers in charge of administering the territories.
The Premier of France
Similar reforms recently led to the creation of the autonomous republic of Togo, and long discussions in the United Nations on this question have revealed their work and their democratic nature.
France has refused to make a "closed preserve" of the African territories. That is why she has opened their doors to Europe, which will give them their greatest chance. Over the next five years, the European effort in aid of Africa will exceed five hundred million dollars, in addition to a French effort which will, no doubt, exceed two billion dollars.
These figures speak for themselves. They show our resolve to apply in Africa the only possible remedy to those accomplices, blind nationalism and communism: to build a Eurafrican group, a vast union of free peoples, efficiently helping one another, to their mutual benefit and their common prosperity.
(Text):
I reminded you a little earlier that a European union would guarantee the consolidation of the Atlantic alliance. This consideration weighed heavily in our decision to construct Europe. The Atlantic alliance is one of the cornerstones of French policy, as it is of the policy of Canada. I should like here to pay homage to the eminent role that the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada, Mr. Lester B. Pearson, has not ceased to play in all the work of the Atlantic organization.
Besides its important contribution to the defence of the North American continent, your country-and it is not one of the lesser reasons for our gratitude-has accepted to take an active part in the defence of the European continent. To help balance the enormous mass of Soviet divisions, Canada, like the United States and Great Britain, has stationed a part of her armed forces on the European peninsula. The presence of your soldiers on our soil imposes a sacrifice upon you for which I wish to thank you in the name of France. It is of exceptional importance to us.
In fact, in 1914, as in 1939, if there had been some thousands of British, American and Canadian soldiers in Europe, neither William II nor Hitler would have gone to war. They would have known that, from the very first moment, an immense coalition would be raised against them. Today, because of the physical presence of your soldiers, and the British and American soldiers, the Soviet union cannot have the slightest doubt about the consequences to herself of any aggression. The presence of these soldiers is a type of "deterrent" policy of the Atlantic pact.


X870 HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
The Premier of France
The Atlantic alliance seems to me even more important today than it was eight years ago at the moment of its creation. Also, it imposes, perhaps more than ever, a perfect entente among the allied nations on strategic and tactical planes. It is necessary that these decisions be taken in common when it comes to effectives and armaments, and if technical developments raise new problems in this domain they must be resolved in common. I insist upon solemnly recalling these requirements before you.
I shall say a few words to you now on a purely French problem but which is such a grave one for us that I want to tell you about it personally. It has to do with Algeria. Your government in the course of the debate in the United Nations has accorded us the loyal and unfailing support which we have asked of it, and I should like to express to it here the thanks of France.
The Algerian problem, unhappily, is too little known outside of France. In completely good faith, many of our friends think that our policy is nothing more than a manifestation of obsolete colonialism. I shall speak to you quite frankly and quite directly. In my eyes, what is most essential in the Algerian affair is not to maintain the links between Algeria and France. That is far too much in the interests of Algeria to be seriously questioned. The aid which France has given to Algeria since the second world war, to cite only one figure, represents twice the sum of all the moneys France herself received under the Marshall plan.
The fundamental element in the Algerian problem is the presence in the country of two groups, each distinct from the other, both important and each indispensable to the life of the other-1,200,000 Algerians of European origin on one side and 8,000,000 Moslems on the other.
The Algerians of European origin began to settle there in 1830. They have their families in Algeria and they have their dead. Algeria is their country-their patrie-and, for the most part, it is their toil which has developed its resources. They feel like pioneers, and that is what they are. It is not acceptable that they be oppressed or chased out today by the mass of the Moslems, any more than it is acceptable that they profit by temporary economic advantages to oppress the Moslems. The key to the Algerian problem is to obtain, at one and the same time, full equality of rights for all the inhabitants of Algeria- economic as well as political rights-and the coexistence of the group of European origin and of Moslem origin, without either being able to oppress the other. The first step
toward any settlement is that violence cease. Also, France has proposed a "cease-fire" without any political "strings". To settle the general conditions, the French government is ready to make direct and official contact with those who are fighting.
Within three months of a return to peace, free single college elections will be organized. Each will be able to vote according to his conscience. We invite the democratic nations to send their representatives to Algeria so they may observe the proper procedure of the vote.
It is with these elected representatives of Algeria, whatever their political opinions, that we would discuss the future organization of Algeria. It will result in the agreement of all the interested parties, that is to say, the populations of Algeria and the populations of France.
This is the contents of the French program for Algeria. You will agree with me that it conforms to the principles of democracy. The play is now to our adversaries. We offer them a cease-fire. Are they ready to renounce violence? We propose free elections, held under the eyes of representatives of the democratic countries, and immediate discussion with the elected representatives of the Algerian populations. Why have they refused up to now? France is not discouraged. She will multiply, tirelessly, the efforts to convince all the inhabitants of Algeria of her will to peace and justice.
You may be surprised that I have not taken advantage of this political survey to say a few words to you about another problem, namely the situation in the Middle East. Whatever may have been our disagreements at one moment, I must underline the positive character and the extreme usefulness of the initiatives taken by the Canadian government, how its interventions, always animated by the most friendly spirit, have often been decisive.
An important step has been taken in the Middle East toward the restoration of an enduring peace, founded on justice and respect for international law, which is the common aim of our countries. France has not been a stranger to the agreements which have been made, and I have the right to say that she has considerably aided in their conclusion.
The retreat of Israel from Gaza and the straits of Sharm al-Shaikh does not constitute an end. The intervention of the United Nations emergency force makes it possible to avoid a return, pure and simple, to the original situation. It is indispensable that we profit by its presence to conclude a general peace settlement. A partial or provisional settlement in the Middle East will always be a bad solution. Our peoples will not permit

us to allow the situation to deteriorate again as it did in the past eight years when, under the cover of an armistice, the disorders were perpetuated and a state of masked warfare was finally established while, at the same time, the resolutions passed by the United Nations were constantly being violated.
We must attack the basic causes of the tensions in the Middle East. I should like to enumerate for you some of those which seem to me to be the principal ones. Some of them are "geographic" and others are purely "political".
The first of the "geographic" causes is the frontiers of Israel and, in fact, the existence of the state of Israel itself. The conclusion of a peace treaty between Israel and her Arab neighbours, fixing her frontiers and guaranteeing the integrity of her territory, is an absolute necessity. I am very happy that the representatives of the great countries expressed their determination in the general assembly of the United Nations that this treaty will be interposed as soon as possible. I am happy that the big nations have declared their insistence that free passage of ships in the international waters of the gulf of Aqaba shall be respected.
The Suez canal is also one of the "geographic" causes of tension. Its sabotage by Egypt without any military motive to justify it, and the blackmail exercised since then over the pace of clearing and opening the canal, shows the little confidence merited by the government of Egypt. As was stipulated before the security council, the Suez canal must be "withdrawn from the political policies of every country" and, in particular, from that of Egypt. The economic equilibrium of Europe and the countries of southeast Asia cannot depend solely on the good will of a commonplace Egyptian dictator.
Still more vital are the causes which I have called "political", and it is upon the attitude which will be taken about them that will depend the definite settlement of other problems. I am speaking of the pan-Arab manoeuvres of Egypt and the Soviet infiltration of the Middle East.
The pan-Arab dreams of Colonel Nasser are defined with brutal clarity in his book, "The Philosophy of Revolution". He himself has declared his determination to organize around a "hero"-that is the way in which he speaks of himself

a united Arab world "from the Atlantic to the Persian gulf". In order to achieve it, he plans to utilize, as a means of pressure on the west, the oil of the Middle East and the geographic position of his own country-that is to say, the Suez canal. We now know that they were not idle threats.
The Premier of France
To denounce pan-Arabism does not signify an attack on the Arab world. Pan-Arabism is not the expression of a people's national feeling. It is, as pan-Germanism and panSlavism have been in the past, a myth in whose name a people's independence is attacked.
It is the duty of the free nations to oppose a united front to the subversive actions of pan-Arabism, to see that provocation does not pay, and that there can be no transactions whatsoever which do not respect international obligations. Such an attitude is even more necessary since pan-Arabism is the best vehicle for communist infiltration. Faithful to Lenin's directives, the Soviet leaders are systematically supporting ultranationalism. Cairo and Damascus, the sources of pan-Arabism, have thus become the strongest bridgeheads of the U.S.S.R.
From this point of view the declaration of President Eisenhower assumes great importance. The Soviet union has been, in the past, attentive to such warnings. I shall add that any split in the united front of the free nations, in the Middle East, will be exploited by the Soviet union. It is therefore our duty to put into effect in this part of the world a concerted, long-range policy.
That is what I have expressed to the Canadian government, as well as to the President of the United States, and I believe-let me say I am sure-that my visits will have favoured the first steps.
(Translation):
The problems of which I have been speaking to you have been, as you may imagine, the object of thorough discussions with the Prime Minister of Canada. I was pleased to note the large area of agreement between us. I am certain that in these next weeks France and Canada will find themselves side by side in the international meetings, in common defence of the same causes and in seeking solutions in harmony with law and justice.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, members of the houses of parliament, in a few hours my friend Mr. Pineau, our assistants and myself will be leaving your magnificent country. The memory of the hours we have spent in it, the memory of the simplicity and fraternal warmth of your welcome, will remain with us. I shall take testimony of it to the French people. I shall tell them that, in dark days and fair, they can rely on the friendship and the support of this great people in full expansion.
To you, also, I should like to say that you may rely on the French people and on the youth of France. By their labour they have overcome the destruction of the war, they
[Stage Direction]
The Premier of France have confidence in the future of their country, they are ready to face the challenging tasks which lie before them-the construction of Europe, the development of the Sahara, the building of Eurafrica. Yes, at your side, in all just and generous undertakings, you will always find "la France eternelle".
(Text):
@ASpeaker: May I, monsieur le President du Conseil de France, on behalf of the Senate of Canada, thank you for your visit and for the eloquent and inspiring address which you have just delivered. It is always a pleasure to welcome the leaders of great nations with whom we have had so many memorable associations. It is particularly so as we welcome you, sir, as the eminent representative of a people to whom so many Canadians trace back their racial origin. We are happy and gratified to have been able, in Canada, to demonstrate that peoples of different racial origins can live together in peace and harmony.
May we respectfully ask you to convey our greetings to the members of your Conseil de la Republique and of your national assembly.
(Translation):
Mr. President of the French Council of Ministers, you are doing us a great honour and giving us great pleasure in visiting us today, and we sincerely hope that you may come back soon.
(Text):
In wishing you Godspeed, we pray Divine Providence to bless all your endeavours.
(Translation):


Hon. L. Rene Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons):: Mr. President of the Council, the Canadian House of Commons joins the Senate in greeting you as the representative of the glorious French nation and in extending its most cordial welcome on behalf of the people of Canada. We are also happy to greet at the same time Mr. Christian Pineau, your Minister of Foreign Affairs, and His Excellency Mr. Francis Lacoste, Ambassador of France to Canada.
Our century is overburdened with problems whose solution must logically be entrusted to exceptionally gifted leaders. Each international crisis is a test for the initiative and courage of a few outstanding men who must be able to overcome all obstacles. We are pleased to note, Mr. President of the Council, that your name has already a place in the history of contemporary diplomacy, and Canadian parliamentarians-more especially those whose language is French and who look upon France as their mother country-are particularly proud of the important part you are playing on the international scene in order to ensure the triumph of justice, to guarantee universal peace and defend democratic principles.
Your visit will serve to strengthen the spirit of co-operation and solidarity which has long characterized the relations between Canada and civilizing France, the France which has always upheld the cause of the noblest liberties.
(Text):
In April 1951, this parliament had the great honour of welcoming Mr. Vincent Auriol, the then president of the French republic. On that occasion, Mr. Auriol brought the affectionate message of France to this very hill, which he called "the meeting place of forces, young and eager, English and French, the union of which has created this nation, thus constituting an immense human treasure for the future."
And he added, "sons of the British Isles, sons of France, what a magnificent example you are giving to the world, what a long path you have travelled together!"
In welcoming you today, and after listening to your eloquent address, we could not but recall those complimentary remarks which, like your own words, have filled us with emotion and pride.
Life has a habit of repeating itself and, for this reason, we hope that we have remained worthy of, and still possess, the virtues inherited from our British and our French ancestors.
(Translation):
Mr. President of the Council, your visit is indeed very gratifying to us. It affords us a further opportunity to proclaim the heartfelt friendship of all Canadians for France, and we continue to pay homage to the mission which ideals have clearly assigned to her.


Tuesday, March 5, 1957