1957-12-19

Hon. E. D. Fulton (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and the permission of the house I should like, as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, to make a short report to the house regarding some recent decisions under our Canadian Colombo plan program in India, Pakistan and Ceylon, and to table a more detailed statement on these matters.
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke in the recent external affairs debate he undertook to provide the house with a report on the allocation of Canadian funds to particular projects in the countries to which we are giving assistance as decisions are made on these matters. Since he did not have time before his departure for the NATO conference in Paris to inform the house that approval had been given for Canadian aid to a number of projects in the Colombo plan area and for aid in a variety of forms, and since he will not return in time to do so before the Christmas adjournment, I wish to take this opportunity to do so on his behalf.
The document to be tabled gives in adequate detail a description of all these projects and I propose to do little more orally than to list them. However, I should emphasize that these programs will be financed by funds already voted by parliament or provided for in the main estimates of the Department of External Affairs for the current year, with the one exception of the Indian program. For India these projects, together with the shipment of $7 million worth of wheat, will take up not only the funds now available, but in addition $5 million of the sums which parliament will be asked to vote for the Colombo plan next year. The authority which has now been given for a number of projects and forms of aid will enable purchasing to go forward over the next six to eight months. By making these decisions now subject of course to parliament voting the necessary funds, we are ensuring that Canadian aid will flow as quickly as possible during the next half year.
In this fashion we are endeavouring to speed up the flow of available aid to India.
I should also mention, before listing the projects, that the great bulk of these goods and materials and the engineering services associated with them will be provided from Canadian sources.
With regard to the program in India, Canada proposes to make available a further $2 million to continue work on the Canada-India reactor; $5 million for the erection of transmission lines as part of the Kundah hydroelectric development near Madras; $3 million for treated wooden railway ties; $120,000 for three cobalt beam cancer therapy units; $65,000 for audio-visual equipment and educational material, and $10.8 million for the supply of industrial metals urgently required by India's metal working industry.
With regard to the program in Pakistan, Canada will provide $1 million for the construction of a transmission line for the Ganges-Kobadak project and $1.6 million for the doubling of the circuit on the Dacca-Chittagong electric transmission line.
With regard to our Colombo plan program in Ceylon, hon. members will recall that of the $2 million available for Ceylon $1 million is being supplied in the form of flour which, when sold, will create counterpart funds for use on a number of projects which will be reported to the house in due course. As far as the other $1 million is concerned, Canada will make available a further $200,000 for the construction of additional transmission lines for the river valley development scheme in eastern Ceylon; $12,500 for remedial equipment for the rehabilitation centre at the University of Ceylon; $640,000 for the continuation of the aerial survey; $14,000 for additional agricultural pest control units; $17,500 for a stand-by radio unit for Colombo airport; $3,000 for X-ray maintenance equipment; $100,000 for further equipment for a technical institute, and $13,000 for a crane for Colombo harbour.
With the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to table the detailed statement with regard to these individual projects.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the minister's suggestion that these be printed in Hansard?


Mr. Fulion:: If hon. members wish, yes.
2576	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house unanimously
agreed to have this statement which has been tabled printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of statement referred to above, see appendix, pages 2642-44.]



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 239, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that no person shall, except where the offence is treason, levying of war or piracy with violence, be sentenced in Canada to suffer death, but shall suffer life imprisonment. I shall be happy on second reading to give the facts and the reasoning in support of this bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville):: should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if the statement is correct which appears in the press this morning, to the effect that the bill having to do with support prices is to be materially changed before second reading. If that is the case, will the bill be distributed in the new form as soon as possible? If it is to be carried over, as the article suggests, until after the Christmas vacation, will it be possible to have distribution of the bill, if it is to be changed, before we leave for the vacation?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman knows that any announcements with regard to government decisions or policies will be made in the house in due course, and not as a consequence of either confirming or denying speculative reports in newspapers.


Mr. Marler:: That has not been our
experience.


An hon. Member:: What about television?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is rather like questions which were asked yesterday and which I have been disallowing. However,


the right hon. gentleman asked for information about the time the matter might be brought forward, and I thought perhaps the house leader might have something to say on that matter. If there is no change, I think to be consistent that questions with respect to this bill ought to be reserved until the matter comes before the house, in accordance with the previous ruling.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: May
I ask a supplementary question of the house leader. Last night he indicated that the bill might come before the house tomorrow. Is it the intention of the government to bring the bill before the house tomorrow?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Acting Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I should like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture a question arising out of a press report in this morning's Gazette under the heading "P.C.'s Set Revision for Bill". My question to the minister is this. In view of the fact that the only suggested change in this press report is the silly idea that the moving average would be changed to a 10-year period, can the minister inform the house whether the government continues to disregard the principle of parity prices in this legislation?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question is of the same order as the others. It relates to this particular bill, and I must rule it out of order.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask a supplementary question before you leave this matter, Mr. Speaker. Will it be possible to distribute the bill in its final form as far as the government is concerned before it is brought up for second reading?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The bill has been distributed, Mr. Speaker.
[Later:!


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister notified any of the major farm organizations of his intention to change the base for price supports under Bill No. 237?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If so, what farm organizations have been notified and what response did the minister receive?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: My question is perfectly in order, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that questions in connection with this matter have already been ruled out of order, I do not propose to answer further.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was last Monday that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked the Secretary of State whether or not civil servants would have a holiday on Boxing day. I notice this morning that the Secretary of State is beaming with the spirit of Christmas. I was wondering whether she has any statement to make about the policy of the government in that respect.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that it was so noticeable. The answer I gave the other day to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre still stands. Probably I had better explain that I was asked about six weeks ago to make an announcement with reference to the two half days before Christmas and New Year's in order to give those civil servants who desired to travel over the holiday an opportunity to arrange transportation. It seems to me that it would be unfair to them to make any last minute changes in the holidays which are to be given this Christmas.
I recognize that the observance of Boxing day has increased. As a matter of fact it is an observance that has grown up in Canada over just a relatively few years, although it has long been a recognized holiday in the United Kingdom. I can assure my hon. friend that the matter is under active consideration, and before another holiday season comes around we hope we will have a satisfactory solution to the problem.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: May I ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that in Winnipeg Boxing day is a holiday recognized everywhere, is it possible that civil servants in Winnipeg will be given Boxing day as a holiday?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, we could differentiate between domiciles.



PAYMENT OF OVERTIME TO SESSIONAL STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: am not quite certain whether this question
Inquiries of the Ministry should be addressed to the Secretary of State; but with regard to the sessional staff, I understand they were told that when the house sat on Saturdays they would be paid for Saturdays because theirs is only a five-day week. I understand that now, however, they have been told they will not be paid for work on Saturdays. Would the minister explain that situation?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, may I inform the hon. gentleman that that is a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of Mr. Speaker, but I am sure I can speak for him and say that he will take it under consideration.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES    ARRANGEMENTS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I know a number of hon. members are obtaining T.C.A. reservations to go home. In order to facilitate them in picking up their tickets, arrangements have been made with T.C.A. to have a representative on duty in room 574 from one o'clock to three o'clock today and from nine o'clock until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning. I repeat that the room number is 574, and the times are from one o'clock to three o'clock this afternoon and from nine o'clock until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.



INQUIRY AS TO DISTRIBUTION OF PARLIAMENTARY GUIDE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Can the minister inform the house if the Parliamentary Guide will be distributed before the holiday season?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, this is not within the jurisdiction of my department, but I shall be glad to make inquiries about it.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Bellechasse):: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister tell the house under what authority the Department of National Revenue collects income tax at the source from forestry workers working in the United States of America, although the same workers are not entitled to unemployment insurance?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I think I had better take a look at that question before I give an answer.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: May I address a question to the Minister of Public Works. On December 17, at page 2468 of Hansard, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska concerning a bridge between New Brunswick and Quebec, the minister answered:
-the hon. member has been a very persistent advocate of action-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Alexis Pierre Caron: This is the question; you want to go too fast. If we need persistence to get bridges would the minister assure me that if I were persistent enough with respect to a bridge between Ontario and Quebec, east of the present Alexandra bridge, he would do his best to get the consent of the premier of Quebec?


Howard Charles Green: May I point out to the hon. member that "if" questions are not in order.



NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question. If he is not able to answer this morning he can take it as notice and give me an answer tomorrow. Have the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan made application for assistance in the construction of a bridge across the North Saskatchewan river north of Lloydminster, one end of which would be in Saskatchewan and the other end in Alberta? Has the government been urged by the two provinces to assist in constructing that bridge under the usual practice followed when three governments are involved?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such request having been made.


Major James William Coldwell: Is there a request on file from any member of the previous government?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is one of the things the previous government did not do.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can answer my hon. friend. There was a request from me.



BLIND PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: May I
address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the government considered the request of the companions' club of the blind for an allowance free of the means test for blind Canadians? If so, can the minister report anything encouraging in response to the requests?


Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have not actually, to my knowledge, received such a request from the institute for the blind although I understand I am going to do so. However, as I say, as yet I have received no such request.
(Translation):



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leopold Demers (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Solicitor General. On December 11 of this year, the newspaper La Presse was supplied by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with certain statistics on housing construction in Canada. They include the following:
Area	Loans	AmountQuebec	
2,092	$24,000,507Ontario	
5,944	79,306,439
I would therefore ask the hon. Solicitor General, as a minister representing the province of Quebec, to use his utmost influence in seeing that a more equitable distribution is ensured to all provinces, especially to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question of my hon. friend, let me say that I shall do so with great pleasure, which will be easy in any case since the present government is only too happy to take an interest in problems which concern the province of Quebec.
(Text):



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twil-lingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may ask the Minister of Fisheries if he still hopes to

get construction of the bait depot at Bonavista started with a view to providing winter employment.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, plans are being pressed forward to get the construction of the bait depot at Bonavista under way as soon as that is practicable. I am not in a position to state at the moment if we will succeed in doing that during this winter season, but if not we will have it under way as soon as weather permits.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
In view of the statement in this morning's edition of the Globe and Mail by Mr. Henry Borden that the royal commission on energy does not intend to produce an interim report on oil and gas export policy, would the government, recognizing the serious problems of the petroleum industry, request the commission to give immediate consideration to the problems of this industry with a view to avoiding lengthy delay in establishing a development policy?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the government will be very glad to look into the suggestion made by the hon. member.



ROYAL COMMISSION ON ENERGY-REQUEST FOR RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTING TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. When the government is in touch with the Borden commission along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Calgary South, will the government ask the commission to include in any early report it may make its recommendations concerning the ownership and control of the trans-Canada natural gas pipe line, and also its recommendations concerning the regulation of prices to be charged, for example by the board of transport commissioners?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we will be very glad to take those suggestions into consideration also.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Douglas Jung (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is the minister able to announce at this time any plans to put men to work this winter on outdoor activities which will be of help to the province of British Columbia?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Minister of Labour the provision of winter employment on projects that could be undertaken by or through the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has been under careful study. The department regularly provides substantial winter work through its operations in the national parks, in northern Canada and in various other fields.
Within the funds that have been made available by parliament, steps have already been taken to carry out additional winter work over and above normal level. Examples of these steps are at Cape Breton Highlands park, Terra Nova park and Prince Edward Island park, where a total of about 200 jobs have already been made available or will be available within a few days.
However, plans have been under way for projects on a much greater scale, providing additional funds are voted by parliament. It is the intention to bring in additional estimates, and if these are voted before January 15 work will be started within a few days thereafter on a series of jobs throughout the national park system, including Wood Buffalo park which is astride the Alberta-Northwest Territories boundary.
These works will include cutting and clearing projects on highways and trails, forest sanitation cutting, preliminary work on camp and picnic ground development, the construction of bungalow camps, and a stepped-up program of building and equipment repair. The work will provide employment from January 15 throughout the winter for some 1,500 persons on the basis of a 44-hour week. Additional work under this same general plan will provide a further 200 jobs on the Mackenzie highway. Between now and January 15 all necessary arrangements will be made so the work can start immediately after that date.
Of these jobs some 600 will be in the western parks, some 400 in the maritimes, and the remainder in the prairie provinces

Inquiries of the Ministry and in the southern part of the Northwest Territories. I will be in close consultation with my colleague the Minister of Labour to ensure that these jobs are filled by persons coming from areas with high rates of unemployment. Most of the work is of an outdoor nature and should, for example, provide substantial assistance in finding jobs for unemployed forest workers in British Columbia. I estimate that this program will provide about
1,000	jobs for the area of the hon. member. I should emphasize that all these projects are of a most useful nature and would have to be undertaken at some time in the next year or two in any event. We are not creating work; we are stepping up our planned program.
I should also mention that further studies are being made at the present time which I am hopeful will result in the provision in the immediate future of an even greater number of jobs than those I have outlined above. As soon as possible I will be glad to make a further announcement as to what we have been able to do.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if any plans have been made for the work for Point Pelee national park to take care of some of the unemployment in the Windsor area?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Speaker.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Is the minister prepared to make a report on the survey I understand was undertaken to provide a railway line from Grimshaw north to Pine Point? That was a project which I think was considered as one which might give employment to a considerable number of the stricken farmers in the Peace river area. Could the minister say if progress has been made on that survey?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the department which I happen to head has divided its efforts along this line into two parts. In the first instance there are shortterm projects such as those I mentioned this morning, and then there are long-term projects. The railway project to which my hon. friend has referred is not one that could be carried out in one season or in one winter.
As for the survey, it was conducted by the two railways, the Canadian National

Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, and naturally enough we in the department are very hopeful that when the reports come in to us in formal form we can do everything possible to encourage the construction of this very necessary project so vital to the opening up of the north at the very earliest moment.


Solon Earl Low: Just one other supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What I was thinking of more particularly was the possibility of sending out brushing crews during this winter, which would give employment to many of the farmers in that area who are stricken.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. I am quite aware of what the hon. member is asking, Mr. Speaker, but the decision to go out and cut and clear a right of way must be based on an acceptance of the final route of the railway, and the final decision as to whether it will start from Grimshaw or Waterways or the other alternatives has not been made.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Are we to infer from the answer given just a moment ago by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that the government will bring down further supplementary estimates early in the new year for all the various departments?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will be necessary to go that far. I am not in a position to say, of course, exactly what supplementary estimates would be brought down, but it is obvious that some will be required.


George Carlyle Marler: May I take it that it would be early in January?


Howard Charles Green: Just as quickly as possible, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question with reference to possible supplementary estimates, Mr. Speaker, and I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the support expressed from all over the house last Monday for doing something to bring up the lower pensions of retired civil servants, will the government consider bringing down a supplementary estimate to achieve

this purpose so that when we vote interim supply such a move could be brought into effect without delay?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I think there are a couple of fishhooks in that question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister if he will take a look at my question which he did not want to answer today and give an answer tomorrow? I can assure him there were no fishhooks in it. It is a very serious question.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the fishhooks will still be there tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister answer it tomorrow?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if consideration is being given by his department at the present time to assistance for the ferry from Portugal Cove to Bell island, Newfoundland.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, that question has been under consideration for some time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it under active consideration at the present time?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works about something else the previous government did not do. If he is going to bring in any supplementary estimates, will he consider including the Wesleyville post office?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has a guilty conscience about that post office.



FISHERIES


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, on December 5 and 6 the hon. members for Comox-Alberni and Burnaby-Richmond asked questions regarding dogfish 96698-164J
Inquiries of the Ministry on the Pacific coast. These questions arose out of a letter addressed to me by the united fishermen and allied workers' union.
I may say this is not a new problem. Dogfish, a species of small shark, have been a nuisance to fishermen and a predator on food fish for many years on both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. In some years there appears to be a greater concentration of these predators than in others.
In 1956 parliament approved a plan to encourage the catching of dogfish on the Pacific coast and their manufacture into meal for animal feed. An amount of $300,000 was voted to give a bounty of $10 per ton on
30,000	tons. Actually only 220 tons of dogfish were caught. The fishermen and the processors could not get together on price and other arrangements.
There is obviously not much point in renewing an offer of this kind. If, however, the fishermen's union along with the operators of the fish reduction plants and the processors of dogfish liver oil would get together and present a jointly agreed proposal which has a reasonable chance of successfully eliminating or reducing the numbers of this predator, the government will be prepared to consider such a proposal carefully.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Has the minister or the government considered redrafting the original proposal in such a way as to ensure, through government action, that the proposed bounty would go directly to the fishermen? If that were done, would it not remove the necessity of a joint arrangement to which the minister has referred?


John Angus MacLean: Yes, the department and 1 have considered the situation carefully, but 1 must admit that so far we have been unable to come up with any suggestion which would seem to be workable.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I bring to the attention of the Secretary of State an order for return which was passed by the house on November 18 concerning certain expropriations of land. I am most anxious to get the information before the year is out. Would the Secretary of State be good enough to hasten the reply?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I shall be very happy to do what I can.

Inquiries of the Ministry
SHIPPING	CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



ONION STEAMSHIP LINES, B.C.-SUBVENTION PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I gave him verbal notice yesterday of my intention to ask it. Has a decision been reached regarding the payment of a subsidy to Union Steamships, having in mind the unnecessarily high subsidy of $562,000 paid to this line? If so, what is the decision?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me yesterday of his intention to ask this question. The situation concerning subsidized services on the west coast has been under study for some time as the result of complaints by unsubsidized operators who are operating in competition with the subsidized services. To continue the existing services involving two passenger-cargo vessels would have involved unjustifiably large expenditures of public funds, since the subsidized operator requested a substantial increase in subsidy as a condition of continuation. This was particularly undesirable at a time when both passenger and cargo offerings on the British Columbia coast have diminished considerably.
It was not possible to reach agreement with Union Steamships for service in the area involving the use of one vessel only. At the present moment alternative methods of providing reduced services to certain essential points at less cost are being explored and we expect a solution at an early date. In the meantime Union Steamships company is continuing to operate the existing services until January 2. When these other arrangements are finalized I will make a more detailed statement in the house.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I understood the Minister of Transport to intimate that Union Steamships would continue certain services until January 2 next. What steps is the government taking to ensure that communities now being served by Union Steamships are not going to be completely stranded without any steamer service at all?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated in my answer to the hon. member for New Westminster that at present we are negotiating with other operators on the west coast to see that that does not happen.



CONSTRUCTION AND PURCHASE OF BRANCH LINES IN MANITOBA

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 196, respecting the construction of a line of railway by Canadian National Railway Company from Optic lake to Chisel lake, and the purchase by Canadian National Railway Company from the International Nickel Company of Canada, Limited, of a line of railway from Sipiwesk to a point on Burntwood river near Mystery lake, all in the province of Manitoba -Mr. Hees-Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
On clause 1-Construction of line of railway.
Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister going to make a statement?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, this bill has been thoroughly examined by the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I believe all questions which hon. members asked in committee were answered by those who appeared as witnesses. I very much hope this bill can go through the committee stage.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if I could ask the minister a question which I did not have the opportunity of asking in the committee. What is government policy with reference to these lines? I have reference now to developmental lines and to lines that are being built by Canadian National Railways. The former government had laid down a policy which was explained in this house from time to time, and I wonder whether, briefly, the minister could not tell us what is the policy of the government with reference to developmental lines, and with regard to lines that are to be built for the government by Canadian National Railways.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I do not know of any change in governmental outlook on the building of railway lines. The present government believes that transportation facilities usually have to precede development in various parts of the country. Where it appears that the building of a line will materially assist in the development of certain areas, and that it is a good economic risk, then the government is inclined to endorse the construction of the railway line.
So far as the two branch lines with which we are dealing now are concerned, they have both been thoroughly examined by the management of Canadian National Railways and are believed to be good economic risks. On that basis the government approved the building of the lines.


Lionel Chevrier: I was not questioning the soundness of the economic position of the lines. I think that was clearly taken care of in the committee. What I was trying to inquire from the minister was the financial aspect of these lines. Is it the policy of the government to pay a portion of the cost itself and ask the government owned company to contribute a portion? I am not referring to this line particularly, but I am referring to government policy as a whole.


George Harris Hees: I think I would rather wait until a specific proposal is put forward by a particular area of the country. For instance, at the moment a submission has gone forward to the management of Canadian National Railways concerning a proposal to build a railway line in the Gaspe peninsula. This proposal is being thoroughly studied by the research and development department of Canadian National Railways, and I expect the government will receive a report on the economic aspects of such a line in due course. When we receive that report we will give it very thorough consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister if this particular proposal to which he refers is one which is being investigated by Canadian National Railways or by the Department of Transport?


George Harris Hees: It is being investigated by Canadian National Railways. A delegation from the Gaspe peninsula came to see the Prime Minister and myself some two weeks ago and presented a brief. I have sent that brief along to the management of Canadian National Railways with a request that it be examined and a report on it sent to me as soon as it has been possible to make a thorough study of the proposal.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry; did the minister say he had the report? I could not hear.


George Harris Hees: No, I requested that a report be forwarded to me as soon as it is ready. I believe this project has been brought up by the people of Gaspe from time to time in the past. I do not believe any conclusion was reached by the previous government.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, it was studied as recently as last May, I am informed.


George Harris Hees: When a report is received by me from the management of Canadian National Railways concerning this particular project I will be in a better position to know whether or not it is economically justifiable. I do not believe there is any more I can say at the present time. All I can say is that whenever an area brings forward a proposal I can assure the house that it will be thoroughly examined by my department and by the
Canadian National Railways Canadian National Railways, if Canadian National is requested to build a line, and an intensive study will be made of the project.


George Carlyle Marler: I should like to ask the minister one question. Earlier today during questions on orders of the day with regard to a proposed line from Grimshaw to Pine Point or from some other place such as Waterways to Pine Point, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources seemed to indicate that the matter was under study by his department. I was just wondering if the Minister of Transport did not seem to be abdicating the responsibilities which seemed to belong to his department in connection with that project. I should like to know if it is not his own department that has the subject of a railway line to Pine Point under consideration, rather than the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman, the present minister is not abdicating anything. The department of northern affairs is very interested in this case, just as the Department of Transport is. At the moment the study is being undertaken jointly, as I believe the hon. member knows, by Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways. As soon as a report is forthcoming I will examine it with just as keen interest as the minister of northern affairs. I have not abdicated any of my interest in railway matters in this country.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Before this clause is carried I wonder if the minister could say what assurance the railway company has from the International Nickel Company as to the tonnage of freight that will be moving over this line over a period of years. I would assume that there is some assurance, perhaps in the form of a contract in writing with the railway company, that a certain minimum tonnage will be moving over this line.


George Harris Hees: The guarantee which has been given to Canadian National Railways by the International Nickel Company relates to the gross tolls which will be received by the railway company during the first 10 years of operation of the line. In what I said when the bill was first introduced I think I outlined the details of that guarantee. If the hon. member wishes me to deal further with the matter I shall be glad to do so. However, the railway company and the government feel that the guarantee which has been given by the International Nickel Company is a very satisfactory one indeed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Hamilton Harbour Commissioners
On clause 4-Purchase of line of railway.
George Carlyle Marler: I should like to take this opportunity of correcting the record with regard to this project. Hon. members will recall that under clause 4 the railway company is authorized to purchase a branch line constructed by the International Nickel Company of Canada Limited for a price of $5,400,000. During the debate on second reading or at the resolution stage of this bill I pointed out that there had been an increase in the cost of this branch line since the time the matter was first considered by me when I was minister of transport.
I should just like to put on record the fact that during the study of this bill in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines the difference between the amount which had originally been mentioned to me, which was $4,500,000, and the present figure of $5,400,000 was quite satisfactorily explained by Dr. Solandt, who is vice president in charge of research and development for the Canadian National Railway Company.
For the information of this committee I should merely like to say that after the matter was approved by the previous government there was a small increase in the cost of the project, and that the difference between that price, which I think was $4,685,000, and the amount of $5,400,000 which has been specified in the bill is explained by the usual allowance of 15 per cent which it is customary to make in these railway projects. I should like to correct any impression there might be that there had been something wrong in the change from $4,500,000 to $5,400,000.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


George Harris Hees: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 197, respecting the Hamilton harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


George Harris Hees: As in the case of the railway branch line bill, this bill was also thoroughly considered by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I believe


all the questions were thoroughly considered and answered by the witnesses who came before the committee.
During the examination of the bill in that committee the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount made a suggestion as to the change of a word in clause 5. I told him that I would take it under consideration. I have discussed the matter with the law officers of the crown and they find no objection to the change being made. I am very glad to be able to tell the hon. member that when clause 5 is reached I will ask my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare to move the appropriate amendment.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can reiterate what I said in the committee, namely that we on this side of the house are in support of this bill. I particularly went perhaps a little further than I would go under normal circumstances, in saying that I felt the facilities that were being provided by this bill were required because of the enhancement of traffic that would follow upon the construction of the seaway.
However, I want here to bring to the attention of the minister a suggestion I made in another debate, and to which I cannot refer without repeating it. I shall therefore repeat it as briefly as possible. It is this. The question is raised here, as it will be again from time to time, about facilities for ports and harbours all along the route of the seaway from, say, Seven Islands up to the head of the lakes. I wonder whether the minister has given any consideration to the suggestion I made about an economic survey. On another occasion I suggested the carrying out by his department of an economic survey to ascertain what the effects of the seaway would be on the various regions of Canada, the ports and harbours along the seaway route, and finally with particular reference to the great metropolitan areas of Montreal and the To-ronto-Hamilton area.
It seems to me that for the consideration of this bill and others which I am sure will come up for consideration from time to time, some attention must be given to planning, because it is evident that with iron ore moving upbound and grain and coal moving down-bound, there is quite likely to be a new type of vessel in operation. To what extent the new traffic, together with the traffic which already exists and other specialized traffic, will be directed toward one port rather than another are questions to which I am sure the minister will want to give consideration. I am therefore wondering whether he has had an opportunity of discussing with his officers the suggestion which I made earlier and which I now repeat.

Hamilton Harbour Commissioners


George Harris Hees: Some few days ago the hon. member for Laurier made what I considered to be a very helpful and constructive speech in the house. In it he made several constructive suggestions to me, and I wish to assure him that I have taken them very seriously. I am having each one studied by the officials of my department. I expect very shortly to be able to give him a report as to the feasibility of carrying out the suggestions he has made.
I feel that the suggestion with regard to an economic survey is a good one; there is no question about that. It is just a question as to how it could best be done, and that is being examined at the present time.


George Carlyle Marler: I would like to make one
or two comments with regard to this bill. In essence the bill is to provide the financing for a project which contemplates substantial and useful enlargements to Hamilton harbour. I think we are all fully impressed with the importance of Hamilton harbour and with the volume of traffic it is now handling.
When we discussed the project on second reading it developed that the total cost is likely to be about $8 million, of which $4 million is to be advanced by the government under this bill as a loan to the Hamilton harbour commissioners, and the other $4 million is to be provided by the Department of Public Works. I take it that in due course we shall have the opportunity of dealing with the estimates which will be brought forward for that purpose, but I would like to draw to the attention of the minister particularly that this is quite a significant departure from past practices in the sense that I think, broadly speaking, it has not been the practice of previous governments to defray even in part the expenditures which are made by these autonomous harbour commissioners. It might therefore create a precedent which other harbour commissioners will expect to have followed in their own cases.
For example, in the case of some of the harbours coming under the national harbours board the full cost of those improvements is, in effect, assessed against the local harbour in the accounts of the national harbours board. If one builds a large wharf for Montreal, for example, at a cost of $4 million, that $4 million forms part of the investment of the national harbours board in the Montreal harbour and no part is paid by the taxpayers at large. It forms part of the accounts of the national harbours board, and the interest and amortization of the cost is taken care of through the revenues from that particular harbour in the accounts of the board.
Hamilton Harbour Commissioners
In this particular case what is really happening is that approximately half the cost will be furnished, interest free, by the federal government to this harbour commission. During the course of the discussion of the bill in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines this subject was touched on very briefly; to this extent, that I asked Mr. Harstone, who was the chairman of the commission, what would be the additional revenues which would accrue to the commission from the construction of the proposed facilities. He said in round figures they had estimated it would be approximately $230,000. That was the additional revenue that would be received from the three projects which would be financed under this bill.
That seems to suggest rather clearly that the harbour would not be capable of bearing the interest cost of the whole investment of $8 million, because even if one calculates principal and interest at an annual rate of 5 per cent on $8 million, one sees that the annual charge would be at least $400,000, and consequently the revenues which would be available to the commission from these projects, at least, would not be sufficient to make them self-sustaining.
But I would like to say to the minister that I realize that is not the issue in this bill. The issue in the bill is whether or not $4 million is to be loaned to the commission, and there is no doubt from the evidence placed before the committee that the commission would be able to service the principal and interest on this $4 million.
I fully expect that when the Minister of Public Works brings before the house his estimates with regard to the balance of the cost, he will then be in a position to supply us with a more detailed statement of the economics of the situation than we had in the committee, and I am sure hon. members will appreciate that we were under some disability in that connection in that we could hardly make that an issue in the discussion of a loan project.
However, when it comes to voting the government contribution to this project I fully expect the Minister of Public Works, who is always most anxious to provide the fullest information on everything under the sun, will bring with him information as to the economics of this particular project so we may see how fully it has been justifiable to depart from the ordinary process, or perhaps I should say the ordinary procedure, of allowing the autonomous harbour commissioners to finance their own improvements.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might save myself a little time on the public works estimates-

Hamilton Harbour Commissioners


George Carlyle Marler: That may be.


Howard Charles Green: -if I said a word about this at the present time. The hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount, I am afraid, is not aware of the policy which had been adopted by his own government. I understood him to say that all these harbour commissions were supposed to be able to finance their own projects. That is not the case at all; in fact although in some cases they have financed some of their projects, even in the case of the Toronto harbour commission the Department of Public Works stepped in and spent very large sums of money-


George Carlyle Marler: On dredging.


Howard Charles Green: No, money has been spent in other ways as well, and in our opinion it would be most unfair to the city of Hamilton if the policy being urged by the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount were to be followed. Mind you, the policy with regard to Hamilton harbour was enunciated by my hon. friend's colleague, Hon. Robert Winters, in 1956.
We have an economic studies branch of the Department of Public Works, and before any legislation was brought forward they had made a very careful study of this whole Hamilton harbour situation in co-operation with the officials from the Department of Transport. Incidentally, the two departments work very closely together on many projects and I think that in this case there were also other governmental departments. As a result of that study it was found that the payment of charges on one-half the investment required for these works in Hamilton harbour would be about as much as the commissioners could undertake at this time.
Here is the basis for government policy as represented by this bill. There is no such thing as a uniform policy in all the harbour commissions. Each harbour must be dealt with on the merits of that particular harbour. There are, as the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount knows, several other harbour commissions, and the Department of Public Works has built almost all the public facilities in Winnipeg-St. Boniface, Port Al-berni, North Fraser, Belleville-


An hon. Member:: New Westminster.


An hon. Member:: No, not New Westminster.


Howard Charles Green: -and Windsor.
There will be developments in other harbours as a result of the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway which will have to be paid for at least in part by the Department of Public Works. Take for example Fort William-Port Arthur. I wrote a letter to the mayors of these two cities just a few days

ago outlining the results of the surveys made, again by the economic studies branch of the Departments of Public Works and Transport. We have also investigated Sault Ste. Marie and the need for harbour developments there as a result of the opening of the seaway. That report is not yet available. Today our investigation team is down in the city of Windsor investigating the need for developments at Windsor.
These activities are all being carried out with great dispatch in an attempt to meet the needs in these different centres, and I suggest to the hon. member that this proposal that the Department of Public Works should pay half the cost and the harbour commissions pay the other half is a very reasonable plan.
As a matter of fact, before this policy was adopted the Department of Public Works had been paying everything. Now the department is only having to find one half, so to adopt the policy urged by the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount and make the harbour commission pay all the cost would be very detrimental to the city of Hamilton and to the area served by that great city.
The hon. member made some statements on December 3 about this question which were not accurate. For example, he said:
I can, however, recall no instance in which the government has used public funds, obviously through the budget of the Department of Public Works, and either alone or jointly with any harbour commission undertaken the construction of facilities which by their very nature are revenue producing.
The fact is that in practice the Department of Public Works has at its own expense constructed most of the public facilities in the commission harbours. Hence the present proposal does not represent a precedent other than in the question of sharing, as against full responsibilty by the Department of Public Works.
Then the hon. member said, again on December 3:
It never occurred to me that the Department of Public Works had any responsibility to provide the facilities in the harbours where a harbour commission had been established.
The answer, as I have already mentioned, is that in practice the Department of Public Works has in the past provided nearly all such facilities. The hon. member said further:
The New Westminster harbour commission borrowed moneys from the federal government to cover its new ocean terminal, but there was no question of the federal government sharing half the cost.
Well, this certainly represented a precedent at the time, and represents a move in the

direction of more responsibility for harbour works on the part of the local harbour commissions.


George Carlyle Marler: When they were selfliquidating.


Howard Charles Green: It remains to be seen whether many of these projects will be self-liquidating. I hope they will be, but that is by no means certain. Then the hon. member said on the same day:
I think a new terminal was put up at not inconsiderable expense by the Toronto harbour commission. In that particular case, it obtained its own funds without government help and the government did nothing towards contributing to the costs of those facilities which were entirely paid for by the commission itself, as I said.
Mr. Chairman, this new terminal represents a building on a wharf, the headwalls of which were constructed at the cost of the federal government. Again the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount said:
I think there must be some reason for departing from a policy which had been followed uniformly with all the harbour commissions across Canada.
To which the answer is that it has not been practical to have a uniform practice regarding harbour commissions because of the different financial and other conditions which govern their activities. Then the hon. member said:
The government is making a gift of approximately half the cost of these facilities to a body which, I think we should all agree, is probably fully capable of meeting its own responsibilities and standing on its own feet.
He was referring to the proposed development at Hamilton. I point out in this connection that it must be borne in mind that hitherto the Department of Public Works has borne the full cost of all public structures in Hamilton harbour and nearly all elsewhere. Hence the present proposal is a move in the direction of the commissioners accepting more responsibility for their own harbours. Regarding the capacity of the Hamilton harbour commissioners to cover the full cost of the facilities, it must be kept in mind that the investigation made by the aforementioned officials of the three departments included a visit on site, and indicated that the payment of charges on one-half the investment would be about as much as the commissioners could undertake at this time.
I repeat that we are of the opinion that the policy being followed by the government with regard to the projects in Hamilton harbour is a fair policy, and we are confirmed in that opinion by the fact that it was also the policy of my predecessor.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Public Works, perhaps unwittingly, has sought to give the impression
Hamilton Harbour Commissioners that I was opposed to the making of these changes in Hamilton harbour. The point I tried to make during the course of the discussions on this bill is really twofold. First there was the question of the loan aspect, as to which I think my remarks would bear no misinterpretation. We thought the loan was fully secured, and that there would be no difficulty experienced by the harbour commission in meeting the payments of principal and interest.
With regard to the remaining part of the cost, the $4 million being borne by the department, what the minister is now saying is, "We have looked at this and we find that the harbour commission is unable itself, to bear this full cost of $4 million". So, in effect, what the minister is doing is to confirm the general principle I have been trying to enunciate, namely that where the works are self-supporting it is reasonable that the harbour commission should bear the cost.
The minister has said, and Mr. Harstone in his evidence before the committee confirmed it, that the amount of income which would be derived from the construction of these facilities would not be sufficient to defray the whole cost of the improvements.
Consequently one is faced with the choice of either not building the improvements or of the dominion government financing them.
I am not quarrelling with the dominion government financing the additional $4 million after the statement has been made in committee and again by the Minister of Public Works that the board is not capable of doing so itself. My own feeling has been that in the case of the autonomous harbour commissions, where they have adequate revenues either in being or in prospect to finance improvements to their harbours the dominion government ought not to make expenditures in the form, if you like, of gifts to the harbour commissions. If the harbour commission is capable of repaying the principal and interest of the additional investment it should be called upon to do so.
In this particular case, as the Minister of Public Works has pointed out, Hamilton is not capable. I am not excusing the minister from giving us perhaps more detailed information when we come to his estimates, but I am not quarrelling at the moment with the principle of the federal government doing it after the study which the minister has referred to of the economics of the situation.


Howard Charles Green: That study was completed before this plan was brought forward. In what I quoted a few moments ago I could not place my hand on the list of other departments which participated, but I find that the

Hamilton Harbour Commissioners third department participating was the Department of Finance; and as I think the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount well knows, anything that the spending departments can get past the Department of Finance has to be pretty good.


George Harris Hees: We will all vote for that.


George Carlyle Marler: I think that is something on which we can all agree very fully, but I would point out that of course the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Transport in considering this particular improvement were in the fortunate position of having this economic study in their possession. It was not made available to the committee, and I think the ministers would agree that all we have had from it so far are the headlines. However, I realize that that is not a pertinent part of this bill, and I am not going to try to protract the discussion by needling the minister to give us something more than the headlines of this study.


Mr. Lennard:: Mr. Chairman, I was rather surprised when I heard the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount say this was a change of policy, because I happen to know from correspondence I have seen in connection with the Hamilton harbour project that the former minister of public works and the former minister of finance had agreed to this plan. Surely the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount, who at that time was minister of transport, should have known that.


Mr. Schneider:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my approval of this bill. I would be a lot happier if there were full assurance that it was definitely a self-liquidating project, but I think if any project in the country has a chance of being self-liquidating this project has, because these dock facilities will serve a highly industrialized section of the country. I refer, of course, to the group of cities and towns just north of Hamilton including Kitchener, Waterloo, Guelph, Hes-peler, Preston, Galt and Brantford. These are all extremely active and highly industrialized centres. This will serve as their seaport on the new St. Lawrence seaway, and I therefore express my approval of this loan.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, the fact that the Minister of Public Works spoke about the lakehead situation gives me an opportunity to ask some questions and draw some comparisons, but before I do so I would like to congratulate both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Public Works for their action in getting things under way at the lakehead. I think it is a magnificent step and one on which they should be highly

complimented. I know the feeling at the lakehead in regard to the steps that have been taken is very good.
However, there are some comparisons and contrasts between the Hamilton situation and the lakehead situation. As the ministers well know, we have complexities at the lakehead which are different from the situation that obtains at Hamilton. First of all, we have pressure from the west and particularly from the Manitoba government. I believe there is no provincial government pushing in the Hamilton situation. Second, we have the two railroads involved right in the centre of this situation, because they already have facilities at the lakehead which could come in conflict, and furthermore they are tied up with the lakehead shipping interests which at the present time feel that the provision of deep-sea facilities will redound to the advantage of foreign shipping interests rather than Canadian interests. The trucking associations are of course applying very strong pressure in the situation at the lakehead. I understand this was also a factor at Hamilton, where the truckers wanted better facilities.
Finally, of course, we have in the lakehead situation something of which the ministers have become aware and that is the inter-city rivalry which has a history stretching back to the 1860's, and which is still bitter at the present time.
The Minister of Public Works said there is no over-all policy in this regard; you have national harbours, you have a situation where there are harbour commissions, and you have the present lakehead situation where you have neither of these contingencies. At the same time there has been in the past a great deal of expenditure by the federal government for dredging and to a certain extent for rock work. Would this not be a splendid opportunity for either of the ministers to present their analysis of the lakehead harbour situation and relate it to what has developed at Hamilton? I think this is the perfect time for a statement in this forum in relation to the lakehead matter. If the ministers cannot do it now I would look forward to their giving such a statement in the future, because there are comparisons and contrasts between the two situations.


Howard Charles Green: We will be very glad to deal with this question when our estimates are under consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before the Minister of Public Works leaves I should like to express the appreciation we all feel over here for his tribute to Mr. Harris which he made a few moments ago, when he said it was very difficult to get expenditures past the Department of Finance.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, I was referring to the hon. member for Eglinton, the present Minister of Finance.


Mr, Pickersgill:: Well, the minister made it quite clear by a slip of the tongue that he thought it was a continuing policy. What I rose to say is that since the Minister of Public Works has deliberately extended the scope of this debate I hope he will not forget that we are very concerned about the early development of the harbour at St. John's, Newfoundland.


William Limburg Houck: Mr. Chairman, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. When the tolls and charges and other sources of revenue are set by the Hamilton harbour commission, do they have to be approved by the board of transport commissioners before they become final?


George Harris Hees: Well, my understanding is that they do. I am afraid I am not very much of an expert on that as yet, but I think they do.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to take this opportunity of expressing our appreciation to the Minister of Public Works for having sent an investigating team to Windsor to look over the situation with respect to the Windsor harbour commission formed by the previous government; and to say, too, that I think the commissioners who have been appointed by the present government to the Windsor harbour commission are most satisfactory and I am sure will do a most commendable job.
In my constituency there are about seven miles of waterfront on the Detroit river which is reputed to be the busiest inland waterway in the world, and there are great possibilities there for development of seaway projects. I understand that the investigation will probably reveal that bulk storage facilities will be required in that area. In the counties of Kent and Essex about 85 per cent of all Canadian corn is produced, as well as a large percentage of the total Canadian soy bean production. I am not sure of the exact percentage in relation to soy beans but I think it is around 80 per cent. This, coupled with the large acreage of wheat and other grains, means that we will require bulk storage facilities. I am hoping that if the commission makes a recommendation to the government for the erection of bulk storage facilities to handle these products, favourable consideration will be given by this government to making such provision.


George Harris Hees: May I correct an answer I gave the hon. member for Niagara Falls. I am advised that I was wrong in saying there is
Hamilton Harbour Commissioners approval by the transport board of the rates that the Hamilton harbour commissioners may set. They establish their own rates, subject to the approval of the governor in council.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Laurier that we should have an economic survey along the St. Lawrence and great lakes system. I may say I had this particularly in mind the other day when I asked the Minister of Transport about having such a survey made before the imposition of tolls on the seaway. I said I had in mind the fact that the tolls set should have no discriminatory effect against Canada or any industry in Canada. I think the minister said at that time that the tolls committee was giving the matter of tolls very intensive investigation.
It strikes me that an economic committee set up to study the effect tolls might have on the Canadian economy would approach the matter from a different viewpoint than a tolls committee. Hamilton, for instance, is totally within the toll area and I think may be at some disadvantage compared with Cleveland and Buffalo. It is possible for steel plants in Cleveland and Buffalo to get their iron ore and practically all their raw materials without having to transport them through the toll area at all, while in the case of Hamilton raw materials such as iron ore, coal, etc. would all have to go through the toll area.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 5-Repayment of Loans.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That the word "any" in the first line of clause 5 be struck out and the word "the" be substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


George Harris Hees: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By
leave.


George Harris Hees: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Vessel Construction Assistance



CANADIAN VESSEL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 72, to amend the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act-Mr. Hees-Mr. Courteman-che in the chair.
On clause 1-Deduction in respect of capital cost of vessels for purposes of the Income Tax Act.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, as in the case of the other two bills that have come before the committee this morning this bill was also examined by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. As it is a very technical bill dealing to a large extent with income tax law I very much hope that most of the questions of hon. members were asked and answered in that committee. I hope hon. members will be as considerate with me in the case of this bill as with the last two, because I appreciate very much their co-operation in passing those bills so rapidly.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I had a number of very complicated questions with reference to income tax but I will not ask them of the minister. I just have one or two questions I am sure he can answer. I wonder whether he can give us the number of vessels that have benefited under the act and the value of such assistance?


George Harris Hees: I have not the figure offhand.
I think that was answered in the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: I will not insist. The
minister can give it to me later.


George Harris Hees: I will certainly give it to the hon. member at a later date.


Lionel Chevrier: What I am particularly interested in is the number of ships, the division of the ships, so far as yards are concerned, across Canada, and the amount of financial assistance that was derived under the present act.


George Harris Hees: I certainly will be glad to get that information in detail for the hon. member.


George Carlyle Marler: I should like to ask the minister one question in connection with clause 1 of the bill, I think it is. We had an opportunity to discuss the matter during the committee hearings, and I think the minister was going to give it some further consideration. As the bill is now drafted the benefits of the act can accrue only to the first operator of the vessel, as I understand it. It was suggested during the course of the discussion in


the committee that perhaps the benefits should not be so restricted but that they might follow the vessel into the hands of a second purchaser.
I fully realized at the time the issue was brought up in the committee that perhaps it would depend on the circumstances. If, for example, there was a change of ownership of the vessel in the first year of its life it might not be unreasonable that the benefit should accrue to the purchaser for the remaining period in which this special depreciation might be written off.
On the other hand, I realize that if this were to take place many years after the vessel had been built we would in effect perhaps be encouraging the use of secondhand vessels rather than the construction of new vessels. I believe the minister was going to give that point some consideration. If he has done so since the committee sat I would be very much interested in hearing what his conclusions are.


George Harris Hees: I have taken up the matter in some detail and discussed it very thoroughly with the chairman of the maritime commission. He is very strongly of the opinion, and I think I agree with him, that the main purpose of the legislation is to encourage the purchase of new ships from Canadian shipyards. Although there might be something to be said for the suggestion that a prospective purchaser might be more inclined to purchase a new ship if he thought these income tax advantages would remain with the ship and be passed along to a subsequent buyer if he decided to sell the ship after the first year or two when there would still be considerable value to be depreciated, and that this might to some extent incline him to buy the ship from a Canadian yard, there does not seem to be very much evidence to that effect.
I agree that there is certainly something to be said for the hon. member's argument, but having discussed the matter thoroughly with the chairman of the maritime commission I have decided on his advice to leave the bill as it is.


George Carlyle Marler: I am sure the minister realizes that my remarks were in no sense expressed by way of criticism, because those who were members of the last house will recall that the Liberal government introduced this measure in the earlier part of the session early this year. There have been only very minor changes in the bill since then.
I think the important thing to remember, Mr. Chairman, is that the act is intended to stimulate construction in Canadian shipyards. There is no doubt at all that since the act

was adopted originally it has had the effect of encouraging people to build in Canadian yards. However, there were income tax difficulties that arose which are covered by the very complex language contained in one of the later sections of this bill.
It is a fact, though, that the measure has had a beneficial effect on shipbuilding in Canada. As a good many members know, the fact that Canadian yards have been able to give more rapid deliveries of new ships than some of the continental yards, the yards in the United Kingdom, has given a further impetus to shipbuilding in Canada. At all events, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a useful measure and I am glad the government has continued this element of Liberal policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am going to take advantage, Mr. Chairman, of the interpretation of the rules we heard so often from the Minister of Public Works when he was on this side of the house and say a word on clause 1. I agree with my colleague the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount that this is a very good bill indeed. I do hope, however, that this does not represent all the government is going to do for shipping and the shipbuilding industry.
As a vessel owner myself, and as a representative of a province the more populous part of which is an island, I should like to point out that, in the last few years, there has been a steady decrease in the number of vessels engaged in the local carrying trade along the coast of Newfoundland. While that makes it much easier for a vessel owner like myself to get cargoes readily because there are more cargoes than vessels-I am speaking against my own interests in saying this-I am sure all of us in Newfoundland would welcome anything the government could do to contribute to the amelioration of that situation.
I am not going to trespass further on the time of the house with a speech which I regard, though the Minister of Public Works would not, as being completely out of order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to point out one thing to the minister, not that it will affect this bill, but we have a shipyard at the lakehead. It has not had much work recently. This yard happens to be owned by the same shipbuilding firm that owns all the yards on the Canadian side of the great lakes. In other words, in a sense there is a monopoly by one company so far as ship construction is concerned on the Canadian side of the great lakes and the St. Lawrence.
This bill is undoubtedly going to help the parent company, but it does not appear that it is going to help the Port Arthur shipyard to any extent at all, except as production
Unemployment Assistance Act from the busier yards of this company bumps off down the line to Port Arthur. In other words, since we happen to have the highest cost yard in the whole chain we are going to be the last to get any advantage from the bill. I should tell the minister that even that much is appreciated.
I should like to remind the minister of a suggestion I made in the committee and which the civil servant being questioned thought would be very difficult to implement, that is finding some way of equalizing the position of the Port Arthur shipyard with those of the other yards concerned. I hope he will keep that in mind when consideration is given to this measure in the future, or when consideration is given to the shipbuilding industry.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 18, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Monteith-Mr. Courtemanche in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Unemployment Assistance Act so as to remove the threshold provision from the agreements that have been concluded or that may be entered into hereafter; and to make certain changes for the better administration of the act through the deletion of a number of obsolete provisions.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that I shall certainly vote for the bill to be based upon this resolution because in the province of Newfoundland, where we certainly have more than the national average of unemployment at the present time and where the system of public assistance for the unemployed is perhaps better than it is in any other part of Canada, this bill will provide a welcome measure of financial assistance to the provincial treasury. It is a welcome measure, and a very badly needed measure. I would have no choice, therefore, as the representative of a constituency in that province, but to support it.
I do think, sir, having said that, there are some criticisms that can properly be made of this particular method of procedure in order to meet the problem. I want to emphasize that this proposed bill will do nothing whatever by itself to help the unemployed. It has only one purpose, and that is to make a contribution from the federal treasury to the treasuries of the provinces or municipalities.

Unemployment Assistance Act


Jay Waldo Monteith: What other purpose could the bill have?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not suggesting that it has. I am simply pointing out that is the only purpose it does have. I am pointing that out because it is on that premise I want to found the rest of what I have to say about this measure.
It is rather surprising, as the hon. member for Laurier pointed out last evening, that at a conference which was called for the purpose of discussing general fiscal relations between the federal and provincial governments, at a conference about which before it was held it was very difficult for those of us on this side of the house to find out whether any other subjects could be discussed at all, that the only kind of concrete proposal put forward by the federal government was a proposal to do something about a measure that, so far as I have been able to discover, no provincial government has made any specific request in public to have anything done about.
I find it very difficult to reconcile this course of action on the part of the federal government with the so-called new attitude toward the provinces about which the Prime Minister spoke at the opening of the federal-provincial conference on November 25. I am quoting from the official record of the conference and from the Prime Minister's opening observations which, as one would expect in the circumstances, were televised. This is what the Prime Minister said:
In welcoming you, too, I would point out that you will have noted by this time there is some change in the faces of the occupants of the portfolios of the government of Canada that has taken place in recent months, and I hope, too, that we shall also show a change in philosophy and in outlook to some of the problems facing our country.
It has been said, Mr. Chairman, by the Prime Minister, by other members of the government and by their supporters in this house that the present government had made a great change from the previous government in its attitude toward the provincial governments. It has been charged over and over again that we adopted a take it or leave it attitude and that the present government was going to change all that, that it was going to listen to the provinces; and the implication was that it was going to do what the provinces wanted it to do.
In the first place, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that was a proper description of the attitude of the preceding government. I call to witness-and I think I should put this on the record-one whom I think it would be extremely hard for hon. gentlemen opposite to disavow. I propose to put on the record what Mr. Frost, the premier of Ontario, said

about previous conferences under the previous government and the way in which they were conducted. What he said does not support or bear out in any way the kind of criticism that has been made of the attitude of the previous government toward the provincial governments. Mr. Frost was speaking about the present Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. friend the hon. member for Quebec East, and he said:
Now at this moment in history, because it is a moment of history, when he is no longer chairman of this conference and when he is retiring from his leadership of his party, I would like to express my admiration for him which has been well known and which I have stated here on many other occasions. Of course, like the prime minister of Quebec-
I say "premier".
-I have disagreed with him in regard to matters of policy but I have never disagreed with him as a personality and as a great Canadian.
This is Mr. Frost whom I am quoting.
As I say I would like today to again express my appreciation for his ability as chairman over several conferences and meetings and my thanks for his infinite patience which he has invariably shown, for his unfailing courtesy which I think sprang from Mr. St. Laurent himself and from the fact that he was, centrally, a Canadian gentleman and came from that great race one of the attributes of which is courtesy and understanding.
I think it is useful to have on the record this opinion from one who has never been a supporter of my right hon. friend, about the way in which our government conducted its relations with the provinces. To those of us who attended, as I did, at all but a few minutes of the open sessions of the federal-provincial	conference-and I make no
apology for referring to it as the federal-provincial conference-in November, it was perfectly clear that all the premiers there really came desiring-and that was what they said publicly-to have the central issue discussed; and the central issue, of course, was the apportionment between the federal government and the provincial governments of the tax revenues from the three principal direct taxes which have been the subject of these various discussions between the federal and provincial governments ever since 1945.
When they got there they found that the federal government had no proposals to make, had not even any suggestions to make, had not even any hints as to how this fiscal matter would be dealt with, and that despite repeated attempts by the premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan to get from the federal government an admission that the principle of equalization would continue to be applied in any additional apportionment of these taxes, no such commitment could be secured from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance.


Jay Waldo Monteith: What has that to do with unemployment assistance?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hon. gentlemen opposite will soon find out if they have the patience to listen.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It will take a great deal of patience.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: How about the rules of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be very happy to deal with that point. Unlike the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, I do not pose as an expert on the rules. However, it has always been my understanding that the sole reason for having this stage of proceedings, this resolution stage preceding a money bill, is that we should be allowed to discuss whether it is appropriate to have a bill about this particular subject or whether it is appropriate to use that amount of money in some other way. It is precisely to that point that I am addressing myself at the moment.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: In what other way would you use it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am coming to that matter if the hon. gentleman, the minister without portfolio, who must find it very hard to do so, will possess his soul in patience a little longer.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned for the luncheon interval I was being interrupted by hon. gentlemen opposite who wanted to know what was the relationship between what I was saying and the proposed measure. As I said, the only thing this proposed measure does is that it puts a certain amount, or it will put a certain amount, of additional money collected from the taxpayers of Canada into the treasuries of the provinces and the municipalities of this country.
As I said at the outset I am of the opinion, speaking as a representative of a province which very badly needs this money, that I have no choice but to support the measure. But I would point out, as I was also saying, that I am supporting it without enthusiasm, because it is such an inadequate substitute for what the members of this house and the people of Canada generally were led to
Unemployment Assistance Act expect they would get from this government in its relations with the provincial governments before June 10, and even after.


William Joseph Browne: They are getting more than that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, there is no evidence whatsoever of that. There is nothing on the order paper that has been brought to the attention of this house which would indicate that there is anything else to expect. I know the hon. gentlemen opposite prefer to announce their policies elsewhere than in this house, but until such policies are announced in this house it is very hard for us in our deliberations to take them very seriously.
The federal-provincial conference, as I shall continue to call it, was convoked for the purpose of discussing general fiscal relations between the federal and provincial governments; at least that is what the premiers were told. The country expected many serious things to come of this conference, but instead at the opening we had the Prime Minister making this statement about the matter which is now before the committee, and I shall quote from the official record of the conference for Monday, November 25, at page C-3:
That brings me to a question that has been discussed on a number of occasions-the request of some provinces for the removal of the so-called "threshold" of .45 per cent under the Unemployment Assistance Act. Its removal would have the result that the dominion treasury would share the costs of all eligible cases upon the relief rolls- whether employable or unemployable-and not just the numbers in excess of .45 per cent of the provincial population. We should then be avoiding entirely this invidious distinction between employable and unemployable persons and sharing the costs of providing aid to all those in need, apart from the normal statutory responsibilities of the provinces in respect of mothers' allowances.
I am told that a change of this nature would make it much easier for some suitable arrangements to be made to assist their municipalities which have been carrying most of this burden of assistance to those in need, apart of course from the bulk of the cost being carried by unemployment insurance. The benefits of removing this "threshold" would be fairly equitably divided among all the provinces that would be participating in agreements under this act, and we see no serious obstacle to meeting your wishes in this regard.
I find this a very very puzzling statement. As I say, there is nothing I have been able to find in the records anywhere to suggest that any provincial governments were seriously concerned about the removal of this threshold, and I think I might perhaps remind you, sir, and the members of this committee that this threshold was there precisely to avoid the invidious distinction to which the Prime Minister refers, between the employable and unemployable person.

Unemployment Assistance Act
For no other reason was it put there. It was put there on the assumption, and a quite sensible assumption it was too, that the .45 per cent of the provincial population represented an average of the cases of public charity and assistance to the normally unemployable who have always been regarded, ever since confederation, as a provincial responsibility. The federal government has never taken any responsibility for that group, and it was in order to preserve that constitutional distinction without creating any hardship to individuals that my right hon. friend devised, recommended and persuaded this parliament to enact the present legislation.
I therefore suggest, sir, that my hon. friend the member for Laurier was perfectly right last night when he said that in removing this threshold all the government is doing is making an invasion of provincial rights and taking a very big step toward centralization, against which they have preached-I was going to say so hypocritically, but I suppose that would be unparliamentary-


William Joseph Browne: Would my hon. friend allow a question? Would he say that the introduction of old age pensions and pensions for the blind and disabled was an invasion of provincial rights?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, because originally old age pensions were simply a sharing arrangement between the federal and provincial governments, and before the field of old age security was taken over by this government a constitutional amendment was made. Once that amendment was made there could be no question of any invasion of provincial rights.
I do not say this is an action which necessarily should be condemned, that is assistance to the provinces with respect to some of these obligations. I do not say that at all, but I do say it is contrary to the professions of hon. gentlemen opposite when they sat over here. That is all the hon. member for Laurier said last night and that is all I am saying now.
I have one or two other things I would like to say about this proposed measure. In the first place, I would ask the minister when he speaks again if he would tell us whether this proposed measure meets the objections voiced by the premier of Manitoba at the conference. So far as I have been able to find from the published record, the premier of Manitoba was the only premier who had suggestions to make about this matter and I presume that following the attitude, the new attitude of listening which the present government claims to have adopted, all Mr. Campbell's objections will have been met in this legislation.


An hon. Member:: Are you referring to the outgoing premier of Manitoba?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or if Mr. Campbell's
objections have not been met, is this a straight take it or leave it proposition? I would like the minister to give us an answer to that when he speaks again.


Lionel Chevrier: It looks like it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But what I am most particularly anxious to say is that this proposed measure, at best, is a very poor second best. It is a tiny nibble at a problem which hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were campaigning for votes, said would be their first concern when they got into office. I am not going to take the red book and take the time of the house to read all his statements, although I would be glad to point out such statements to the hon. gentlemen if they wish, but the Prime Minister said over and over again that the first thing he was going to do was call a conference to bring about a new deal with the provinces in order to give them a larger share of the revenues from these large tax fields.
All we get after six months is this pitiful little measure, the benefits of which the Prime Minister says will be distributed fairly equitably across Canada. I wonder. The two most populous provinces have not made agreements; they do not benefit at all under this bill, and there are two other provinces which do not have agreements. I think the minister ought to tell us before we proceed further with this matter whether all the provinces have now agreed-


Jay Waldo Monteith: I will tell you the exact situation on second reading.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I assume the minister will take his usual attitude that we are not entitled to any information at all.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I said I would tell you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister does not seem to realize that a minister of the crown is a member of the government. Every time we ask him a question about policy he says, "This is a matter of government policy, and I do not dare to tell you about it". We are getting a little tired of this one-man government here in the house. We would like to see some of the ministers over there possessing enough courage and initiative to take a little responsibility on their shoulders as members of the government.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: We are getting a little tired of this speech, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman does not like the speech. I am not awfully surprised, because the hon. gentleman is, I think, rather fonder of the sound of his own voice than that of others.


Richard Albert Bell: That is one thing in which I may resemble the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I should like to get on with my speech. I think that would be more productive than any exchange with the hon. member for Carleton, amusing though it might be for him.
I want to say one or two things about what was said last night by the hon. member for Nanaimo, because he did deal with a very serious problem and one which all of us in this house are going to have to face as a result of the increasing unemployment we are bound to have during the next few months; that is, the whole question of responsibility for unemployment assistance. In saying something about this I should like to correct the impression-not to correct the facts, because I think the hon. gentleman's facts were perfectly correct

but to correct the impression he gave in the course of the recital of certain facts last evening.
The first thing the hon. gentleman said to which I take some exception was that in 1937, at the time the Rowell-Sirois commission was appointed, the provinces enjoyed revenues from personal income and corporation taxes. That seemed to imply that they do not have them now. That is not true at all. The fact is that the revenue which the provinces derive from these tax fields is manifestly greater today than it was in 1937, and a very large part of this revenue comes in the form of equalization payments, the purpose of which is to put the provinces and the provincial treasuries in a position to discharge their responsibility for themselves; and it seems to me that this principle of equalization which has been imported into our federal-provincial relations since 1945 does change the whole picture in respect to this matter.
I am not saying for one moment that this necessarily means there may not be situations arise in which parliament should assume full responsibility for unemployment assistance. I do not think, however, that any government with any sense of responsibility would undertake the financial burden of unemployment assistance in full unless it also undertook the administration. I should be very surprised if any government, even a government as reckless as the one we have at the present time, would undertake such a
Unemployment Assistance Act course of action. That, of course, would involve a very much greater degree of centralization than we in this party have been willing to embark upon.
I consider that though this measure will certainly be welcomed, I imagine, by every provincial treasurer whose government has made an agreement with the federal government, it would have been much more welcome to most of them if the government had gone ahead with what it promised to do before the election and produced the new fiscal deal which it promised.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It will.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If it had done so the provinces would already be in a position to do something on their own, not merely to pay unemployment assistance but also to get on with a good many useful and badly needed works-and I can certainly speak about the province of Newfoundland-which would have the effect of diminishing the amount of unemployment.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, we have to go back some considerable time in our history before we reach a period similar to that through which our country is passing today. I think my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo yesterday gave a very clear illustration of the situation when Canada was faced with problems similar to those which confront us now. He made reference to the setting up of the Rowell-Sirois commission which dealt particularly with this question of unemployment, the subject matter of the present bill. As I understand the report of that commission, it was suggested that responsibility for the unemployed of this country should be divided in the following manner, namely that the provinces should accept full responsibility for the unemployable-people physically unable to work- while the federal government should accept responsibility for unemployed employables.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder what is the use of going to the expense of setting up these royal commissions to devote great care to the study of these questions when the recommendations which are finally made are not acted upon. Two or three royal commissions have been set up this session by this government to consider various problems. If the recommendations of these commissions are not going to be acted upon any more than the recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois commission, it would seem to me a waste of time and money to keep them sitting.
Let us consider this question of responsibility and the recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois commission. The whole matter puts me in mind of the old story of the

Unemployment Assistance Act constitution of horse and rabbit stew in the armed forces canteen. Under this recipe one horse equalled one rabbit. Under the terms of the commission's recommendation the rabbit would be the responsibility of the province-the relatively small number unable to work. The horse-in this case a situation such as we are fast approaching, namely a terrific number of unemployed people-would be the responsibility of the federal government. But now, instead of each accepting his share, we find that the federal government is proposing to share the cost. In other words they will pay for half the rabbit, but they want the province to look after half their horse.
Moreover, I see that the division of responsibility in the old days of the depression was supposed to be on a 40-40-20 basis, the 20 per cent being paid by the municipalities, and I also note that under this new offer from the federal government to raise its proportion by 10 per cent, my own province of Ontario has decreased its contribution from 40 to 30 per cent.
That is the proposition. In other words it is a straight transfer of 10 per cent from the Ontario government to the federal government. That certainly is not going to aid the municipalities. I think we have had it amply demonstrated to us in the past that the municipalities are completely and physically unable to cope with the situation of unemployment. The municipal governments do not have the sources of revenue in their taxation fields which would allow them to meet this situation in any way, shape or form.
Further than that, there is very little the municipalities can do to change the policies or lack of policies that cause these periods of unemployment from time to time. I believe that responsibility rests with the federal government, and in cases like this it should accept that responsibility. If it cannot ensure that we will not have these blights of unemployment every so often in our country, at least it should do something to lift the load from the provincial governments and certainly from the municipal governments.
I have here the latest figures for unemployment I could find, prepared as of November 14, 1957. This table gives the unemployment picture for Canada as a whole and breaks it down by provinces and even by regions. I have not found this too satisfactory, at least on the local basis. I do not know just in what region my constituency would fall according to the regional breakdown in this table. The closest area I can see geographically is the region of Sudbury, which is stated to have 2,736 unemployed at the present time.

As president of the Timmins Cochrane and district labour council I have had occasion to see just what the situation is in my locality. Local 2995 of the lumber and sawmill workers union is the bargaining agent for the bush workers, log cutters and other similar workers in the northern area. Normally at this time it has between 7,000 and 8,000 dues paying members in the local. Last week the figure was down to 1,200, I believe. I don't know where the balance of these people totalling approximately 6,000 are listed on this table. Perhaps they are listed in some other locality according to this breakdown; either that or my region is not listed at all.
Certainly those 6,000 people in that area will be absolutely beyond the means of the municipality to help. I think the story is pretty much the same across the country. The municipal governments are in desperate straits trying to meet the present calls on their resources, and certainly are unable to meet any new situations such as the one confronting us at the present time.
There is another point I would like to raise at this time. The figures to which I referred represent a list of the unemployed in Canada. I presume it shows merely the total number of people who are unemployed, those who might be described as wage earners. I wonder if this table takes into account the members of their families. Do these figures account for just the head of the family, the wage earner? If we also take into consideration the number of dependants of each of these unemployed, then on the basis of these figures there would be in the neighbourhood of one and a half million who can expect to experience a pretty bleak Christmas this year.
We have seen at lot of activity in the country to the south of us and more recently in this country on the part of certain groups who are aggressively advocating what they term as right to work laws. Anyone familiar with the trade union movement realizes full well that these are not right to work laws at all. Rather they are the right to go through picket lines, the right to refuse to participate in union shops and closed shops; in other words the right to try to undermine all the union security that presently exists in this country. I believe in right to work laws, but I believe these words should be taken for just what they say. I believe that each of these 352,000 unemployed people- and I understand this figure has increased tremendously in the past month because, as I said, these are the figures for November, 1957-has a right to work.
Even if this bill is improved beyond its present terms it certainly is not going to be

a solution to the unemployment problem. There is only one solution to unemployment and that is employment. I maintain that if half the effort, time and ingenuity that in the past have gone into this buck passing among the federal, provincial and municipal governments in trying to decide who is responsible for these unemployed people had been put into making jobs available for them, we certainly would not be faced with the unemployment problem that confronts us today.
I do not know how many hon. members have been in the position of some of these unemployed. I do not know if they realize just how demoralizing it can be to a man who is willing and able to work but who cannot find a job, when he sees his wife and family depending on him and through no fault of his own he is unable to provide a living for them. It is certainly an extremely demoralizing experience. There can be no doubt but that he would tend to lose faith not only in our way of life and the system under which we operate, but would also become highly fertile ground for the spread of the dread disease of communism. I believe it is in fields like this that communists can spread their propaganda in the world today.
In drawing my remarks to a close I would like to add one point. If this government feels it is helpless to meet this emergency any better than it has been met in the past with all the resources at its disposal in this nation, then how in the world can the government expect the municipalities and provinces and in the final analysis the wage earning head of the family with the limited resources at his disposal-his only resource being his ability to work, which is denied him when he is unemployed-to meet the situation?


Donald Ferguson Brown: Mr. Chairman, I had not expected to take up the time of the committee in an attempt to hold up this measure because I think it is most desirable, but the unemployment situation in my constituency is such that I should like to call upon the government to give whatever assistance is possible. When I picked up my morning paper, the Windsor Daily Star, I noted that as of December 5, 1957, there were 14,052 people unemployed. I trust that the word "unemployed" is not unparliamentary. In some circles it is felt that it is a word which should not be used, but being an old-fashioned person I think we should describe a situation by the word that conveys the proper connotation and meaning.
As I said, there were 14,052 persons unemployed as of December 5. These for the most part are middle class people, hard working, conscientious, honest and industrious. They are just the average type of citizen one
Unemployment Assistance Act finds throughout the length and breadth of this country. Many of them are expert mechanics or craftsmen who were employed in the automobile factories and its feeder plants in the city. These people are not anxious to be in this situation; they are people who deplore the situation and are most anxious to help themselves as much as possible.
For that reason they are looking for assistance to provide an atmosphere wherein industry may thrive and business may be carried on successfully and profitably. They are asking for an atmosphere where there is some measure of security and assurance. We have many projects through which work could be provided. It is not to their liking to be accepting unemployment insurance, although it is theirs as of right; it is insurance they have bought and paid for. But it is not the natural state of man to be unemployed and inactive. For that reason these people are most anxious to be working, to be doing things and taking part in production and the building up of the country.
There are many projects which could be used properly by the government to advance the welfare of the country as a whole. I suggest the construction of highways. In my constituency we would also like to have a post office built at one place, and it has been in the planning stage for a considerable time. I note that recently the Minister of Public Works decided he would proceed with the project. Ever since the opening day of the session I have been pressing him to get along with it. Apparently it could not be done until just recently, but I understand he has now decided he can proceed with the work expeditiously. For this I congratulate him, and I hope he will make good his promise and see that the construction of this building is proceeded with promptly.
There are many other projects of a semi if not wholly national aspect. A sewage disposal plant is needed for sewage going into international waters. The municipality cannot hope to complete it because it involves an expenditure of at least $25 million to $30 million. If it is not proceeded with considerable hardship will be created for the people in that community. We are also building an auditorium and we would like some assistance there if it could be arranged. I realize that the building of an auditorium is not necessarily a national project, but there are precedents in regard to other projects throughout the country which are not of a national character.
I refer particularly to the policy of the government announced yesterday by the Minister of Justice, whereby assistance is

Unemployment Assistance Act to be given to the people of a particular mining community and the sum of $16,000 a month is to be expended from the federal treasury to help maintain them. Therefore I make a particular plea on behalf of the
14,000	people in my constituency who are unemployed at the present time. That number may be increased very shortly because of declining conditions, and I urge the government to follow the precedent they have set by providing assistance through work and the promotion and development of the assets of this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this legislation will provide some additional funds for some of the provincial treasuries of the country and will be of at least a little assistance with regard to the unemployment situation. Therefore we shall support the legislation. I confess, however, that we do not intend to wax very eloquent about it, because no one can claim that it is a major piece of legislation.
I have taken the trouble to read through the debate on unemployment that took place in the house starting on March 2, 1955, on an amendment to the motion to go into supply moved by the present Secretary of State. I have also read the debate that took place in 1956 when the Unemployment Assistance Act was put on the statute books, and the things the Tories called for in those two debates by way of an attack on the problem of unemployment were a lot more than is suggested by the measure now being presented to the house.
I also want to agree with one or two things the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said. I will make it clear shortly that I disagree with some of his comments. I agree with him that this measure is a poor substitute for the improvement in federal provincial fiscal arrangements that we were led to believe would be undertaken early in the regime of the new Prime Minister. Some hon. members opposite complained when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate raised this question, but the fact is that we were led to believe that something would be done with regard to federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, and so far only two or three little things like this have reached the light of day. We have to accept them as the moves the government is making in that direction, but this little move is a very poor substitute for real improvement in federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.
It is also a poor substitute for an assurance from the government that the principle of equalization will be maintained in those arrangements. I come from one of two provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where

the governments and the people are deeply concerned lest the direction in which federal-provincial fiscal arrangements seem to be going may mean the losing of that equalization principle to the detriment of the economic position of those two provinces. I confess that that is a larger subject of which this is only a small part, but on behalf of the people of those two provinces, indeed on behalf of the people of Canada as a whole, on behalf of national unity, I urge that the equalization principle be maintained in federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.
This measure is not only a poor substitute for a larger measure of improvement in federal-provincial fiscal arrangements; it is also a poor substitute for what has been talked about for many years with regard to federal responsibility for the employable unemployed. When I say this has been talked about for many years, I want to make it clear it has been advocated in years gone by both by Liberals and by Conservatives. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate suggested that certain changes had taken place in the meantime, and I will come to those in a few moments.
First of all may I remind him, and Liberals generally, that the position of the Liberals for many years was that the responsibility for the employable unemployed should rest with the federal government. In that connection I was rather amazed last night to hear the hon. member for Laurier say this, as recorded at page 2572 of Hansard for December 18, 1957:
Since the federal-provincial conferences of 1945 and 1946 it has been customary to make a distinction between employable and unemployable unemployed, and in recent years the federal government has offered to participate with the provinces in the cost of assistance to employable unemployed not receiving unemployment insurance benefits.
I emphasize that the hon. member said that the former government, during recent years, had been offering to participate with the provinces in these costs. May I remind him, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, and other Liberals that in line with the recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois commission the former Liberal government, at the federal-provincial conference of 1945, made it clear that it believed not just in participating with the provinces but in full federal responsibility for the employable unemployed.
I hold in my hand a copy of one of the green books prepared in connection with that conference. It is the one entitled "Proposals of the Government of Canada", and starting

on page 42 there is a section under the heading "Unemployment Assistance". I read one or two sentences:
The dominion government in its statement on employment and income, announced that the maintenance of a high level of employment and income was "a primary object of policy".
In other words the federal government admitted responsibility for something we claim is a federal responsibility, that is the level of employment itself. One of the reasons that the federal government, in our view, must not try to pass the responsibility for the maintenance of employable unemployed to the provinces is because it is primarily a federal responsibility as to whether or not our economic situation will be such that there will be a high level of employment. I submit that was implied in the position taken at the 1945 federal-provincial conference by the then federal government, and it is implied in the sentence I have just read.
I go farther down on the same page and there are these words:
The dominion is therefore accompanying its proposal for general acceptance of responsibility-
That is responsibility for the employable unemployed.
-with a concrete plan for its Implementation in the field of assistance for employable unemployed persons.
Over on page 43, amongst other details that are spelled out, there is this paragraph:
(d) The plan proposes acceptance of dominion responsibility for unemployed employables and provincial and local responsibility for unemployables, but it is recognized that this division presents problems of definition in some individual cases, and that in operating practice the only final test of employability is ability to get and hold a job.
It is quite true that later in the story the former prime minister sought to deal with the problem as to how you draw the line between employable and unemployable by this .45 per cent formula, but even the devising of that formula did not detract from the position taken by the Liberals in 1945 that the responsibility for the employable unemployed rests with the federal government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? I am quite sure he wants to be completely fair about this. Is it not true that this offer to assume responsibility for assistance to the employable unemployed was part of a package deal, and was never offered in any other way? This was turned down by certain of the provinces, and as a result the tax rental payments, as they were then called, were substantially increased because it had not been possible to get agreement.
Unemployment Assistance Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
correct that the proposals made in 1945 were part of a package deal, and because that conference blew up we did not get the package. Across the years we have managed to get out of this and former governments some of the elements that were in that package such as improvements in old age pensions; the beginning of a health grants program; the beginning of a hospital insurance program, and so on.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate says we have a different situation in that we now have equalization payments. I submit that that is essentially a part of the financial aspect of the package of 1945, and that the change the hon. member says has taken place does not change the basic fact which the Liberals accepted in 1945, namely that the central government is the government that is mainly responsible for those policies that determine the level of economic activity in the country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We never denied that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am glad to hear the hon. member's statement. I take it he will agree with me that it is still the case, and that being the case we contend that if the central government, which is primarily responsible for economic policies, tries to push responsibility for the maintenance of the employable unemployed on to the provinces it is shirking something which is the responsibility of the central government. If the federal government is going to get out from under, either the former government or the new government, the consequences of policies that create unemployment, it is not going to be under the same impetus to maintain policies that will provide full employment as it would if it were faced with its full responsibilities in that field.
Along with these equalization payments which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and I hope will be continued, there have come increased responsibilities so far as the provinces are concerned in all the fields of social security and social welfare. I submit that none of the changes to which the hon. member referred alter the basic picture that was so well set out in the green book proposals of 1945, which were based on the studies of the Rowell-Sirois commission a few years earlier. It is our view, therefore, that the country is being let down in connection with the proposal for 100 per cent federal responsibility for employable unemployed, because that was not implemented by the government that went out of office on June 21 and it is not being implemented by the government that is now in power.

Unemployment Assistance Act
It has been a matter of interest to me in reading the green book proposals and the debates that took place in 1945, as well as in reading the debate on unemployment insurance in 1940, to notice the way in which the view was expressed that we should deal with this matter before the situation became serious. We are heading into a situation that is very serious right now, with unemployment just about 5 per cent of the working force. That was the picture in the middle of November, and it is probably over 5 per cent of the working force now.
We think it is a sorry picture with whatever government is in power, Liberal or Conservative, that this principle of 100 per cent federal responsibility for the employable unemployed seems to be forgotten.
I suggest that the Liberals have put themselves in a rather strange position in this debate yesterday and today. First of all there is this contrast between the readiness to assume 100 per cent of this responsibility back in 1945 and the position taken by the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in this debate, that the 50 per cent share is adequate under what they refer to as the changed conditions.
I think it is also very interesting to notice the difference in the points of view expressed by the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate I think in the very first paragraph of his speech said that he would be voting for the bill. The hon. member for Laurier last night characterized the bill as an invasion of a provincial right. He pointed out that to his amazement even Mr. Duplessis was supporting this invasion, this move in the direction of centralization. In other words, after I listened to what the hon. member for Laurier said last night and after I read again this morning the record of what he said, it seemed to me to be fairly clear that he has no alternative but to vote against the measure. He says it is centralization.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So did I.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So
does my hon. friend the history teacher. It looks to me as though my hon. friend is not only a former teacher of history but that he is trying to turn back the pages of history, trying to get back to the position of 90 years ago when it was the Conservatives who wanted a strong central government and the Liberals who were the advocates of provincial rights.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And have been ever since.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
have been ever since, says my history teacher friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. When he talks about history, I think of the old days in United College.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Apparently my lectures were not as good as they should have been.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am sorry, but I did not have the advantage of taking lectures given by the hon. member when he was a professor at United College. My conversations with him were out in the halls. It seems to me that what the Liberals are trying to do is turn back the pages of history. If that is their position with respect to this bill, that they are against it because it is a form of centralization, because it is invading a field that is a matter of provincial rights, I hope those who take that view will vote accordingly if a vote is called on this measure.
But not only is the position of the Liberals a strange one; so is the position of my hon. friends on the other side of the house, the Conservatives. I imagine that one of these days the people who make up the Hansard index will get a new heading for some of my speeches, namely "A Plague on Both Your Houses", and it would be appropriate.


An hon. Member:: Just "A Plague".


Stanley Howard Knowles: have read with interest the debate on the Unemployment Assistance Act when it was put on the statute books in 1956. The chief spokesman for the Progressive Conservatives, who were then in opposition, was the hon. lady who is now the Secretary of State. Let me give one or two quotations from the hon. lady just in order to show the tone of that debate. On June 28, 1956, as recorded at page 5573 of Hansard of that date, she said:
No, Mr. Chairman. We were very happy to cooperate with the minister last evening and again today in trying to get this bill through the house for the reasons which he explained to us. But I would think if the minister wants to get this bill through the house, he jolly well had better quit . making political speeches.
The minister to whom she was referring there, of course, was the hon. member for Essex East. Then at another point the hon. lady said:
I tell the minister to cut out this nonsense. I tell him either to lay no claim to these false virtues or else put in the act something which will actually give the provinces the thing which he claims he is giving here and which he is not giving.
Those two quotations represent faithfully the character of the debate that took place on that occasion, during which the present Secretary of State and others complained that the Liberals who were then in power had

scuttled their 1945 green book proposals. The hon. member tor Hamilton West complained that this measure, this Unemployment Assistance Act, was not providing for federal responsibility to the extent of 100 per cent for the employable unemployed, and she quoted from the green book proposals of 1945 and condemned the Liberals out of hand for having put those proposals on the shelf. She complained also that even this 50 per cent of assistance that the federal government was prepared to give for those over the .45 per cent threshold was not all it was cracked up to be because administration costs, health and hospital costs and that sort of thing were still left either to the provinces or the municipalities.
Hence the whole story of that debate in 1956, so far as the case made by the Conservatives was concerned, was that this measure did not go far enough. Their whole point was that the Liberals should still come through with their 1945 promise for 100 per cent federal responsibility for the employable unemployed. The hon. lady and her colleagues are now on the government side of the house. They can carry out the Liberals' promises which they condemned the Liberals for not carrying out. But are they doing so? No; they are bringing in a bill which the hon. member for Timmins has characterized so well by his reference to the horse and the rabbit. They are bringing in a bill which makes no change in the percentage that Ottawa puts up so far as the employable unemployed are concerned. All they give by way of an improvement is the offer that the federal government will pay 50 per cent of the relief costs of the unemployable unemployed, those who are now excluded by that threshold formula. It seems to me that if the Liberals look strange in the stand they are taking on this bill, the Conservatives look equally strange.
We think the Rowell-Sirois commission, to which a distinguished member of this house rendered great service during the days when that commission met, and those who prepared the green book proposals of 1945 laid before the country some very sensible, tangible and constructive policies so far as unemployment is concerned. We still think those proposals should be carried out and that this government should not ask us to get enthusiastic about this bill which merely removes that threshold but which still leaves, to use the words of the Secretary of State, the provinces and the municipalities having to carry not just 50 per cent of the load so far as the employable unemployed are concerned but more than 50 per cent, because of their responsibility for administration costs, for health and hospital costs and so on.
Unemployment Assistance Act
I indicated a moment ago that I had done some reading of bygone debates with reference to this matter. One of the debates that interested me a great deal was the debate in 1940 when the Unemployment Insurance Act was first put upon the statute books. Many of those who took part in that debate are no longer with us, but one hon. gentleman is. I refer to the hon. member for Essex East. He welcomed the introduction by the government of which he was a supporter of the unemployment insurance scheme, but he wanted it to be made crystal clear that unemployment insurance by itself was not enough, was not all that the federal government should be doing. On July 19, 1940, as recorded at page 1777 of Hansard, the then hon. member for Essex East, who again is just the hon. member for Essex East, had this to say:
No unemployment insurance scheme in any part of the world has yet been able to operate without calling from time to time upon the national exchequer for further assistance, and for us to assume today that there will in the course of time be no further demands upon the treasury is, I think, not to face realities.
Then over on page 1778 he continued that theme by saying:
This legislation, as far as I can see, does not envisage all the possibilities, and it falls short of adequate consideration of what the perfected legislation in England has taken into consideration, namely, that during a period of prolonged depression, or during a period such as the present when the depression is certainly less acute, unemployment insurance in itself is not sufficient to meet the needs presented by a situation of that sort and must be related to the question of unemployment relief, to the question of the rehabilitation of labour, and to such questions as national health insurance and the like. All these matters are part of a composite scheme-
Another package I might say to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
-and consequently when the hon. gentleman said that he agreed with my interjection as to the impossibility of unemployment insurance ever doing away with relief, he concurs, I take it, in the view that unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance or unemployment relief must go hand in hand.
There was a recognition in this by the hon. member for Essex East way back in 1940 that if the federal government is going to concern itself with unemployment it cannot stop just with unemployment insurance; it has to concern itself with unemployment assistance as well and with all these other matters that are part of a composite scheme.
I would suggest Mr. Chairman, that this is of a piece with the position that the Liberals took back in 1945 and which the Conservatives tried to get the Liberals to take in 1956, that responsibility for employable unemployed should rest with the federal government.

Unemployment Assistance Act Now to come back to the point I made in answer to my hon. friend from Newfoundland a little while ago, that the basic fact about all this-and he agrees with me-is that it is the central government that is primarily responsible for the economic policies in this country and it is the central government whose policies determine whether we will have a high or a low level of employment, we contend very strongly that that being the case, the central government should be responsible for the consequences of those policies. You do not carry out that responsibility by passing 50 per cent of the cost of looking after the employable unemployed to the provinces. We contend therefore that the Rowell-Sirois commission was right; we contend that the Liberals were right in their green book proposals; we contend that the hon. member for Essex East was right when he was speaking on unemployment insurance in 1940; we contend that the Secretary of State was right when, in 1956, she called on the Liberal government to stand by this principle which had been laid down across the years, that the responsibility for employable unemployed should rest 100 per cent with the federal government.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I might just say a few words in response to some of the matters which have been mentioned during the course of the debate in the committee stage.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Okanagan-Kevelstoke for his unqualified support of the bill. I am going to leave any discussion of the unemployment situation until the labour estimates are before the house. Actually there was a discussion on unemployment a couple of weeks ago and I do not think any purpose can be served in forwarding the cause of this bill by my making remarks on that particular point at the moment.
As I said in my opening statement, the purpose of this legislation is to extend the amount of aid now given to the provinces under the Unemployment Assistance Act so that it will henceforth cover all needy persons in receipt of assistance, whether employable or unemployable. I propose to place on the record some statistics at this time which will show the relative burdens carried by the various levels of government with respect to unemployment. Have I the permission of the house to put these figures on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The table follows:



COMPARATIVE TABLE-EXPENDITURES RELATING TO UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
Unemployment	Unemployment
Municipal	Provincial	Insurance	AssistanceRelief	Relief	Benefits	(federal share)(Millions of Dollars)	1941-42 	
$5.4	$10.3	$ .03	1942-43 	
3.3	5.3	.7	1943-44 	
2.6	3.7	1.7	1944-45 	
3.2	3.4	5.0	1945-46 	
2.7	3.8	32.0	1946-47 	
3.2	4.9	43.1	1947-48 	
3.6	6.4	34.9	1948-49 	
4.1	6.9	49.8	1949-50 	
5.5	13.3	85.8	1950-51 	
5.9	11.8	90.0	1951-52 	
6.8	12.9	90.2	1952-53 	
6.4	10.8	135.8	1953-54 	
6.4	11.9	186.9	1954-55 	
7.2	15.2	257.6	1955-56 	
8.2*	17.0	215.2	$3.81956-57 	
8.3*	16.2*	231.3	$4.1
Estimated.
If the hon. members will examine the statistics they will agree that after the passage of this legislation which is now proposed the residual load which will be left to the provinces and municipalities will be of very small proportion indeed. I might just mention the estimated figures for 1956-1957. Expenditures relating to unemployment on the municipal level is $8.3 million, estimated; provincial $16.2 million, estimated. Unemployment insurance benefits $231.3 million, 
and unemployment assistance, federal share, $4.1 million.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wonder if the minister has an extra copy of the table available.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am sorry that I did not have more copies made but I will be pleased to send my own copy over to the hon. member. There was a statement made by the hon. member for Timmins. I am sorry I did not quite get the full import of what he said, but

it struck me that he implied there was only a reduction of 10 per cent in the municipal load as a result of this legislation. I am not sure whether or not that is what he said, but I would like to point out that in Ontario at any rate there is going to be a decrease in the municipal share from 40 to 20 per cent, which is a 50 per cent decrease.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit a question? I take it that implies that there is an agreement expected with Ontario, because there is no agreement, as I understand it, under the present legislation.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I mentioned to the hon. gentleman that I would tell him all about that on the second reading. However, I will be quite frank about it and say there is an agreement expected from Ontario.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well I think the minister will admit, in fairness to the committee, that if he is going to talk about what is going to happen in Ontario he might let us in on the secret.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well you are in on the secret now. There is one expected from Ontario. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate mentioned several things at great length but I think all I need do is point out that nothing really could meet all the objections voiced by the premier of Manitoba. I am quite convinced of that. All his demands total something like $950 million if I recall the estimate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister
completely misunderstood what I was saying. The premier of Manitoba had certain objections to the existing legislation with respect to unemployment assistance and that is what I was referring to, not to his general proposals at all.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Might I point out, Mr. Chairman, that there has actually been one situation which has been cleaned up and which has been hanging fire since the previous government was in office. That is that Mr. Bend of Manitoba and myself have ironed out, to our mutual satisfaction, differences concerning the operation of this act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would you let us in on that secret too?


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is a matter of interpretation of what is subject to unemployment assistance. There were some cases disputed- a certain type of case-because of the way the legislation is drawn up, and because of the way the estimates were drawn by the province of Manitoba, which were disallowed by
Unemployment Assistance Act the previous government. We have undertaken to allow some of those, having taken the interpretation they should be allowed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Should not the committee be told, since this is going to involve a further charge on the taxpayers, precisely what the hon. gentleman ironed out with the minister from Manitoba?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes, I have no objections to telling the hon. member, unless he has already contacted the Hon. Mr. Bend and found out on his own, which he could always do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely, sir, on a question of privilege, we are entitled to information in this house without any kind of insinuation about relations we have outside.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I will be glad when we get into the committee on second reading to give the exact picture and I will get a report on the proper designation of the classes involved. I do not take this to be any particular insinuation, Mr. Chairman, but I think, in so far as the reference to the speech of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate goes, it might well be described in the words of Sir Winston Churchill who is reported to have said in somewhat similar circumstances: "there is a difference between taking time and infringing on eternity."


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not take the whole 30 minutes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: As far as the speech made by the hon. member for Laurier is concerned, from what he said last night I gather he is opposed to the abolition of the threshold and that his reason for this is that he considers that the federal government in abolishing the threshold is somehow invading the last preserve of provincial jurisdiction. I may say I do not see how he arrives at that conclusion. This proposal represents no fundamentally new departure from the legislation introduced by the previous administration. The effect of the proposal to abolish the threshold is simply to deal more generously with the provinces in the sharing of assistance than the former administration was prepared to do. We are not proposing, as the hon. member for Laurier appears to think, to enter for the first time the field of aid to unemployables. If the hon. gentleman has any doubts on this score he should read what was said by his colleague the former minister of national health and welfare when the unemployment assistance measure was adopted in June, 1956. It is quite clear that ever since its passage unemployment assistance was provided for needy employables and needy unemployables alike, no distinction being made between these two groups.
2604	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Assistance Act


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a question? Does the minister take the view that this matter in no way invades provincial rights.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I will just finish this statement, Mr. Chairman. It certainly does not invade them any more than many measures which the government of the hon. gentleman brought into being.


Lionel Chevrier: That was not the question. If 1 might repeat it to the minister, it was this: does he deny that this measure does not in any way invade provincial rights?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I take the view that this measure is acceptable to the provinces. The hon. member seems to have in mind that the unemployables have always been regarded as a provincial and local responsibility and that the federal government has up to this moment never taken any responsibility in this direction.
Apart from the considerations which I have already pointed out respecting unemployment assistance, what is the difference between aid offered to the provinces in respect to unemployables under the Unemployment Assistance Act and that offered to the provinces in respect to disabled persons under the Disabled Persons Act? As the former minister of this department reminded us when we were discussing the subject, this last legislation was the brain child of no less a person than the former prime minister of Canada who surely understands the constitutional position and the attitude of Quebec as well as the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: You should ask the former prime minister what he thinks of it, then.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Why was it right, Mr. Chairman, for a Liberal administration to offer aid to the provinces for unemployables, the aged, the blind and unemployables who even now come under the Unemployment Assistance Act yet the minute this government proposes to extend this aid on a more generous basis, the hon. member for Laurier suddenly suggests that it becomes an invasion of provincial jurisdiction and, to use the hon. member's words, a definite and important step in the direction of centralization.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there is a question I should like to ask the minister. I hope he will not get so involved in this argument with the hon. member for Laurier that the committee will get away from the more substantial aspects of this legislation. Can he tell us how much additional money will be available to the provinces, on the assumption that all ten


sign agreements by removing the .45 floor? Let me tell him that if he answers that question I have another one for him: how much additional money would the federal government be paying if instead of removing the .45 floor the amendment proposed paying 100 per cent of unemployment assistance above the .45 floor? Of course, it is quite easy to answer that last question; all the minister has to do is tell us what 50 per cent amounts to, and we will know what the other 50 per cent would amount to. What we want to know is how much money will be going to the provinces under this legislation compared with what it would be if instead of removing the floor it went to 100 per cent above the floor.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I can give those figures. I had a nice little story, based on the cost in detail, which I was going to give on second reading. But I think I could give you the figure now. It is, roughly, $16 million, but it is made up of various items, such as items taken over from provinces not within the agreement now, and that sort of thing. If the hon. member would wait until the second reading I shall be glad to give him the complete picture.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, with the tables which the minister placed on record a while ago, this presents a bit of a problem. I do not think he would mind admitting that he has told us he would like to proceed with the second reading of this bill later this day. If we are going to be presented with tables of this kind it seems to me that if such a request is made it should not involve proceeding immediately, but, rather, at some time later this day, say at eight o'clock.
In the meantime I think the more of these figures the minister can give us now, the more intelligent our discussion will be.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to give some of these figures now. With reference to the abolition of the threshold, the cost in the case of the six participating provinces can be precisely calculated from monthly returns or claims submitted by the provinces. On this basis the cost and the benefit to each province will be approximately as follows: Newfoundland, $130 million-


John Whitney Pickersgill: One hundred and thirty million dollars?


Jay Waldo Monteith: One hundred and thirty
thousand dollars.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was going to withdraw
my speech.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Prince Edward Island,
$45,000; New Brunswick, $150,000; Manitoba,

$525,000; Saskatchewan, $450,000; British Columbia, $1,150,000, making a total of $2,450,000. That would be the cost of the abolition of the threshold in respect to the six provinces now under the agreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that the total cost, or is it the federal share?


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is the federal share. We will be paying half of the amount underneath the .45.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To give me a concrete example, the cost to Newfoundland is $260,000 and the saving for Newfoundland is $130,000. Is that correct?


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is right. That is the cost to the federal government.
Cost estimates in the case of four nonparticipating provinces which we hope will now come into the scheme are based on somewhat less accurate data submitted by the provinces themselves at the time of the 1955 discussion on unemployment assistance, or derived from an analysis of data contained in later provincial reports. On this basis it is estimated that the cost of abolishing the threshold in the four non-participating provinces will be as follows: Nova Scotia, $140,000; Quebec, $3,300,000; Ontario, $2,900,000; Alberta, $575,000, making a total of $6,915,000, that is, below the .45.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt just at this moment for the purpose of clarity? I take it from what the minister says that the province of Quebec is going to enter into an agreement with the federal government in the same manner he indicated the province of Ontario would?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I did not intimate that in my remarks at all. I have not given any indication that the province of Quebec is considering it nor do I know.


Lionel Chevrier: Could I ask the question then. Will the province of Quebec enter into an agreement with the federal government?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think I remarked just a moment ago that we hoped so. Adding these cost estimates to those already given for the six participating provinces we arrive at a total of $9,365,000 as the probable annual cost to the federal treasury of abolishing the threshold. It should be noted however, that while the cost of the abolition of the threshold will not exceed $9 million to $9.5 million per annum this will not be the only cost resulting from the proposed amendments. The fact is that the four non-participating provinces could benefit even at the present time if they were to enter the plan 96698-165J
Unemployment Assistance Act without the threshold being abolished. Consequently, on the assumption that the abolition of the threshold will result in agreements with all ten provinces, the following additional costs above the threshold must also be included in the reckoning. Nova Scotia could receive under the present threshold approximately $20,000 per annum; Quebec, approximately $4 million; Ontario, approximately $1,350,000; Alberta, approximately $600,000, a total of $5,970,000. This item, approximately $6 million, represents amounts to which the four provinces are presently entitled but which they are passing up because they have not signed agreements under the Unemployment Assistance Act. This is, of course, in addition to the cost of $9 million to $9.5 million involved in the abolition of the threshold.
The total annual costs of bringing in the four non-participating provinces and of abolishing the threshold will be approximately $15 million to $15.5 million in a normal year. This, added to present expenditures of between $5 million and $6 million annually in six provinces, will raise the total federal contribution to unemployment assistance costs under this measure to a total of $20 million annually or more. To the extent that in the coming year the numbers requiring unemployment assistance are higher than they have been in the past few years this may be a low estimate. To the extent that one or more provinces may continue to stay out of the scheme, this may be an overestimate of probable costs. Does that answer my hon. friend's question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has given most of the figures I sought. Has he the figures as to what is now being paid annually to the six participating provinces above the threshold? I think he gave the total as $5 million or $6 million but does he have it broken down?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes. I might mention that the first annual report of the operations of the Unemployment Assistance Act was tabled recently covering the fiscal year 1956-57 but also nine months of the previous fiscal year beginning July 1, 1955. The statistical tables filed with that report show the following facts applicable only to the six participating provinces. Total expenditures on federal account in the six provinces for nine months of 1955-56 were $3,823,611.27, an average of $424,845.70 per month, for the period July 1, 1955, to March 31, 1956. The largest beneficiaries under the program were British Columbia with $1,721,339.28 and Newfoundland with $1,174,734.83. Manitoba and Saskatchewan were next with $484,130.67

Unemployment Assistance Act
and $369,519.12 respectively and Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick followed with $55,033.37 and $18,854. respectively. In the case of New Brunswick this actually covered only a three-month period instead of a nine-month period. Are you interested at the moment in the number of persons?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am still wondering whether the minister has any figures for a recent 12-month period for the participating provinces above the threshold?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The participating provinces benefited by the following amounts in 1956-57.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That should be it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: British Columbia, $2,299,894.48; Newfoundland, $1,562,058.32; Manitoba $650,000, an estimated figure; Saskatchewan,	$512,678.33; Prince	Edward Island,
$54,035.89 and New Brunswick, $32,886.96. Are those the figures the hon. member required?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, thank you. Have you the total or do I have to add them up myself?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am afraid I have not got it; would you mind telling me when you get it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gladly.


Mr. Denisel:: Mr. Chairman, some reference was made to the proposals made by the government of Manitoba. To clarify the matter and to help the minister to deal with the matter when the bill comes up for second reading it would seem proper to place on record some of the remarks made by the premier of the province of Manitoba at the dominion-provincial conference which was held in Ottawa on November 25 and 26. The following are the words Premier Campbell used at the conference:
Turning to the field of welfare, we in Manitoba, as I am sure is the case throughout the nation, are concerned with the apparent rapid increase in unemployment. We know that the federal government will be giving serious consideration to measures to correct this very undesirable situation and you, Mr. Prime Minister, may rest assured that Manitoba will be anxious to co-operate with you in all possible ways. We would like to draw to your attention the fact that a commitment was given by the previous federal government, that when the unemployment figure reaches 2 per cent of the population the present unemployment assistance arrangements would be reviewed with the provinces. There is reason to believe that this condition may arise shortly.
The present unemployment assistance agreement, as Manitoba's representatives forecast at the time of negotiation, has proved unsatisfactory in several respects. Our minister has been in touch with the


federal minister on several points remaining at issue between us, and only yesterday, on our arrival in Ottawa, received notification from the Minister of National Health and Welfare that these representations had been rejected, and indicating quite clearly that redress could be secured only by carrying our case to the Exchequer Court.
The agreement is unnecessarily complicated and expensive to administer. The complicated assistance formula, with its inclusions and exclusions, its formula of .45 per cent of population, its use of annual population estimates, and its references to mothers' allowance cases whose costs are in no way shared by Canada, has produced administrative problems of the most difficult order, and a need for completely new administrative machinery -the cost of which must be borne entirely by the province and the municipalities.
Moreover, we believe that the agreement is discriminatory as between provinces. It allows certain cases to be included in the claims of one province and excludes exactly the same type of case from the claims of another province, simply because of variations existing in their legislative provisions at the time the agreement was signed.
For example, families of dependent disabled men may be included in the claims of some provinces because these cases are municipal relief responsibilities in those provinces. The same kinds of cases may not, however, be included in Manitoba's claims because they are receiving payments from our provincial mothers' allowance appropriation.
Manitoba is anxiously awaiting lor some solution to these problems. We are hoping that these objections will be met. As a matter of fact, we are under the impression that the present Minister of National Health and Welfare is the type who will not adopt a take it or leave it attitude.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I presume the hon. member does not know that a letter, signed by myself, has gone forward to the minister in Manitoba clarifying the whole situation. The hon. member indicates that is not so but it is because I have seen it.


Louis Deniset: I am not aware of it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is because I have seen it. At any rate, I think the hon. member will find that the Hon. Mr. Bend and myself have come to a satisfactory agreement.


Mr. Kirk:: Possibly I misunderstood the minister but I think he said that Nova Scotia was one of the non-participating provinces. I was quite certain that Nova Scotia had signed an agreement some two years or more ago.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Nova Scotia is not a participating province.


Thomas Andrew Murray Kirk: And has never been?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, not to the best of my knowledge.


William Hector McMillan: Can a non-participating
province sign an agreement and have it made retroactive?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes. Discussions commenced, I believe, in June, 1955 and the act was not passed until June, 1956. As a consequence there was a provision in the act-incidentally, it is one of the obsolete provisions which we propose to remove at this time-making it possible because of the time the discussions originated for a province to receive the benefits for one year prior to the date of the signing of an agreement.


William Hector McMillan: I think the minister mentioned the saving to the municipalities. Did he mean municipalities in Ontario?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I simply referred to the announcement by the premier of Ontario. Yes, I mean Ontario.


William Hector McMillan: I saw an article in the press indicating that the municipalities would continue to pay 20 per cent.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, they have been paying 40 per cent.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have one or two questions I should like to ask the minister in relation to the table of figures he put on Hansard a little earlier, a copy of which he sent over to me. The table lists comparative figures over a substantial period of years but for the purpose of my questions I will refer only to the last figures given, namely for 1956-57. The minister may have explained this when he was introducing the table and I was not able to follow him. However, looking at the table I am not quite sure as to the relationship between the various figures listed. Under the heading "Municipal Relief" there is $8.3 million for the year 1956-57. Under "Provincial Relief" there is a total of $16.2 million. Is the figure of $8.3 million for municipal relief included as part of the $16.2 million for provincial relief?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, that is just the municipal share. The provincial share is $16.2 million and the amount the federal government has paid is $231.3 million plus $4.1 million for unemployment assistance.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Then I should like to ask about the relationship between the total of $16.2 million for provincial relief and the total of $4.1 million for the federal share of unemployment assistance. Is the $4.1 million included as part of the $16.2 million?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, it is not part of the $16.2 million; it is a separate item. I should like to point out that at the moment only six provinces have signed agreements and those provinces actually cover only some 4-|- million residents of Canada. If Ontario comes in there will be approximately 10 million people covered. I am speaking of total
Unemployment Assistance Act population. The $4.1 million really covers about one-quarter of the population, you might say.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: For the moment I am not concerned with the over-all total of expenditure that might be involved if every province signs an agreement. All I am concerned with is to establish clearly for the record the relationship between the various totals listed. Do I understand correctly that if one wants to get the total of expenditures relating to unemployment so far as the provinces now under the legislation we are discussing are concerned, one should add the $8.3 million paid by the municipalities, the $16.2 million paid by the provinces and the $4.1 million which is the present amount of the federal share?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Those are the provincial and municipal figures for all the provinces of Canada.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Oh, I see. The $16.2 million and $8.3 million are the totals for the ten provinces.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is right.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Whereas the $4.1 million is the total amount paid by the federal government.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is the total we have paid but it all went to six provinces.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: To the six provinces which now have agreements with the federal government. In view of the fact that this table is going to appear on Hansard I think it is important that we understand the true meaning and significance of these figures.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I quite agree. I am glad the hon. member brought it up.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am rather intrigued by the fact that the table also includes a reference to unemployment insurance benefits. I think we should have it clear for the record just what is the $231.3 million listed as unemployment insurance benefits for 1956-57. I take it that is the total amount paid out by the unemployment insurance commission.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is right.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: And that figure has no relationship to the amount paid out by the federal government-


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I admit that unemployment insurance is a contributory scheme. This figure represents the total benefits that have been paid.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -in meeting the problem of payments to the unemployed, but it is not

Unemployment Assistance Act to be taken that the $231.3 million is an amount which the federal government is now paying out of federal revenue.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There is no such assumption at all. The only difference will be that the $4.1 million will probably rise to about $20 million.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: When the other provinces
come in.


Jay Waldo Monteith: If they all come in.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It depends on how many unemployed there are.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I mentioned that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: While we are discussing the resolution on unemployment assistance I think we should not forget the Unemployment Insurance Act which, of course, is an act of parliament designed to meet at least part of the problem of those who find themselves without work. As I understand it, when the present Unemployment Insurance Act was first introduced it was as the result of an amendment to the British North America Act which added the words "unemployment insurance".
I suppose that technically one could argue that the inclusion of the words "unemployment insurance" as part of the federal jurisdiction and responsibility under the British North America Act does not of itself put the question of unemployment completely within federal jurisdiction. But I think the people of Canada quite rightly can infer that when that amendment was made to the British North America Act it was made with the idea that we were going to have a system of unemployment insurance under federal jurisdiction which would meet the problem of providing at least some income to those who become unemployed.
It has become obvious, to me at least, as the discussion has progressed that these two questions of the Unemployment Assistance Act, which comes under the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Unemployment Insurance Act, which comes under the Minister of Labour, are difficult to separate in our thinking when dealing with the unemployment situation. As a matter of fact, I do not know whether or not the Minister of National Health and Welfare was intending to indicate how closely these matters are related in his mind, but I did notice that according to yesterday's Hansard, when he was introducing this resolution, inadvertently or otherwise, the minister referred to the Unemployment Insurance Act instead of the Unemployment Assistance Act.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Has that not been corrected?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Not in the copy of Hansard I have in my hand. I assume the minister did that inadvertently or that it was a misunderstanding on the part of the Hansard reporter. I felt that it was perhaps an indication of a subconscious realization on the part of the minister that the whole question of dealing with the problem of unemployment is one which properly belongs within federal jurisdiction. Perhaps this lends some weight to the argument my colleagues have been advancing that instead of talking about the removal of this threshold we more properly perhaps should be considering the changing of that 50 per cent contribution-


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not think that is in order at the moment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -to a 100 per cent contribution, at least until such time as the minister's colleague in the Department of Labour introduces an Unemployment Insurance Act that will remove this problem from his jurisdiction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: should like to draw to the attention of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate the significance of some of the figures we have elicited from the Minister of National Health and Welfare. My hon. friend defended the continuance of the 50 per cent arrangement above the floor, pointing out certain changes had taken place since the green book was written in 1945.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to be unfair. I said I was going to vote for this measure as is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly what I was going to say next. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said he was going to vote for this measure as it is, and he gave the reason that it would put some dollars into the treasury of his adopted province.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How
many dollars would it put into that treasury? According to the figures of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, $130,000 a year. If instead of removing the threshold, the present government or the former had gone in for 100 per cent of the cost of assistance to the employable unemployed above the threshold it would have put into the treasury of Newfoundland $1,562,058.32 a year. That indicates the difference in terms of provinces that are hit by unemployment between the one approach and the other. The contrast is not so sharp in the case of my own province. But again, Manitoba would do better under

100 per cent above the threshold rather than 50 per cent below the threshold. In the case of Manitoba, under the changes proposed in this legislation, there would be an increase of $525,000 a year. The other proposal would have given to Manitoba an extra $650,000 a year.
Looking at the figures for another province where unemployment is high, namely British Columbia, I find that the government's legislation will increase the contribution to that province by $1,150,000. On the other hand, if this 100 per cent payment above the threshold had not been scuttled by the former government and buried by this one the increase in the contribution to British Columbia would be $2,299,894.48, which is considerably more than would be obtained under this legislation. So far as the six participating provinces together are concerned, they will get an additional $2,450,000 as the result of this legislation. If the other proposal had been adopted they would have obtained an additional $5,100,000. That is the sum of those figures the minister gave a few minutes ago.
I am free to admit that in so far as Ontario is concerned, it happens to work out the other way. Apparently in Ontario the situation with regard to employable unemployed is not as serious as it is in Newfoundland, Manitoba and British Columbia. It appears that Ontario will gain more by giving that province 50 per cent under the floor than would be gained by giving an additional 50 per cent over the floor.
Mr. Chairman, we are right back to the principle that we tried to enunciate throughout this whole debate, that unemployment is a national responsibility which flows from economic policies which are the responsibility of the central government. Since this is the case we believe the responsibilities of the federal government should include full responsibility for assistance to employable unemployed wherever they may live in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to make one or two observations about what the hon. member has said. I said at the beginning that I was going to vote for the bill as it is because it would put more dollars into the treasury of Newfoundland. I stand by that because this is all we are being offered. I quite agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that as an abstract proposition I would find it easier to defend paying 100 per cent above the threshold-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
this green book abstract?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I am not talking about the green book at all. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow me to finish my sentence.
Unemployment Assistance Act As an abstract proposition, I would rather support 100 per cent above the threshold than what is proposed by the government because, not merely for monetary reasons but as a matter of principle it seems to me that this threshold was put there by my right hon. friend and was defended by the hon. member for Laurier for the very good reason that the people below the threshold are deemed to be those under public assistance and not unemployed. As a question of principle, it seems to me the hon. gentleman's case is good, and for Manitoba, British Columbia and Newfoundland it would be in a dollar sense better. Of course, the bill the government is proposing is better for Ontario, as the hon. gentleman has pointed out.
What I want to say particularly is that the hon. gentleman has very skilfully-we all know how skilful he is and we all know how difficult it is for a simple person like me to counter his arguments-reversed the whole record. First of all, he talks about the Liberal government having scuttled or having pushed back to the provinces something, as though there had ever been, in the history of this country, a time the federal government in fact had assumed the full cost of unemployment assistance. There never has been.
The first occasion since the war when any responsibility was taken was when it was taken by the Liberal government when the present legislation was enacted which hon. gentlemen opposite are now recommending should be changed. I would remind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the other members of the committee of one or two facts which the hon. gentleman left out. In the first place, the green book proposal was a proposal for unemployment assistance to be administered and paid for by the federal government; and as a matter of principle the Liberal party has never stood, as fas as I can recall, for paying 100 per cent of the cost of any service administered by someone else. I think that is a thoroughly unsound principle and I would defend that position at any time.
In the second place, the proposal made in 1945 was not that unemployment assistance should be taken over by the federal government as an isolated thing. As I said, it was part of a package deal. It was to be done if the provinces in conference agreed to certain other things which they have never agreed to from that day to this. As a consequence of the failure to reach agreement, the tax rental payments and subsequently the equalization payments were greatly increased; and as a consequence of those greatly increased charges put upon the federal treasury, it was

Unemployment Assistance Act felt by the government, before I became a member of the government and afterwards, that there was no longer the same case that there had been-certainly not the case there had been before the war nor the case there was in 1945-for assuming these charges in two different ways, one by direct tax rental payment into the treasury of the province and then again by assuming the charges in another statute as well.
But on the first occasion on which there was anything more than a very slight amount of seasonal unemployment-and that was the winter of 1954-55-the Liberal government recognized a measure of responsibility and took the initiative in recognizing it, and brought in the legislation with which the hon. gentlemen opposite are now tinkering, and I use the word "tinkering" advisedly. While we have no choice but to accept what they are offering, it is not very much.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In view of what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has just said about tinkering with this question of dealing with unemployment and in view of what he was just saying about the proposals to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been referring, namely the green book proposals, it seems to me that this matter of tinkering is not something which has been initiated with the present administration. I think that what was done in the winter of 1954-55 as a result of seasonal employment could be quite as well described by the use of the word "tinkering", in view of the green book proposal, as what the present administration is doing. However, it seems to me that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, in view of what he was saying, might be interested in having drawn to his attention at this time some words which were used in the debate on the Unemployment Assistance Act by the present Secretary of State. To me at least they point up the fact that while theoretically apparently both the Liberals and the Conservatives have common thinking on this subject, nevertheless all that either of them is prepared to do, when an emergency situation of unemployment arises, is a little bit of tinkering. As found at page 5462 of Hansard of June 28, 1956, the present Secretary of State had this to say. She was speaking following the introduction of the Unemployment Insurance Act by the then minister of national health and welfare and said this:
Having had some experience In municipal affairs I know it is unrealistic to expect the provincial or municipal administrations to be responsible for the administration of this assistance. The government of Canada has set up right across Canada


its own machinery to handle unemployment insurance benefits and it would seem to me that if the government of Canada intends to do something to assist those persons who are not otherwise covered, either by reason of failure to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits because of being in uninsurable employment or by reason of having made insufficient contributions, if the government intends to go along with some sort of assistance it seems to me it could have gone much further than is indicated here in administering these applications.
I would commend those words not only to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate but to the present Minister of National Health and Welfare as an indication of just how far he seems prepared to go in dealing with this matter, as it was advocated by his colleagues in 1956.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure it is useless, Mr. Chairman, ever to try to have the last word in any debate with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. However, I should just like to make an attempt and say that it surely was not tinkering with this problem to get a constitutional amendment and to enact the Unemployment Insurance Act which deals with well over 90 per cent of the problem.


Henri Courtemanche: Shall the resolution carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: will be quite happy, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate seeks to have the last word, as far as I am concerned. But let me give him something to which he might try to utter that last word.
First of all, he accused me of reversing the record. The record on which I based my argument today was the Rowell-Sirois report and more particularly the green book proposals of the then Liberal government. If the former minister thinks that I was unfair to suggest by implication that something that existed had been scuttled, I will admit that up until 1956 there was no legislation providing for any federal responsibility for the employable unemployed not covered by unemployment insurance. My whole point -and I think the use of the word "scuttled" was perfectly proper-was that when the Liberal government in 1956 finally took a step in that direction, it was only to the extent of 50 per cent instead of to the extent of 100 per cent which was laid down in the green book proposals of 1945.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As part of a bargain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There has been a good deal of history since then, and many aspects of that package deal have been achieved, thanks in part to some of the legislation that my hon. friends placed on the statute books under pressure from certain quarters, as they know.

The other comment I wish to make is that I am still amazed at the stand taken by my Liberal friends with regard to what this legislation actually proposes to do. They say -and say correctly-that what it does is to provide for federal payment of 50 per cent of the cost of maintaining unemployables. The Liberals argue that that is a provincial responsibility and that this legislation, this tinkering with their act, means that the federal government is invading that provincial field. They say they are against it. The hon. member for Laurier said it last night.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I never said I was against it. I was merely attempting to point out what the fact was, that abolishing the threshold did appear to me to be an invasion of what had always been regarded as an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. That was merely factual. I was not attempting to express any moral judgment of any kind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then is the hon. member willing to approve what he calls an invasion in the field of provincial rights?


An hon. Member:: We have to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why
do you have to?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Because I happen to represent, from the point of view of income, one of the less favoured provinces and one in which this money is badly needed. However, I would much rather see it done, as I explained in the speech I made originally, in a different way, in the way in which the Prime Minister prior to the election led us to believe this problem would be dealt with.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
other words, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is voting for something based on a principle to which he is opposed, something he does not believe in, so that he can get the $130,000 for the treasury of Newfoundland. I would have more respect for his position if he stood on his principles and voted against it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You have no principles.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As
far as we are concerned-when the laughter is over-we are prepared to take the same position that my hon. friend's colleague, the member for Essex East took in 1956, when he was the minister of national health and welfare and when he likened this measure to 50 per cent of the pension for the disabled. We are not against this in principle; we approve 96698-166
Pension Act
of the federal government contributing to pensions or allowances for disabled persons, the blind and so on. Likewise we approve of the federal government making a contribution to assistance for unemployables. We are not against this in principle; we think it is a perfectly acceptable proposition and so we are voting for it because to us it is all right in principle and because it does get some dollars into the provincial treasuries.
We think however that a much more desirable move would be to go in for 100 per cent above the floor and thus get much more money into the provincial treasuries. Nevertheless, I think I have made it clear, both on principle and because of the dollars involved, that we are prepared to vote for this legislation.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Monteith thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 240, to amend the Unemployment Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: When shall the said bill be read a second time? Now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would agree to have the second reading later this day in order to give us a chance to look at some of these tables. It could be taken either after the next piece of legislation is disposed of or at eight o'clock.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Yes I would be very happy, Mr. Speaker, if that arrangement is suitable to the house, to have the second reading later this day.



PENSION ACT


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 35, to amend the Pension Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, a resolution preliminary to the introduction of Bill 35 was debated a few weeks ago. At that time I explained it was necessary to introduce a bill amending the Pension Act, principally to put into statutory form certain amendments increasing the basic rate pension as amended by the former minister of finance on March 14, 1957, and for which financial provision was made in the statutory estimates by vote No. 670 and Bill No. 418. These increases came into effect July 1, 1957. The bill also provides for additional benefits and brings these benefits more in line with the increases in the basic scale of pensions.

Pension Act
It was also decided to introduce amendments designed to clarify sections of the act in which some doubt regarding interpretation has existed. This is just a tidying up process, mainly to clarify the situation, and which does not infringe in any way on any existing benefits or incur any added liability. At the conclusion of the debate on the resolution, I stated that the observations of hon. members would be studied and I would defer my comments until second reading.
The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) expressed his concern because, although the proposed amendments would prove to be acceptable, nothing was mentioned about a further increase in the basic scale of pension awards. The present increase just came into effect on July 1 of this year. A brief review of the situation might be helpful. From 1920 to 1947 a 100 per cent pension for a married man was $100 monthly; in 1947 a 100 per cent pension for a married man was increased to $125; in 1952 it was increased to $170 and in 1957 it was increased to $200.
The hon. member for Rosthern, whom I am sorry to see is not here at the moment, was no doubt aware that the Canadian Legion urged a 33J per cent increase last year and the national council-which represents the amps, blind, paraplegics, army, navy and air force veterans, Canadian corps association, Hong Kong veterans, etc.-requested in February 1957 "that the basic rate of pension,
i.e., war disability compensation for 100 per cent disability be increased to at least double the 1939 rate". As a matter of fact the request was implemented on July 1 of this year. The Legion, in a brief presented to the cabinet, a copy of which has been circulated to each hon. member, upheld a short time ago its request that the increase be 33J per cent and that is the subject of close study in the light of other governing factors.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Macdonald) was another who expressed his disappointment at there being no increase in the basic scale and suggested the scale had gone behind the cost of living in other indices. That again illustrates the need of further study and reference to a committee on veterans affairs as has happened in the past and, might I state from my own personal knowledge, took up considerable time in past committees. He also observed that when a disability pensioner entered into a common law union after his discharge from service some consideration should be given on behalf of his partner. He suggested our divorce laws were medieval. This is a situation which I would not desire to discuss any further at this stage, but it illustrates the need for an examination by a committee.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway also claimed that British disability pensioners who came to Canada after discharge had no rights under the Pension Act and suggested they were deserving cases. Canada does supplement the awards of Canadians with prewar domicile who served in the forces of Her Majesty or Her Majesty's allies but has never accepted the principle that such pensioners who had no pre-war residence and came to Canada for the first time after discharge from service with their own country are entitled to that benefit.
The hon. member wished some clarification regarding the award of pension and other allowances to paraplegics. The Canadian pension commission assesses the disability from paraplegia as total and pays a pension at 100 per cent. In addition thereto, the commission pays a helplessness allowance as provided in section 30 (1) of the act. This allowance varied from a minimum of $480 per annum to a maximum of $1,400, and the latter amount was increased to $1,800 from July 1, 1957. This increase was granted on the urgent representations of the commission to provide for a group of helpless pensioners who required constant attendance day and night, the majority being bedridden. The commission revised their table of disabilities as of July 1, 1957, to provide for the following four classifications under which helplessness allowance is paid:
Constant
A bedridden case or equivalent who requires constant nursing care and attendance in his home, $1,800 per annum.
Almost Constant
Cases totally disabled and helpless who require a great deal of attendance, particularly during the day, $1,440 per annum.
Intermittent attendance-day and night
This degree of attendance is self-explanatory,

Occasional attendance during the day
This degree of attendance is self-explanatory,

Paraplegics, prior to July 1, 1957, received $1,400 and, unless they require constant attendance in their homes day and night, are classed as almost constant and paid now at $1,440.
I might state that earlier this month I met a delegation of the paraplegic association from Toronto and Montreal who, quite frankly, were of the opinion they should receive the maximum award of helplessness allowance of $1,800 and their representations are now being studied. However, the actual amount to be paid is subject to the decision of the commission, which is charged with sole responsibility and jurisdiction. This is another subject which should be studied by a parliamentary committee.

The hon. member lor Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter), as the result of a most detailed study suggested that Newfoundland veterans, contrary to the terms of union of 1949 and the proposals for confederation of 1947, did not benefit to the same extent as former members of the Canadian forces. This naturally raised the question in my mind as to the number of pensioners and the annual liability as at the date of union, April 1, 1949, in relation to the latest date this year for which records are available.
The figures are:
Newfoundland Pensioners As at 30/4/49
(end of first month following union)
Number	Annual Liability
1.816	 $779,021
As at 30/9/57
Number	Annual Liability
2.078	 $1,629,205
An increase of over 100 per cent in amount. It does seem to me that these figures disprove the impression created by the hon. member that Newfoundland veterans have not benefited from union. The total number of pensioners has increased by about 15 per cent, which is evidence of a broader and more generous interpretation of the basis of entitlement compared with that which they formerly enjoyed. He raised a number of points which I may assure him will have my personal study, as well as that of the commission, and which demonstrate the need for a more complete examination by a parliamentary committee.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo also stated the life certificates issued by the commission were misleading and that pensioners were not aware they could claim the continuation of additional pension for children who were continuing their education after attaining the statutory age limitation of 16 or 17. This statement resulted in an immediate inquiry, because the commission has always maintained its responsibility is to provide the maximum benefits permissible by the statute. When a child reaches the statutory age limitation for pension, the chief treasury officer sends out a statement on form 250-B, showing the adjustment of pension. Accompanying this is a form letter, over the signature of the chairman, which quotes the act, gives information regarding the additional pension under section 26(1) (a) and (b), and instructs the pensioner what to do.
Frankly, I do not see what more the commission can do, as pensioners are encouraged at all times to make application on behalf of these children. A further letter of advice goes with the adjustment cheque when pension for the child is continued beyond the statutory age limitation.
96698-166i
Pension Act
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) advocated the expedition of this legislation and the setting up of a permanent committee. I dealt with this subject, Mr. Speaker, when I was discussing this matter on the resolution.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) drew attention to matters affecting treatment and pension medical re-examination, also to the cases of merchant seamen and those covering disability and death during peace time service, and these will have my close study and that of the commission. Again they illustrate the need for a committee, as does his proposal that peacetime service personnel should be covered by an insurance plan.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the problem of the merchant seamen has been discussed in this house and in committee on many occasions. There were certain provisions made for the merchant seamen, but possibly there has not been as much done for them as there should have been. This matter also should receive study by a committee when one is set up.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. McLeod) stated it was not unusual to find the same members on the appeal board as had adjudicated on the original decision. This is not the case, and would be in direct violation of section 60 (5) (c), which states:
That no member of an appeal board of the commission shall adjudicate upon any case coming before an appeal board pursuant to this section, if such member has previously sat as a member of the commission at any hearing of such case, as herein provided, unless the applicant's consent thereto has first been obtained.
An appeal board consists of three members, and two boards sit in different parts of Canada each week. Occasionally one member of the board may have adjudicated upon the claim previously. If so, the applicant is advised by his advocate and, if he refuses to give his consent, the hearing is deferred.
The same hon. member stated it was almost impossible to have the decision of the commission modified by the appeal board. Actually, the reverse is true, as will be found on page 63 of the annual report of my department for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1957:
Number of claims heard by the appeal
boards during the year	 1,510
Number of claims granted by the appeal
boards during the year	 624
Number of claims not granted	 752
The balance of 134 were pending, struck off or withdrawn. Further, if the hon. member will refer to page 69 of the same report he will find what, hanoened to all the world war

Pension Act
I applications for pension received during the year and, on page 83, what happened to the world war II applications. He will be surprised to see the number granted on first application, and those on further hearing or renewal after the presentation of additional evidence without the necessity of going to appeal.
The hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) asked how the commission reaches decisions regarding entitlement in cases where an applicant was enlisted as category A and discharged in a lower category; how does the commission disclaim responsibility? This involves a question, Mr. Speaker, which has on many occasions been the subject of discussion in this house and before committees on veterans affairs. I must say that when the Canadian pension commission renders a decision, it states the reasons leading thereto and the sources are open to the applicant should he desire to proceed further with his claim. Also, there is a branch of my department called the veterans' bureau, which is staffed with qualified personnel who are able to advise applicants, without cost, as to their claims. Parliament has charged the commission with sole responsibility in all matters relating to the adjudication and award of pension. I have taken careful note regarding the observations of my hon. friend, which are by no means new, and know full well that this subject of preenlistment conditions will be fully explored by the first committee of this house to deal with the Pension Act.
The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) made particular mention of the fire fighters. Considerable study was given by previous committees of this house to the problems of the fire fighters. We have the Fire Fighters War Service Benefits Act making special provision for the fire fighters and they also get special attention under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. There will be further study if it is felt something more is needed.
In closing with these general observations, Mr. Speaker, I desire to thank hon. members for their constructive criticism all of which will be studied and which, may I state again, points out the need for a careful study and review of pension legislation.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this group welcomes this amending bill as it does bring forward some worth-while amendments to the Pension Act. Although there are a number of omissions so far as the representations made by the Canadian Legion and the National Council of Veterans are concerned,

nevertheless the amendments are all to the good. I have been nice up to this point but I am going to be nasty from now on.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not believe you can be nasty.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The last time I spoke about veterans affairs I made the statement that needy veterans were being denied admission to hospitals of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Canada. I made that statement as the result of a visit to Shaughnessy hospital in Vancouver, meeting veterans and their parents and information given me at Legion meetings. Since I made that statement I have received a lot of correspondence particularly from the coastal cities of British Columbia supporting my contention.
I am not one given to making exaggerated statements. I try to get the facts before I make a statement and I am one who does not relish his word being challenged. Therefore I am going to deal with one particular letter which I have received which definitely proves my case. Many of these old boys cut clippings out the Vancouver Province or the Vancouver Sun commenting on my previous statement and send them to me. One of such clippings reads as follows:
DVA Denies Veterans Not Looked After-
A charge in the commons at Ottawa that male immigrants are getting treatment at Shaughnessy hospital while "war veterans are denied admission" was denied here.
"At no time has an entitled veteran been refused admission to treatment," William Roaf, western regional administrator for the veterans affairs department said.
The protest against "needy veterans" being turned away from the military hospital while male immigrants were receiving hospital services, dentures, and glasses, was made in the commons by C.C.F. member for Kootenay West, H. W. Herridge.
That was my contention, Mr. Speaker. I am not blaming any of the officials or anyone in the department. I know that no eligible veteran has been denied treatment but I can prove that needy and destitute veterans knocking on the door of Shaughnessy hospital have been denied admission while immigrants and others were being well taken care of.
I am going to quote from the letter to which I referred earlier which indicates that my protest was quite correct based on the experience of the author of the letter. This man writes saying that he has a wife and three children depending on him. He has been unemployed since November 1956, received no unemployment insurance benefits and no relief but is in receipt of a pension of 20 per cent. His private doctor has informed him that both his feet are infected and that at age 58 the chances of recovery are indeed very remote and if something is not done

immediately amputation may be required. He indicates that he applied to Shaughnessy for further treatment and was denied it, he got the brushoff. He writes:
I am out of work. I have no money. The Department of Veterans Affairs are or seem to be reluctant about giving me the necessary treatment. They won't admit me to hospital.
He goes on to say that because of his unemployment he is suffering from starvation and also a lack of medical treatment. The man gives his complete history here and outlines the difficulties he has encountered since he returned from the war. I use this as an illustration to prove my contention is correct. I have a file here on my desk containing many similar letters.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Could the hon. member give us the date on which this veteran made application to enter the hospital? Does he know if his file has been checked up?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He gives his regimental number and all the other details. I will take up the case with the minister's officials promptly.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think in all fairness you should do that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He says that it was early in 1957 that he applied for treatment.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Early in 1957?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes. I am sure a man would not write in this tone and describe his situation so clearly unless the facts were correct. Before proceeding with what I have to say about the bill under consideration I urge the minister to have this situation investigated. I am one who believes that not a single veteran in Canada should be denied admission to a departmental hospital who requires treatment, because of his circumstances. I can tell the minister that some of the boys in the hospital were not too pleased to know that other veterans were denied admission. We make provision for many other people while needy veterans seek admission. I admit that these people have to be looked after but instead of provision being made for the veteran to be looked after by the provincial authorities which I was told was done on a number of occasions the immigrants should be cared for by the provincial authorities and payment made by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to the appropriate authorities. I realize they have to be looked after but it causes a lot of discontent and ill-feeling when you find that veterans have been denied admission to the departmental hospital while immigrants are well cared for. I know the minister's officials do what they can to have
Pension Act
veterans looked after by some provincial institution and so on but that is not good enough. The veteran has a first right to be given treatment in Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals. I know that the minister's heart is in the right place in these matters. I urge that he have this situation looked into and urgently have the regulations amended, a course of action which I think is necessary, so these needy cases can be cared for.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would appreciate very much if the hon. member would give the name and number of that particular case to the officials of the department so they could check up on it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall bring them all to the attention of the departmental officials.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, at once.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As I said before, the bill is welcomed by this group as offering a number of improvements but there are some omissions with which I want to deal. I am sure the minister will support me 100 per cent in the first omission I am going to discuss because we stood together in support of this omission in the past. I refer to the question of increasing the rates payable under the Pension Act by 33J per cent. I do not want to take the time of the house to deal with it at length. I think the shortest way to deal with it would be to put on the record the opinion of the Canadian Legion as expressed in the brief presented to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the cabinet in November 1957. This outlines the situation very well indeed, as follows:
Historically, the scale of pensions was related to the common labour market. Some examples from the above tables show that this is no longer the case and that pension rates have failed to keep pace with the salaries and wages paid in the forces, the civil service and industry:-
(1)	Cleaner and helper, one of the lower paid brackets in the civil service receive $300 less than a married 100 per cent pensioner in 1920. Today such a worker receives $510 more. His wages have increased over 223 per cent, the married pensioner's rate only 100 per cent.
(2)	It should be noted that the rates shown on the chart for a private soldier are those which apply to an untrained recruit on entry. He may after four months' service, if he reaches the required standard of competency, get a further $72 per annum; after an additional 12 months he may get another $156 per annum. These increases are for the untrained soldier but do not take into account group pay for which tradesmen may be eligible. Thus a private soldier with 13 months' service and no previous experience would, if married, get $2,928 per annum as compared with $2,400 for a 100 per cent disability married pensioner.
(3)	The wage index reflecting the rates paid workers in industry (logging, mining, manufacturing, trade, transportation, construction, light and power and personal services) shows that since 1920

Pension Act
the index has risen from 52.3 to 149.4 in 1956, which is an increase of approximately 185 per cent, whilst in the same period the rate for a married 100 per cent pensioner has risen only 100 per cent.
There is no question but that the standard of living as illustrated in these groups has permanently improved.
And we are all glad of it.
We submit that with due regard to all the difficulties of exact comparison, these figures indicate the necessity of an upward revision of the pension rates. This should be at least 33', per cent over the 1956 rates in order to bring them more into line with the substantial increase in general wage rates in recent years. The Canadian Legion therefore recommends that the rates payable under schedules "A" and "B" of the Canadian Pension Act as of June 30, 1957 be increased by 33J per cent.
I am quite sure the minister has not changed his mind on this matter in a period of 18 months or two years and I do urge that consideration be given to these representations when further amendments to the act are considered. Then there is another amendment lacking which the minister will remember was the subject of considerable discussion in the veterans affairs committee on a number of occasions. That is the one having to do with conditions not recorded on enlistment. If my memory serves me correctly, the minister was very keen on an amendment of this type being placed in the act in order to correct what he, with other members of the committee, considered was an injustice. The brief has something to say about this question and I am going to quote it because the Legion spent a lot of time in drafting it and have presented the case well with an economy of words. This is what the brief has to say on page 13:
We request that section 13 (1) (a) of the Pension Act be amended so that, where a pension applicant who served in an actual threatre of war is found to have a disability resulting from an injury or a disease not recorded on medical examination made on enlistment or prior thereto, such injury or disease shall be presumed to have occurred or had its inception subsequent to enlistment.
Whether a recruit is taken from the comparative protection of civilian life and subjected to the dangers and rigours of military life is determined by government regulation. The government, for the purpose of determining whether the recruit is physically fit and is to be accepted, gives him a medical examination. The nature and extent of such examination is under the sole control of the state. The examination is very comprehensive and rigorous. The findings are recorded. On the basis of such findings the government determines whether the recruit is to be accepted for military service and whether he is to be subjected to conditions of service in a theatre of war. Having full control of the recruiting and the character and place of the recruit's subsequent service, the government should abide, for pension purposes, by its recorded findings in such medical examination, supplemented by actual medical records in existence prior to enlistment.

How many times members of the committee made use of that argument throughout the years.
This is not so under section 13 (1) (a). Many war disabled veterans notwithstanding the ameliorating provisions of section 13 (1) (c) undoubtedly are denied pensions which they would receive if the government were to abide by the results of medical examination on enlistment or pre-enlistment medical records. This situation is particularly acute in cases involving mental or nervous conditions.
I have had one or two in that category brought to my attention.
The Legion submits that the Pension Act should be changed so that Canada's obligation will be honoured. The Canadian Legion therefore recommends that section 13 (1) (a) of the Pension Act be amended so that, where a pension applicant who served in an actual theatre of war is found to have a disability resulting from an injury or a disease not recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment, such injury or disease shall be presumed to have occurred or had its inception subsequent to enlistment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we do not want to be unfair. We cannot expect everything to be done overnight by a government that has just recently taken office but the minister knows this has been the cause of considerable discontent and debate in the veterans affairs committee in past years and on behalf of this group I do urge him to give further consideration to this recommendation of the Canadian Legion, a recommendation which has been brought forward year after year because of the experience of the members of the Legion with the situation as it exists throughout the country.
There is another deficiency having to do with retroactive awards under section 31. Here is a matter that has also been dealt with by the committee from time to time and the minister knows the story just as well as I do. I am going to quote again from the Legion brief because I can say more in a few words.
We would advocate that it be made mandatory that when a decision is given favourable to the veteran, pension will be paid as of date of application. At present this is a matter which is left to the discretion of the Canadian pension commission, but section 31 (1) of the act limits the discretion to a maximum of 12 months. Section 31 (2) permits an additional six months when hardship and distress would otherwise occur, and section 31	(3) permits an additional 18 months
pension where there are administrative delays beyond the applicant's control.
I think the commission has administered this section of the act very fairly indeed.
For a number of years after world war I pensions when granted became retroactive to the appearance of the disability or sometimes the date of discharge. As a result some awards involved large retroactive payments and it was argued that this fact made the commission extremely reluctant to grant the application. To do away with this psychological barrier a practical injustice was permitted in order

to secure a more unbiased consideration of the merits of the applicant's claim without being unduly influenced by the financial consequences of a favourable decision.
Experience, however, has shown that there are many cases of delay beyond the applicant's control which often result, under present regulations, in both injustice and hardship. We believe that the adoption of our recommendation will go a long way to rectify these abuses. . . . The Canadian Legion therefore recommends that all disability pensions when granted become effective from the date of application, but in order to allay fears of excessive awards going back to world war I jeopardizing the chances of the applicant, we append the following saving clause:
"This provision shall not apply to claims granted prior to January 1, 1946, and no retroactive payments shall be made for a period prior to that date."
I trust the minister will give that recommendation some consideration. I know that the present provisions of the act were finally-placed in the act as the result of considerable discussion in the veterans affairs committee and representations by members of the commission and others. The Legion feels there is still a measure of injustice under the application of the present section.
I want to deal now with a section which is termed "Debts Due to the Crown" because I have had a few cases of this sort brought to my attention. While they are not frequent, on occasion there is some difficulty and some injustice done the veteran because of the present legislation.
The Canadian Legion has information indicating that it is the policy of the treasury board, where a veteran is in receipt of pension with respect to a disability attributable to military service and the Canadian government has a money claim against the veteran, to authorize the deduction of the amount of such claim from the veteran's disability pension. The Minister of Finance upon receiving such authorization thereupon makes the deduction.
The alleged basis of the above-mentioned procedure is section 95 (1) of the Financial Administration Act, which provides for the crown setting off a debt to it against a debt by the crown to its creditor.
We are confident that parliament did not have veterans' pensions in mind when it enacted section 95 (1) of the Financial Administration Act, and, moreover, that it would not have enacted that section in its present form if it had been informed that the section would be used to deprive veterans of their pension benefits.
We urge that the crown's obligation to make monthly payments under an award of the pension commission is not an ordinary debt such as is contemplated by section 95 (1) of the Financial Administration Act.
It is something different and of a much higher character. It is a moral obligation of Canada, acknowledged by the nation through its own tribunal, the Canadian pension commission, to ensure that the hardship to the pensioner resulting from his disability incurred in the service of his country shall be minimized. Having assumed that obligation the nation is, in the Legion's view, bound not to disavow it.
Parliament has declared by section 24 (3), formerly section 20 (3) of the Pension Act, that a pension may not be attached. The Canadian Legion says that this is a statutory confirmation of the special character of Canada's obligation to its
Pension Act
disabled veterans. It is essentially a debt of honour. Parliament has in effect said and decreed that money payments arising out of that obligation must not be diverted from their purpose, that of ameliorating financial hardship arising out of war disability.
The Legion submits that the Canadian government is bound, if not legally then morally, by section 24 (3) of the Pension Act.
The Canadian Legion therefore recommends:
That in order to obviate all possibility of future diversion of war pensions section 24 (3) be amended so that it will specifically bind the crown.
Why should the crown not be bound in this respect when ordinary individuals or corporations are bound. I believe there is a section of the act that certainly should be amended according to the recommendation of the Legion.
I have a final complaint. I told the minister I was going to be a bit nasty this afternoon. My complaint is in connection with marital status under the act. I had a case recently which particularly brought to my attention the necessity for some amendment to this section of the act. The cases are relatively few in percentage, but very often innocent people are the victims of circumstances over which they had no control. In that connection the Legion has this to say:
There are Canadian pensioners and widows of deceased pensioners who have lost pension rights because of their marital status. In these cases either the man or the woman was married peviously and obtained a divorce outside of Canada which is not recognized under Canadian law.
I dealt with a case like that just last month.
Therefore the second form of marriage is held to be improper by the Canadian pension commission which refuses to recognize the wife for purposes of additional pension, and when the man dies it similarly refuses to recognize the widow. In some cases the commission has previously recognized the woman and paid additional pension during the man's lifetime and then after his death discovered the invalid divorce and refused to recognize the widow. The commission has exercised its discretion in some cases but there is evidence that it does not always do so.
There are other instances where a separation has occurred and as a result there is an impediment to marriage creating a situation comparable to an unrecognized divorce.
There are not many of these cases but those that have come to our attention have been tragic.
That has been my experience.
With respect to those that result from an unrecognized divorce there is little doubt but that the parties concerned acted in good faith and felt that they were free to remarry.
The commission, following a meeting in January 1955, asked the Legion what is could suggest as a remedy to this problem.
This is their suggestion:
We believe that it could be remedied by a provision similar to section 30 (11) (b) of the War Veterans Allowance Act, but worded so as to take care of the widows also. . . .
The Canadian Legion therefore recommends: That a clause similar to section 30 (11) (b) of the War Veterans Allowance Act be included in the Canadian Pension Act, and further, that this clause be so worded as to provide for the widow.

Unemployment Assistance Act
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said when commencing my few remarks, we in this group welcome the amendments provided in this bill, but we also urge the minister to give consideration to the other representations of the Canadian Legion. There is only one representation, sir, that will affect a large number of people, and that is the one asking for a 33J per cent increase in the basic pension rate. The other amendments that I have outlined affect relatively few people, but the people affected are entitled to justice as well as the larger number, and the present act causes a certain injustice in those cases. On behalf of this group, I do ask the minister in the time between now and the next session to give serious consideration to these representations and give effect to his own previously expressed wishes by amending the act to meet the requests of the Canadian Legion.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There was a discussion a few moments ago to the effect that we might continue discussion of the unemployment assistance measure at 5.15. If that would be agreeable to the house, we might leave this order of business upon which we are engaged at the moment and proceed with this other matter.


Lionel Chevrier: If I might say so, that is quite satisfactory. I understand it is satisfactory to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who speaks on behalf of his group.
If that is the case, and I have the permission of the house, I should like to make one or two observations. I should like to follow up the question which I asked the minister earlier.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
proposal is acceptable to us, but should we not have the debate in which we are now engaged adjourned and start on the other order of business?


Mr. Carter:: I would move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Carter the debate was adjourned.



UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
amendments to remove threshold provision

Jay Waldo Monteith: the second reading of Bill No. 240, to amend the Unemployment Assistance Act.


Lionel Chevrier: I had asked the minister what the attitude of the province of Quebec was with reference to the resolu-
[Mr. Herridge.l

tion, and whether or not the province would enter into agreements. I think the minister answered that while he hoped that there would be an agreement between the federal government and Quebec, such was not the case at the moment. I wonder if he could say, when he rises, whether or not any negotiations or any discussions have taken place between the two bodies leading to an agreement.
While I am on my feet I should like to clarify the attitude which I adopted last night in discussing this matter. I did not think it was necessary to do that because surely it is possible for an hon. member to get up and question certain parts of a bill without, for that reason, being opposed to it. Next, my position and certainly the position of this side of the house, was clearly indicated when we assured the minister that we were willing at once, following disposal of the resolution, to move on to second reading of the bill. This is indicative of an attitude of co-operation and not one of opposition.
This leads me to the statement that there is no difficulty about my position, which is that of supporting the bill and voting for the bill, because it is going to increase the contributions to the provincial governments. The point I was making was that because of the amendment which was made to the British North America Act which authorized the federal government to enter into the field of unemployment insurance, that did not authorize the federal government to enter into the field of unemployment assistance. In that case I feel, as I am sure most hon. members on this side of the house feel, that for that reason this bill is an impingement upon provincial rights.
I do not want to repeat what I said last night but it strikes me that there can be no doubt about that, not only because of the constitutional position as it stands today but I am sure most hon. members who have given this matter any thought would feel that way about the matter. But what amazed me more than anything else was that the province of Quebec which as a rule takes quite a strong stand against the infringement of provincial rights would, through the head of its delegation at the provincial conference, as I understand it did, adopt the position that the federal government should go all the way and pay all of unemployment assistance.
I thought I should make these points. They should not be surprising to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Surely it is possible to say in the house that one is against certain views. Surely it is possible to say that a bill infringes upon provincial rights and still support it because

of the fact that the provinces and incidentally the municipalities are going to be assisted. My position also was brought about by the fact that during the campaign some fairly strong statements were made as well as prior to the campaign over a period of years, by the former leader of the opposition and other hon. members who now sit on the other side of the house, to the effect that there would be a positive decentralization of these matters if they took office. It strikes me that in this case there is just the contrary. There is a tendency to invade the field of public assistance, leaving very little in that field other than perhaps mothers' allowances and several other smaller matters. For that reason it seems to me that the position which I have taken is quite tenable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we had a debate on this matter at the resolution stage. In the meantime we had a chance to look at the bill and I do not think it is necessary to debate it at length at this stage. One of my colleagues has a few remarks of a general character which he will be making while Your Honour is in the chair, but our position is clear. We feel that there is nothing wrong about federal assistance to the provinces in fields such as moneys for disabled persons, blindness allowances and other such measures. Accordingly we do not see that it is wrong for the federal government to assist the provinces in the field of assistance to the unemployable unemployed. We therefore have no difficulty in voting for this measure. We are also prepared to vote for it because it puts a few more dollars into the provincial treasuries.
I confess that I am still amazed at the position taken by my friend the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). There is nothing else that this bill does but to provide money to assist the provinces in their payments to the unemployable unemployed. If he thinks that is an infringement upon provincial responsibility it seems to me that his course should be to vote against the measure. But since we are for it, I am glad to know that everybody else is for it as well. Nevertheless we think we express the disappointment of the Canadian people that, after all these years during which it has been contended in many quarters that there should be 100 per cent federal responsibility for the employable unemployed that contention is still not being implemented in the legislation that is now before us. We hope that even yet we may reach that point. I am glad to hear that my hon. friends of the Liberal party now say that they still take that position. I hope that between us we may yet be able to persuade
Unemployment Assistance Act the government to go that far as well. Nevertheless, as we have already made clear at the resolution stage, we support this legislation as far as it goes.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, so far the discussion, chiefly on the resolution stage, has dealt with the technical implications in this proposed resolution. I do not wish to get involved in that particular part of the debate because there are others who are far more capable of investigating the technical fields. However, I was glad to hear the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) somewhat shift his ground, as we reached second reading of the bill, from the position he had taken earlier. I was becoming concerned, on hearing him talk about the invasion of provincial rights, because it is rather unusual to find an hon. member from his party taking a position politically to the right of the premier of Quebec. I was afraid that he was quickly going to become the sole surviving Canadian Dixiecrat of the Canadian House of Commons. But apparently he is prepared to go along with this bill at this time.
The point I wanted to raise at this particular juncture of the debate is that we are in danger of losing sight of the chief objective or the chief purpose toward which this parliament should be working with regard to employment. Certainly we are in favour of doing everything possible-whether it is at the federal level, the provincial level or the municipal level or any combination thereof-to alleviate the effects of unemployment and to do something to alleviate the suffering that may result from prolonged periods of unemployment. But I am afraid that this is the kind of legislation which, as I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, we all hope will not be required. I think we all believe that it would be far more desirable if we could do something to keep the level of employment in such a state that not only would there not be any crisis in unemployment but that even the .45 formula would not have to come up for consideration.
The present situation seems to be, on the basis of the latest figures, that we are approaching very rapidly a figure of 400,000 unemployed in this country. I wonder if we assess the full significance of what is happening. On a very conservative estimate, -and I use the word conservative with a small "c" there-if there are 400,000 unemployed, and if the loss in work that could be performed or products that could be produced were taken conservatively at $10 a day- and that in this day is a very small figure- that would be a loss of $4 million a day,

Unemployment Assistance Act which would come to approximately $120 million a month. That figure in itself indicates how costly and expensive unemployment can be. That is taking into consideration only the financial side of it. When we take into consideration the human side of it,- the uncertainty, the fears, the doubts and the worries that go along with unemployment and what it does to the average family- then of course the cost is incalculable.
I am wondering why the government has not, even in the course of this debate or at any previous time when unemployment was being discussed, made some announcement of some long range plan, something more imaginative and bold than has been indicated by the previous administration or so far by this administration. I am thinking of something like the setting up of a national employment commission which would lay the emphasis not on looking after the unemployed but on providing the widest possible opportunity for employment. In other words, they \yould look at the positive side of this question rather than the negative results. I believe a commission of that nature could be very useful and could do a great deal in co-operation with the provinces and the municipalities. Certainly if such a commission were set up and were given authority by this parliament to enter into negotiations, discussions and agreements with the provinces and the municipalities, in my view that would be one of the finest and easiest ways of overcoming this continuing argument that comes up again and again as to who enters into another field of endeavour, and the question of infringing upon provincial rights or provincial autonomy.
I say this because an agreement of that nature would mean that under the terms of this bill they would be empowered by negotiation and agreement to enter into public works and long-range plans and winter employment programs with the provinces and municipalities, provided that the financial basis upon which to make all those things possible was provided by this parliament. I think it would grip the imagination of the Canadian people and would give us a sense of national enterprise which I think is lacking today.
I have been in this house for a considerable number of years now and have heard hundreds of debates and arguments about public enterprise and private enterprise and the relative virtues of the two or the virtues of one as opposed to the other, but I have never heard any member of the government bring forward an imaginative program which we could call a national enterprise in which there would be room for public enterprise, private


enterprise and co-operative enterprise, but with the emphasis on enterprise. I believe we have the kind of country which needs that kind of leadership and that type of leadership would result in the minimum need of this kind of legislation.
To give an example of what such a national commission could do, I might take the suggestion which was made by a member who was on this side of the house, I believe last year or two years ago. That member was the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who is now one of the parliamentary assistants on the government side. At that time he brought in a resolution to deal with the dispersal of industry and he pointed out that there was a potential for small processing and manufacturing industries, particularly but not exclusively in western Canada. The possibilities, of course, are great both to the east and to the west of our national capital and this is a time when I believe the hon. member for Brandon-Souris would be doing a great national service if he would put these arguments and ideas before the government and bring them to the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), and try to persuade them to take some positive steps along those lines in the near future.
Statistics show that in the last six years there have been almost 50,000 farmers who have left their lands-that is taking the whole area right across Canada. On the prairies the process has been perhaps more speedy than in any other province. We are losing our farm population by the thousands in every one of our rural communities in western Canada. Now I may be asked "what has that to do with this legislation?" It has this to do with it. Every time a farmer leaves his land and goes into the city to seek employment he is creating more than the normal employment problem. In the average farm family there would be more than one working adult and as long as they stay on the farm they are not in the labour market. They are their own employers but, the minute they leave that farm and enter the city they have in my opinion made a very fatal decision because they have decided to stop being their own employers and to throw themselves on the mercy of some other employer. Now I am not critical of such persons as they may do so as a matter of necessity or as a matter of choice, but it is a process which has been going on and which is going on and which I believe is a very dangerous process if we should run into any further unemployment difficulties.
Now, if we had small manufacturing and processing industries dispersed throughout our

farming areas, particularly in the prairie provinces where we do not at the present time have many such industries, many of which have to be planned and initiated by such a planning commission as I have described and perhaps even initially financed by the federal government, this would in my opinion be a sound investment.
Small industries would have a stabilizing effect in keeping farm families on the farm. It is well known there are many farms today, I believe, particularly in the province of Quebec, where the people would not be living on the farm at all since the land is not capable of sustaining a sufficient income if it were not that they lived somewhere in the vicinity of a pulp mill, paper mill or a mine of some kind where they may obtain parttime if not full-time employment. This makes it possible for them to stay at home on the farm and supplement their farm income with a certain amount of income from employment in industry.
Now in western Canada such a program is particularly important and would have very beneficial results which would help to stem this tide of families leaving the farms and seeking employment in industrial areas, thus boosting the large unemployment figures. At the same time it would make it possible for those who find it difficult to maintain themselves on a farm income to do part-time work in the off-season period so far as farms are concerned and would enable them to earn sufficient extra income to keep their families together, maintain themselves, and stay on the land.
Apart from the opportunities I have outlined, I would like to draw the attention of the government to the obvious opportunities before us that were mentioned the other day in another context. It does seem rather strange, and in fact a little ridiculous, that a country such as ours where no one seems to think we lack resources, the physical capacity to produce or even financial resources, that we are not somehow able to relate the financial and the physical possibilities in order to provide full employment and full production in our country.
As I have already pointed out, we are losing approximately $4 million worth of labour per day as a result of unemployment at the present time, over $100 million a month. If that amount of money were to be put into useful public works projects-and I am not talking merely about providing employment per se but providing employment through socially useful public works projects -we would be recovering that money in a valuable way. If the government wants some ideas as to where such employment could be
Unemployment Assistance Act found or what could be done, I will give them a few recommendations or suggestions.
If they would look at recent reports on the position of our educational facilities across Canada I think they would find there is a tremendous need for school construction. As a former schoolteacher I can assure the house that I have followed the position of our educational facilities very closely, even though I am no longer active in that field, and I find there is a tremendous amount of replacement to be done. There are many small school-houses, built 40 or 50 years ago, which ought to be replaced with buildings having modern facilities. The same might be said of many of our hospitals and other public institutions which are crying out for replacement. The materials are there and labour apparently is there, almost 400,000 men. Somehow the government up to this time, however, has failed to relate these two things and to produce the socially necessary institutions.
There are many demands in every province in this country of ours and yet we do not have full employment at the present time. It is not something that needs any great amount of planning or great technicians or scientists; all it needs is a little bit of common sense and then we can get right down to work.
I mentioned the other day in a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Hamilton) the question of houses on our Indian reservations. I do not refer to the reservations in eastern Canada but those in my own province.
I happen to have five Indian reservations in my own constituency, and I can say that the housing conditions of most of them are disgraceful. Many of them are living in log shacks, shacks which are broken down and no longer suitable as residences, and at least a few of these Indians happen to be right alongside large sawmills where there is a huge surplus of lumber waiting to be sold. At the same time there is unemployment in the area, yet somehow the government cannot manage to relate this raw material this available labour and these log shacks and provide the Indians with decent frame houses in which to live in some measure of comfort. This is one of the things which could be done right away to bring a measure of relief to the situation.
And what about homes for our senior citizens? What about schools for the technical training of our young people? News stories have appeared recently showing how far behind this country has fallen in relation to the training of scientists. Here is a field which could be tackled right away. Let us provide the facilities to give our young people

Unemployment Assistance Act the education and the technical training to fit them for the new kind of world in which we are living and in which we are likely to be living in the future.
These are random ideas, Mr. Speaker, but the main thought I should like to leave with the government is this: it is nothing short of ridiculous to have a position where we are losing approximately $4 million worth of labour a day, and in which there are thousands of things to be done at a time when we have all the materials necessary to do these things and plenty of resources behind those materials to replace them when they are used. I know that this government is firmly attached to the idea that private enterprise can do everything, but let them swallow their pride to some extent, throw that book away and say that what is required now is a little imagination and the use of all forms of enterprise. If this is done I think we will reach the stage when this type of legislation will no longer be required.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) asked me a few moments ago if Quebec would enter into the agreement and whether there have been any discussions. All I can say is that to the best of my knowledge, and certainly not on my level, there have been no discussions. I cannot say there have been none at the technical level, or the official level, but there has been no indication as far as I can tell at the moment, to that effect. I would say that we are, of course, hopeful that Quebec will come in. The offer is open to all provinces in Canada. I am very pleased to hear that the hon. member for Laurier is going to support the bill. There is no doubt that if there is any invasion of provincial rights it is certainly no more so than the Blind Persons Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Old Age Assistance Act, all of which acts were instituted by the previous administration. I would just emphasize that we firmly believe in decentralization just as much as possible, taking into consideration the all-embracing attitude of the previous government.
The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) made a very interesting speech, and all I can say to him is that we do agree that as much as possible and in as many ways as possible we should do something to assist those who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed. This, in our estimation, is one way of giving such assistance. In one way or another our assistance goes to the provinces

and, indirectly, down to the municipalities and we assume it does eventually assist in relieving the unemployment situation. I will not say anything further about unemployment because, as I said earlier, I think this is a matter for discussion at a time when the labour estimates are considered.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister was going to tell us about what had been done with regard to the agreement with Manitoba. Is he going to do that in committee?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I will be happy to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Form of Agreements.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister if he would tell us what precisely has been done with regard to the points raised about Manitoba? Would he at the same time tell us what the situation is with respect to discussions or negotiations with Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island which I understand are the other two provinces which have no agreements.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I think I will have to ask my officials with regard to some of the details, but I can tell the hon. member something concerning the agreement reached with the Hon. Mr. Bend of Manitoba.
Manitoba estimates recorded as part of the mothers' allowance case load and cost that there were certain charges which, until two years ago, had been accepted by the provincial government as part of their mothers' allowance and appeared as such in their estimates. Now they claim that this is a category-deserted mothers with children -which under the Manitoba child welfare act was charged to the mothers' allowance vote, but to which the federal government should have provided assistance.
There was another category, namely scholarships or bursaries paid to the children of mothers' allowance recipients. It was subsequently agreed, I think amicably, between Mr. Bend and myself that we should pay for the first class I mentioned-I might add that this was a hangover from the previous government-but that we should not pay for the second class.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the statement Mr. Campbell made about the case that had to be referred to the exchequer court?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I did suggest, in a previous letter, that, as there was an appropriate provision in the agreement, if there was a difference of opinion possibly the best thing to do would be to appeal to the exchequer

court. That provision is in the agreement, namely that any province which does not like our decision with regard to the interpretation of the regulations has that privilege. We seemed to feel for some time that the appropriate course would be to make that appeal to the exchequer court.
But when Mr. Bend and I sat down and discussed the whole thing for the first time I understood his problem concerning these deserted mothers better than I had. I could see that he had a point in declaring that they should be in on claims for assistance from the federal government and as a consequence I gave way on that point and he decided he did not have a just claim on the child bursaries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The premier raised the question of families dependent on disabled men. Was that question settled as well?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, that has not been discussed with Manitoba but that province is in the same position as the other five provinces with regard to that particular point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the premier said it was not.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I understand that Alberta is the only province that has provision for disability cases but the other provinces are in exactly the same position.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister was also going to tell us about Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Alberta.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not
Prince Edward Island.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You said Prince Edward Island.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I admit I made a mistake in mentioning Prince Edward Island.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Chairman, we have had no word from either Nova Scotia or Alberta as to their intentions under the proposed change in the act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then I would ask the minister this question. I said, at the resolution stage, there was no discussion about this at the federal-provincial conference at all, this was just a straight take it or leave it proposition coming from the Prime Minister. Now it appears quite evident from the discussion we have had so far that that is precisely what it is. The minister admitted that he had no discussion with Nova Scotia, Alberta or Quebec. He did not say that about Ontario. Of course, I have my own suspicions about Ontario. Indeed I have my suspicions about where the idea of this proposal really came from; it was just to save
Unemployment Assistance Act the face of the premier of Ontario but at any rate it is going to provide a little incidental advantage to some of the other provinces.
It does seem evident that all there is to this measure is a straight take it or leave it proposition from the federal government. If I be unfair and if the minister thinks I am wrong-


Jay Waldo Monteith: I certainly do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -let him answer my questions. Was it discussed before the conference? Which provinces asked to have this particular thing done? When did it happen?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I think I have already explained my situation in this regard. I have answered questions in the house to the effect that there had been discussions with Ontario. As I recall it, Premier Stanfield indicated at the dominion-provincial conference that he was pleased that this would happen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: After the proposition had been announced in a "take it or leave it" attitude.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There have been no official approaches by either Nova Scotia or Alberta.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or Quebec.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Or Quebec; I mentioned that. There have been no official approaches as far as this change in the act goes. Let me remind the hon. gentleman that as far as a take it or leave it attitude is concerned there was nothing of that sort at the recent dominion-provincial conference as compared with the degree to which that attitude was exhibited in previous dominion-provincial conferences held when the government to which he recently belonged was in power.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is very easy to make assertions but the hon. gentleman has not offered one tittle of evidence except to mention what I suspected all along that this was asked for quietly and privately by Ontario.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is only your statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, produce your
evidence instead of just making assertions. I do not think there is the slightest evidence but if you think you have any, produce it. That is all I am asking.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You have not got any.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman
will produce his evidence I will accept it at once but he has produced none. The Prime Minister said that this was asked for by someone but he did not say who. I read the quotation earlier today. He indicated that

Unemployment Assistance Act it was asked for by someone but he did not say by whom. I have been trying to find out all day who it was that really asked for this. There is no evidence anywhere on the record that any provincial government asked for this measure before the conference. The Prime Minister spoke first and he said, "You can have this," and it was obvious from his attitude that it was a handout.


Jay Waldo Monteith: There has been correspondence tabled on it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On unemployment assistance? No, none.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman would cite specific correspondence on this question I would be interested in seeing it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It was done on a motion by the hon. member for Essex East calling for the tabling of correspondence since June 10. It has been tabled; go and look it up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With Ontario? Has there been correspondence with any other province?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, you are the minister. If you do not know, who does?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, clause 1 involves substituting a new agreement for the two agreements that were scheduled to the original bill. It is often indicated to us around here that there are discussions between Ottawa and the provinces when agreements are being drafted or altered. May I ask the minister if there were discussions with the participating provinces, or with all ten of them for that matter, as to the changes in the form of the agreement from the form as in the act to the form in the amending bill?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Only in so far as the abolition of the threshold is concerned. Under the old bill we were required to have a separate agreement with Nova Scotia but under the new agreement with the abolition of the threshold one agreement will suffice for everybody.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, but a few other changes, even if they are not substantial, are being made in the agreement which I take it the provinces will have to sign in order to continue to draw the assistance they have been receiving and in order to draw assistance for those under the threshold. I think it is a fair question to ask


whether there were discussions with the provinces as to the form of this agreement before it was put in this bill and submitted to the House of Commons?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Well, Mr. Chairman, we are taking out only those provisions which might be described as obsolete, dead and no longer required. I think that is the only change.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am prepared to admit all that but I still think it is a fair question to ask if there were any discussions with the provinces as to the change in the form of the agreement before the agreement was submitted to the House of Commons?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Chairman, I will have to admit that there were not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Take it or leave it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Cardiff:: Try and get your own party off the hook on that statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this is a serious matter. We have been used to it across the years from the former government and I am sure we will be told the same thing by this government whenever we ask for something to be done involving the provinces, namely that they have to be consulted before something is handed to them on a take it or leave it basis.


Mr. Pallelt:: The government changed on June 10.


Stanley Howard Knowles: did not hear that remark.


John Cameron Pallett: I said that the hon. member attributed certain dealings and attitudes to the previous government and I remind him that the government changed on June 10.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And now we have a real take it or leave it attitude.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There have been some changes and apparently one is that so far as this agreement with the provinces is concerned it was drafted and presented to them on a take it or leave it basis. I think that is hardly in keeping with the basis on which the federal government and provinces should get along.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister has already admitted there was a take it or leave it attitude.


Stanley Howard Knowles: wish to say something else about the agreement but I guess I will have to leave it until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'colck.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one brief statement to the effect that this legislation never has been and is not a take it or leave it proposition. The amendment we are proposing to the act is a most generous offer to increase approximately four times the federal contribution to unemployment assistance, or from $5 million to approximately $20 million per annum. There is no doubt that such action by the present government does cause some concern to the opposition. May I say very forcibly that this amendment has brought great satisfaction to the provincial governments and, of course, to the municipalities which in the long run stand to benefit most.
Would anybody really suggest that the provinces should be consulted about the deletion of words applicable back to 1955? They have no possible effect now. Section 8 is deleted and this section was put in the act only to allow ratification of the six provincial agreements signed prior to the passing of the federal legislation in June, 1956. It has no further force or effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the minister admitted just before six o'clock that the provinces had not been shown copies of the revised agreement which is the schedule to the bill and which is under discussion because it is referred to in clause 1. I admitted that there were few changes of substance in the agreement other than the dropping of the threshold and the provinces of course knew that that was contemplated. Nevertheless, the minister had to admit that the form of the new agreement had not been shown to the provinces before it was presented to us in this bill.
The minister now comes back after the supper hour and tries to persuade us that it is not on a take it or leave it basis because it is nothing other than a generous offer. I have seldom heard figures used in the way that the Minister of National Health and Welfare used them a few minutes ago. He made the statement that the bill has as its purpose increasing by four times the money available to the provinces, and to prove that statement from his standpoint he said that it raises the amount from $5 million a year to $20 million a year. I insist, Mr. Chairman, that when one is comparing figures one should compare figures that are comparable. The minister is doing no such thing.
The $5 million he talks about is the amount the six participating provinces are now receiving above the threshold. If no other
Unemployment Assistance Act provinces come in and only these six continue to participate, the increase to them as the result of this legislation will be $2,450,000, an increase from $5,100,000 to $7,500,000 odd. The minister gets the $20 million figure by comparing the $5 million that the six provinces are now getting above the threshold with what the ten provinces would get if they all came in, both above and below the threshold, and that is making a comparison of things that are not comparable at all. I simply express my amazement that the minister chose to argue in that way.
Of course, the bill gives something to the provinces but to the participating provinces it gives an increase of only $2,450,000, an increase of only 50 per cent and not the fourfold increase to which the minister referred, and I submit that that does not detract from the admission he had to make prior to the adjournment at six o'clock that the form of the agreement was not submitted to the provinces before it was presented in parliament.
We were talking about the agreement, Mr. Chairman, the form of which is in the schedule referred to in clause 1 of the bill, and there is something else I should like to ask the minister about that agreement. He made it clear in the debate this afternoon that he has read the debate that took place in 1956 when the Unemployment Assistance Act was first enacted. He at least read the speech of the then minister of national health and welfare because he quoted from it or referred to it a number of times this afternoon.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Just once.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just once? Well, even once makes it clear that the minister read that speech. I wonder whether he also read the many speeches made on that occasion by the chief spokesman for his party at that time on this matter, the hon. member for Hamilton West who is now Secretary of State. Let me make it clear that she took a position that some of us did not take and she took it very strongly. She criticized the former government vigorously and vehemently for not sharing in the health and hospital costs of the employable unemployed. She complained bitterly that the agreement was drafted in such a form that those costs were excluded from the kind of expenses in which the federal government would share. She came back to that repeatedly. She called it nonsense for the former minister of national health and welfare to talk about the federal government sharing in these costs to the
2626	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Assistance Act extent of 50 per cent and she used some pretty powerful language with regard to the matter.
I wonder whether the minister has paid any attention to what his colleague said on that occasion. If so, why is it that no change has been made in that and why are these costs, about which the member for Hamilton West complained, still left exclusively to the provinces and the municipalities?


Henri Courtemanche: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare no answer to that question?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not think any particular answer is required. As I suggested when the committee resumed this evening, we are undertaking at the moment to make a contribution to unemployment assistance on a greater scale than has been done before. That is the simple purpose of the bill.
(Translation):


Mr. Breton:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words on this bill. First of all, I want to commend the government for this alleviation of unemployment. I also would like to say that in view of the conditions now developing in Canada, I think this government should make a still greater effort toward a solution of the problem.
One of my saddest experiences has indeed been to see how many people come to us in our offices asking for jobs because they don't qualify for unemployment benefits.
I do not know who was saying some years ago that the mortal sin of democracy was to let people be unemployed. Our society is responsible for the unemployment of the labouring masses who were attracted to the cities by industries that later left them jobless.
According to figures given by an association which met recently with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), there are at present
800,000	people who do not come under the Unemployment Insurance Act. That is over 10 per cent of our labour force. In rural districts like mine, this proportion is even greater in these difficult times.
I therefore commend the government for improving the act, but I do regret that it did not do more. I understood it was going to introduce far-reaching reforms not only in unemployment insurance, but in our social system in general, since it claimed to be filled with good intentions.
As for me, whatever government may be in power, I will never fail to approve of any
LMr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]

legislation providing help for those who have to rely on public assistance.
I have already said that legislation stands in need of continued improvement. I feel that at this time, because of the unemployment which is far more acute this year than anything we have known since the war, we should be prepared to do more.
I have attempted to understand this problem of unemployment by looking at statistics. If I look at the monthly bulletin put out by the Labour Gazette I must admit that the information provided there is unfortunately altogether incomplete. We are given figures about men at work, we are told how many claims there have been for unemployment insurance benefits, the amount of claims allowed and so on, but we are not told how many unemployed do not qualify for benefits. How many unemployed are at this time not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits? We know nothing about it. To understand perfectly the problem of unemployment as it exists in this country, the Labour Gazette should publish fuller information. All we can do about this matter at this time is to act on feeling alone, knowing nothing of the basic factors of the problem.
Newspaper reports tell us that at the present time there are 392,000 unemployed. How many of those people do not receive unemployment benefits?
Moreover, there is confusion, as was stated quite often in the past, between statistics of the dominion bureau of statistics and those of the unemployment insurance commission. One thing is certain. It is that the unemployed care little about statistics. That is what happened not so long ago in Vancouver when a Conservative member tried to explain to
1,000	unemployed people that, owing to the present policy of the government, there was more work available than last year. These people replied: "What do we care about your statistics, give us jobs."
If we are to maintain the prestige and value of our democratic system, the government must take strong measures, even if it has to resort to deficit budgeting. Its first duty is to fight unemployment efficiently.
Recently two hundred Hungarians clamoured to be sent back home because they had failed to find in Canada the jobs they had a right to expect. Today the first right of man, after his right to live, is the right to work. In my own country, I see healthy people of 45 or 50 years of age who are jobless.
People at 65, in perfect health, who could still be useful to society cannot find jobs; qualified engineers with an experience of 10 or 15 years, at a time when we complain

about a shortage of engineers in Canada, are turned down because industry cannot pay them a decent salary. I am therefore inclined to think that there is something wrong with our system. I take this opportunity to urge our national authorities to assume their responsibilities instead of being satisfied with half measures.
What I am saying today, I have said before; I have always held the same opinion. A country as rich as ours; one of the leading democratic countries which now sets itself as an example for other countries by its broad-mindedness and its tolerance; a country anxious to take an important part in international affairs, must start by putting its own house in order. This unemployment problem being extremely important, we must strive first and foremost to find a solution to it. Any government which can solve that problem shall deserve our gratitude.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate seems to have bothered the minister somewhat by asking him to make some statements in relation to the province of Ontario in so far as this particular proposal is concerned. I feel that perhaps as an Ontario member the minister might be a bit more liberal with his information by giving me some answers in relation to the position of Ontario in connection with the negotiations that have preceded this measure.
I have received from the city of Port Arthur a copy of a resolution that was passed around by a number of cities, approved and sent to Premier Frost about a month ago-and I believe it was also sent to the present federal ministers-asking for immediate action on this question. We therefore know that the government of Ontario was under pressure from the municipalities to take advantage of the legislation. Obviously there has been a switch in the approach that Mr. Frost had towards this bill. Is that switch as a result of some negotiations with the minister? Are these changes exactly what Mr. Frost wants? Have we an assurance that Ontario will sign or take up this agreement that is contained in the new bill. How much money will it mean to Ontario and hence to the municipalities in the way of assistance? How much of this money that is going from the federal government to the provinces under this act will go directly to the municipalities? Will the provincial government-and this is an accusation that I have seen in the Toronto press-retain at least 10 per cent of this money for themselves or in other words for their administration? Has the minister any of the answers to those questions?
Unemployment Assistance Act


Jay Waldo Monteith: I think I have given some of those figures previously to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The hon. member for Port Arthur mentioned that there had been a petition from the city of Port Arthur to the provincial government. I think that is what the hon. member said.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I can understand that concern on the part of the city of Port Arthur. As I mentioned earlier, I have tabled correspondence with the province of Ontario which we have had since June 10 on this matter of the possibility of the province of Ontario signing an agreement under the Unemployment Assistance Act. As to the other provinces, there were six which had signed prior to July, 1956, which agreements were ratified at the time of the federal legislation at that date. It seemed only reasonable that as time went by other provinces might be interested in joining and signing agreements with us. As I intimated earlier, I hope all ten provinces do so.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: This question as to whether or not there was adequate consultation with the provinces before this proposal in the schedule to this bill was brought into parliament I think has some rather interesting aspects. My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has brought this point forward. Some of us in the house listened to the exchange and the discussion that took place between the minister and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. We all realize that in times past in this house when the party to which the minister belongs was sitting over here on the opposition side we used to hear quite a bit about this question of the need for consulting with the provinces. If the minister is inclined to think that some of us who are still over on this side of the house are unduly concerned about this matter in view of the explanation he has given, I should like to suggest to him that perhaps part of that concern results from the kind of interjections that were made by the hon. member for Peel earlier this afternoon and which were designed to emphasize something which he and many of the Conservatives in this house and outside of the house have been doing, namely trying to create the impression throughout the country that somehow, under the leadership of the present Prime Minister, a great new era of dominion-provincial relations has been ushered in. I am sure the minister will understand that some of us over here may have some scepticism on this subject and that we are still open to be convinced by something more than the sort of thing we heard on the

Unemployment Assistance Act election hustings. I do not see that the minister should be worried whenever questions are asked by people like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on this subject.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Did the hon. member say "worried"?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister may not be prepared to admit that but, sitting over here, I had the impression that he was not too happy about some of the questions that were being asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing, making a mountain out of a molehill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Were you here?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: This is a fairly important consideration as far as the Canadian people are concerned. Great claims in this connection have been made by the present Prime Minister. Part of our duty here as members of this house is to assess, and to assist the Canadian people to assess, the validity or otherwise of the claims which were made by the present Prime Minister as to what he would do if he assumed office. From the discussion that has taken place I think it has become obvious that, without perhaps using the term in a derogatory sense, this is a take it or leave it proposition. The minister says that it is a good proposition. He suggests that it is so good that anybody would be foolish not to take it. I certainly agree with him in the hope that all ten provinces will see fit to come under the provisions of this act. Nevertheless I do not see that anything he has done in this connection gives him, the hon. member for Peel or anybody else over there on the opposite side of the house, any right to claim that the course of action that has been pursued by the administration is very much different from the sort of action that was pursued by the members who are now in the official opposition when they were carrying on negotiations with the provinces. Sitting over here where I do in the C.C.F. corner of the house perhaps I can say this, because I might be considered an impartial observer as to the activities of the Liberal party and the Conservative party and their relative merits.


An hon. Member:: Merits?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Or lack of merits. My colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo, with his usual astuteness, suggests there is perhaps not as much merit in the actions of either of them as they would like to suggest there is.
There is one aspect of this matter which is implicit in the schedule to the bill which we
IMr. Barnett.]
have before us, as it was in the schedule to the original Old Age Assistance Act that came before this house, and which has yet not been touched upon. I think it is one of the reasons that lie behind the arguments we have been making that a more proper solution would have been for the federal authority to assume 100 per cent of the responsibility in the field of unemployment. As I see it-and the minister can correct me if I am wrong-under the new situation that will exist when this bill is passed we shall still have people in some parts of Canada getting from the federal government different levels of assistance than people in other parts of Canada are getting, because of different rates that may be paid by different provinces.
Now I am not suggesting to the minister that within the terms of the schedule he should have the right to dictate to any province what rate they shall pay. Nevertheless I think that is one of the facts of the situation facing us and it would perhaps be useful if the minister would now give us, since the subject of the Old Age Assistance Act is reopened, a picture of what rates are being paid at the present time by the six provinces who now have agreements with the federal government and in respect of which the federal treasury is considering 50 per cent of the cost.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I presume the hon. member for Comox-Alberni refers to the rates paid to individuals by the various provinces?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is what I had in mind. The rates paid by the provinces to which the federal government contributes under this act for those who are in need and are not covered by unemployment insurance or any other form of assistance.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I might state, Mr. Chairman, that the average of assistance paid per individual varies greatly from province to province, in fact from $8 per person per month in New Brunswick to a range of $9 to $13 in Newfoundland, $11 to $16 in Prince Edward Island, $15 to $23 in Saskatchewan, $19 to $24 in Manitoba and $30 to $32 in British Columbia.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: So that I might be quite clear on this point, may I take it that those figures which the minister has just given are the total payments made to the individuals by the provinces, on which the federal authority reimburses them.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister repeat the figure for Newfoundland?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Newfoundland $9 to $13.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well I think those rates have just been increased again.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That could very well be.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By
leave.


Jay Waldo Monteith: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Brooks for the second reading of Bill No. 35, to amend the Pension Act.
Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition spoke extensively on this bill when it was before this house earlier at the resolution stage. We do not now propose to add to or to repeat the representations which we made at that time. We do however wish to confirm our support of this bill and to say at the same time that we feel further changes are necessary in the veterans' legislation in order to embody those representations which have been made from this side of the house and also from veterans' organizations.
The spirit of our veterans' legislation is that the veteran should always be given the benefit of doubt. Many of us have come across cases which would seem to indicate that the law is administered in accordance with the letter rather than the spirit and consequently the veterans are deprived of the benefit of doubt.
The hon. member for Kootenay West mentioned this afternoon cases of disability where the condition had been ruled to have existed prior to enlistment. We feel that any veteran who was accepted by the medical authorities on behalf of the government and inducted into any of the armed services must be given the benefit of doubt, and whether any condition existed or not, the fact that the government accepted him in that condition
Pension Act
necessitates that the government should therefore accept responsibility and rule that any condition developing afterwards was attributable to his service.
There are other cases where veterans developed conditions during service which necessitated surgical operation. Sometimes many years after his discharge another condition develops which is not related to the condition for which the operation was performed, but to the operation itself. We feel that in such cases the veteran should also receive the benefit of doubt.
There are cases of cancer development, hypertensional blood pressure, all of which developed in postwar years many years after the veteran was discharged and which have been attributed to pre-enlisted conditions. We feel in such cases they should be ruled as resulting from service.
There are also cases such as mental and nervous disorders which often develop after discharge and, in view of the hardships, the stresses and the strains to which the veteran has been subjected in his service, particularly while on active service, who is to say that these conditions would have developed had the veteran not enlisted at all. We feel in all these cases the veteran should receive the benefit of doubt.
Furthermore, there are cases resulting from incomplete records. The legislation as it is now administered gives the advantage to the type of person who reports to the medical officer for any ailment, however trivial. On the other hand, there are other veterans who in private life would never develop that kind of habit and have even made light of their illnesses although they were serious.
There were also cases when they did develop serious ailments but did not recognize them as such and therefore failed to report them at the proper time, and this was particularly so with regard to men on small vessels and patrol boats operating in rough waters. Small injuries occurred, but the servicemen did not think them worth bothering about and consequently there was no record of these happenings. Later on, when some complication developed from these injuries, the absence of a record handicapped them in having these disabilities attributed to service.
We regret that the government has not seen fit to embody in this bill the recommendations made by the Canadian Legion with respect to the special case of Newfoundland veterans. We regret also that the government has not seen fit to follow the established procedure and have this bill go before the committee on veterans affairs. However, we have been assured by the minister that a veterans affairs committee will be set up next

Pension Act
session and we hope the government will take the opportunity to give this legislation a thorough overhaul and bring in further legislation in accordance with the representations of the Canadian Legion and hon. members on this side of the house.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take very much time addressing the house because while we were on the resolution stage a number of hon. members from this group spoke and expressed their approval of the measure. The matters covered by this bill are in accordance with requests made from time to time by the committee on veterans affairs and, also, I think they go a very long way toward meeting the requests of the various veterans organizations.
When we were discussing the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs I suggested that perhaps the main weakness in the Pensions Act could be found in sections 13 and 70. Section 13 deals with disabilities of pre-enlistment origin. A great deal of time has been taken up in committees in the past in dealing with this section, and the minister has, I understand, promised that further consideration will be given to these suggestions. He has said that next session a committee on veterans affairs will be dealing with the Pensions Act and that further consideration may be given to this section at that time.
The other section is section 70-probably the most contentious section in the act,-the one about the benefit of a doubt. Here again, veterans affairs committees have spent a lot of time in the past discussing this matter, and amendments have been moved to try to improve the section, but there is still a feeling among veterans organizations that veterans today are still not getting the full benefit of the doubt. I cited a case, when we were discussing the estimates, of a veteran who had died and whose widow had been refused a pension. Since then I have received a letter from the pension commission explaining the case to me and pointing out that in the light of all the circumstances it would not be possible for them to award that widow a pension even though they gave her the full benefit of the doubt. When I raised that case I did not criticize the pension commission. I pointed out then that I believed they were going just as far as they could under the terms of section 70.
But I did suggest, and again I make the suggestion to the minister, that consideration should be given to giving the pension commission greater latitude in dealing with cases under this section. I think they should have more power and we could give them this greater power because otherwise I am sure
[Mr. Carter.!
we will continue to have complaints as we have had in the past from veterans organizations that many of the veterans who apply for help under this section are not getting the benefit of the doubt. I trust that when the committee on veterans affairs is set up next session section 70 will also be given very serious consideration.
So I will say again that we think the bill is a good bill. It goes quite a long way, and if we can make as much progress next year with regard to the other sections we will certainly have accomplished a good deal.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, there is one point I should like to raise at this time. I have taken this matter up with the minister and with the pensions board and I have received co-operation in every way, but it just seems to me that the way the law is at present this young woman I am going to talk about can get no help whatever. This young woman's husband was killed while going home on leave in France somewhere. This young woman has two children and can get no pension of any kind. I have had the matter explained to me. The way the law reads at present it seems nothing can be done for her, but I am going to appeal to the minister or to the government to take some action so that this woman may receive some pension.
When these young fellows went to the war they were promised anything they asked for. Here we have this chap buried in France somewhere. The wife is alive, and the only thing that keeps her from getting a pension is that her husband went on leave at six o'clock at night and was killed at eight o'clock. What difference does that make? He would never have been in France if he had not joined the air force. I do not want to dwell on this, but it does seem to me there is something wrong when we cannot do something for the women who are left. It is true that this man was not on duty when he was killed, but if he had not joined the air force he would have been driving a tractor or something else at home. But he joined the air force, and the defence of the department with regard to this pension is that he was not on duty at the time.
These fellows who enlist are going to be in the peace army and, just at the crack of the whip, in an hour's time, they can be in the war army, call it anything you like. I do hope the minister is going to do something about this case. I visited this lady and the two small children and believe me, gentlemen, it is a pitiful case and something should be done about it.
I have another case here. I went to the department to get information about it and

there is just one question I want to ask. It deals with a man who is getting a pension, and who becomes mentally sick and is confined to a mental hospital. I understand from the department that they pay for the hospitalization of that man, and have his pension accumulate. If he gets better, he gets the whole thing back. If he dies it reverts to the crown. I wonder if the minister thinks on a Saturday afternoon when the patient's relatives come to the hospital and take him this and take him that, surely if he has got a disability pension he should have the right to spend some of the money whether he is mentally sick or not. When you visit a hospital you often see the patients smoking. Who is going to give them their cigarettes? They should be allowed to buy their own. The same thing applies to the veterans allowance. If a man dies it reverts to the crown. That is accumulated over some time. These are situations which could be improved upon by amendments to the Pension Act.
I want to ask the minister one other thing. Is there anything left in the fund that was collected in connection with Hong Kong? Mr. Chairman, I am just wasting my wind here in talking because the minister is not even listening.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am sorry.


William Scottie Bryce: I am always as brief as I possibly can be when I rise to speak in order to save the time of the house but when I do ask a question I feel I am entitled to expect a civil answer.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I apologize to the hon. member. I was interrupted at the time as the hon. member no doubt noticed. Would he ask his question again because I followed him up to that point.


William Scottie Bryce: I would not criticize you for the world but I do want to know something about the Hong Kong fund. Is there any money left in it? I want to know what they are going to do with it. Are those people who were at Hong Kong and who are still alive going to get it? I think there were 26 people who were never found; what is going to be done with the share of the 26 missing men? My friend the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) in his remarks covered practically everything that could be said on this subject at this time and I wish to express my agreement with what he said about the disability pension being raised by one-third. When it was set it was sought to bring the basic pension up in relation to the prevailing wages in the district. In many cases it never did that and this should be taken care of. I know of many cases, and I am sure the minister knows of many too, involving people
Pension Act
who through war service have developed various conditions of ill health and ailments which render them unable to work. When they seek assistance they are advised that their condition has nothing to do with their enlistment and I think some consideration should be given to these matters.
Most of the other points I intended to deal with have been covered by the hon. member for Kootenay West and I support him 100 per cent in the requests he has made. I will be looking for answers to the questions we have raised when the minister rises to deal with our questions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
On clause 1-Retention of benefits under Civil Service Act.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might make a few remarks in connection with some of the questions that were asked. In the first place, the hon. member for Kootenay West spoke about hospitalization. I might point out that hospitalization does not come under this act. However, the hon. member mentioned some cases which came to his attention with reference to Shaugh-nessy hospital. I might say that his information is not the same as the information which we had in the department but it is our intention to investigate the criticisms that have been made by the hon. gentleman and we intend to investigate the facts. While I do not doubt the hon. member nor do I doubt the veteran who has written to him, it is often our experience that when we go over the files in these cases, we find the situation is different from what is stated in the letters which hon. members receive.
The hon. member for Kootenay West also spoke about the brief presented by the Canadian Legion; as a matter of fact, he based most of his remarks on that brief which, as hon. members know, was presented to us just a short time ago. I might point out that we have reviewed the brief with officials and representatives of the Canadian Legion and we also reviewed this bill with them. It has been nearly a month since the resolution was before the house. The bill is well known to all hon. members and also to the various veterans organizations. The Canadian Legion, I am sure, went through it with a fine tooth comb. They agreed to practically every provision in the bill with the exception of about four sections. We spent a couple of hours the other day with officials and representatives of the Legion and came to agreement with them on certain amendments to the bill.

Pension Act
With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo with reference to Newfoundland veterans, I think there is a real case there and I am very much surprised that the problem of the Newfoundland veteran has not been dealt with before this time. It should have been dealt with long ago and I am extremely surprised that this problem was not solved when the terms of confederation were discussed with Newfoundland. However, the problem which the hon. member raised with reference to the Newfoundland veteran who served with the British forces during the second world war is not different from the problem of many hundreds-I think I might say over 1,000

veterans whose domicile was in Canada before the first world war and who served in Great Britain. They receive exactly the same treatment as does the Newfoundland veteran. This is a matter which certainly should be and must be considered by a veterans committee. Any veteran who is a Canadian, whether he comes from Newfoundland or from any other part of Canada, should receive exactly the same treatment as that received by other Canadian veterans. That is my opinion and I think that would be the opinion of a veterans committee which might review the matter. I can assure the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo that it will be given every consideration.
The hon. member also mentioned the benefit of the doubt and used the words, "we feel on this side of the house". I wonder who he means by "we"? Does he mean the present opposition, the former government? I wonder why they did not feel that way over the past years? The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo was, I think, a member of the veterans affairs committee in 1952 and I did not hear him bring up this matter at that time although, as the hon. member for Acadia and other hon. members who have spoken tonight have said, this question of the benefit of the doubt has been before veterans committees on many occasions. Of course, the present opposition was then the government and were in power for some 22 years while our party has only been in power for a few months. However, this is a matter which I assure my hon. friend, will receive consideration.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to hear that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member for Acadia was very brief tonight. I may say I listened with close attention to the recommendations he made. I sat on a good many committees with him and I do not think any member of those committees gave more attention to representations by the Legion and other

veterans organizations or made sounder recommendations than did the hon. member for Acadia. We will certainly give attention to the recommendations he has made.
My very good friend, the hon. member for Selkirk, has always been very sympathetic to the veterans. No one has been more sympathetic. He mentioned some individual cases. Unfortunately the act seemingly does not provide for these cases. We will go into them again and if they can be brought under the act we will certainly be very glad to see that they are taken care of.
The hon. member referred to a mental case and wanted to know the answer. If the mental patient in hospital has a credit balance the hospital superintendent may authorize allowances for clothing and comforts. If the veteran dies the credit balance does not form part of his estate but if he has dependants they get it. The statement of the hon. member is quite correct that it would go back to the government if he had no dependants.


William Scottie Bryce: But if he has dependants it goes back to them.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It goes to his dependants. The hon. member spoke about a Hong Kong fund. I am not aware of any Hong Kong fund and I have a note from the official advising me that there is no such fund. The hon. member no doubt refers to the question of reparations. A special commission was appointed to deal with those claims which was headed by Mr. Justice Thane Campbell of Prince Edward Island.
I think these are the main points that have been brought to our attention tonight. We will be very glad to deal with any other questions which may arise as we deal with the different sections of the bill.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the minister most sincerely for the remarks he has made with respect to Newfoundland veterans, for his sympathetic attitude and for his assurance that the case of the Newfoundland veterans will be brought before a veterans affairs committee next session. The minister raised the question of why we did not bring up this matter before. There is a very simple explanation. I gave part of the explanation when I spoke on the resolution stage of the bill, but I did not want to take up the time then to go farther.
The explanation is that this kind of case had not come to our attention. The bulk of veterans cases that come to the attention of members of parliament are cases dealing with the veterans allowance, and it must be remembered, as I pointed out when

I spoke at the resolution stage, that the definition of a Newfoundland veteran in the veterans allowance act is satisfactory. We do not get very many complaints from pensioners and even those we do get are usually mixed up with the need for supplementation by veterans allowances.
The reason why we did not bring this matter up in the committee was that we did not really have any cases like these brought to our attention. We did have cases brought to our attention last year but it must be remembered that in the early part of the session the veterans affairs estimates did not come before the house and there was no opportunity to talk about the matter. In fact, it was only a short time ago that the minister brought his estimates before the house and there was an opportunity to discuss it. The minister said that there were cases similar to the Newfoundland veterans, and I think he cited British citizens who served in the Canadian forces and are now domiciled in Canada.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If the hon. member will pardon me, they were Canadians domiciled in Canada who went overseas voluntarily, joined the British forces and served with the British forces. There are over a thousand of them in exactly the same position as the Newfoundland men who went over and served with the Imperials. As a matter of fact, most of them were first war veterans but there are some second war.


Chesley William Carter: I thank the minister most sincerely because he has just outlined the point I was going to make. He said that these were Canadian citizens domiciled in Canada who voluntarily by-passed the Canadian forces, went overseas and enlisted in the British forces. Our submission is that the Newfoundlanders are not in the same position. They did not by-pass the Canadian forces because we were not a part of Canada at that time, and so we say we are different. If there is an actual force in a person's own country and he deliberately by-passes it and enlists in the armed forces of another country that is his own business and he must take the consequences, but the Newfoundlanders did not do that. Had we been part of Canada we would have enlisted in the Canadian forces, as we did during the Korean war. The fact is that we were not a part of Canada at that time and did not by-pass the Canadian forces. We did the only thing we could do and the definition in the War Veterans' Allowance Act acknowledges that and gives us full status on the same basis as if we had served in the Canadian forces.
But in the case of the Pension Act the definition is different and is not nearly so
Pension Act
clear. The trouble is both with the wording of the definition and the interpretation which the pension commission has placed upon it. I am told that during the second world war there were some members of the Royal Canadian Air Force who, because there was a shortage of airmen in Britain, were transferred to the Royal Air Force. As I understand it, they did not volunteer. There was an emergency and Britain was short of personnel to man her planes. We had men available and they were transferred to the Royal Air Force and served in that force very much in the same way as Newfoundland servicemen served in British forces, not of their own choice but because of the exigencies of the situation and because they were required as part of the war effort in an emergency.
I should like the minister to explain this matter because I am informed that when the veterans who went from the Royal Canadian Air Force to the Royal Air Force came back to Canada some sort of deal was worked out with the British ministry of pensions whereby that body agreed to pay a flat rate and the Canadian government supplemented those pensions to the full amount. If that is wrong, I should like the minister to correct me. But if it is right, we say that the same sort of treatment should be accorded to Newfoundland veterans.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I assure the hon. member that he would have persuaded me if I were not persuaded before.


Mr. Blackmore:: Before this clause is carried, I should like to bring two matters up for the consideration of the minister. Earlier in the day when the hon. member for Kootenay West was talking about certain veterans in need of treatment who, upon application to Shaughnessy hospital had been denied such treatment, the word came out that no veteran who was entitled to treatment or who was eligible for treatment was denied it. I should like to ask, what more should a man do than enlist and go through a war and be a veteran in order to entitle him to treatment in any hospital in this country? What do you mean by saying any veteran should not be entitled to help whenever he needs it and wherever he needs it?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; in the first place I never said that; and in the second place, we are not dealing with hospital treatment in this bill. Both the hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Lethbridge were out of order, as I think they will agree.


John Horne Blackmore: If the minister starts talking about being out of order we may do

Pension Act
something about it. The important fact is that this question was brought up by the hon. member for Kootenay West. The minister undertook to answer it on the first clause of the bill when we went into committee. If it is not in order for me to raise the matter and ask the minister for clarification, I am just a little astonished. I just want to raise the matter, but if I am out of order I will just say this. If any veteran who has signed up and gone through a war is not entitled to such treatment as he needs in any hospital in this country, then the sooner everybody in Canada knows about it the better.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I say to the hon. member that the whole subject of treatment is under very serious consideration and study by the department. I am encouraging that study, but I must state again that the subject does not really come under this bill.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, I raised the question and I have told you what I mean and what I think. I hope I never have to sit in this house and hear any more of this particular doctrine that has been advocated in this connection.
The next matter that troubles me deeply is that the minister, out of the kindness of his heart, and I appreciate it, said that the department was considering various cases with a view to bringing these cases under the act. The question comes to my mind, have we drafted this act for the veterans or are we trying to make the veterans fit the act? If we have not drafted the act for the sake of the veterans it seems to me that we have gone off the track a long way. It seems to me that a veterans' act ought to include all veterans. I just wish to bring that to the minister's attention. I will not bother him any more at the present time. I appreciate the fact that he said these cases are receiving very careful attention. I hope they receive more careful attention than they received from the Liberal party during the years and years I have sat here while they formed the government.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I should like to make mention of this word "entitled". Reference was made by the last speaker to the fact that any veteran who signed up and went through a war was entitled to something. I do not go along with that, and for this reason. I signed up, I went through the war and I came out with an A category. It is some time since I came out, and I do not feel I am entitled to any benefits under this act. I believe the same thing would apply to anybody who has come out with an A category because it is

twelve years since that happened and I do not think we are entitled to anything under this act.


John Horne Blackmore: I might say that it is the men who are big, fine, noble men like this who pave the way for trouble for their weaker brethren. There are plenty of men, I will agree, who go through a war and at the end of it think they are all right. However any soldier who enlists for a modern war and goes right through that war, no matter how well he feels at the end of his service he has had things happen to his make-up which will tell on him sooner or later. Consequently we must have our act and our policies so framed that any veteran who needs treatment will be taken care of at any time.


Mr. Casileden:: I should like to say that I believe the amendments to this act are in good order. There are some things here for which the Canadian Legion has been asking for a number of years and which I feel are very necessary in order to give a measure of justice to the men who served in the two wars.
I should like to endorse what the hon. member for Lethbridge has just said. As you travel through the country and visit Legion branches you find veterans of the first war who are today feeling the effects of their service in a way that they never realized they would feel them. Men who serve in a war, even when they come out with an A category, find that when they get to be 50 or 60 years of age the war has had an effect upon them. I understand that it is difficult to legislate exactly to cover all disabilities. If one interprets the act literally word for word I can see that there is a possibility of men not receiving justice who are deserving of it.
I note that the average age of veterans in Canada who are in receipt of pensions is something like 66.8 years, that is as of March, 1957. I do believe there is need for some easing of the interpretation of the act or the medical findings of the board when an application is made. I hope that the minister will ask his officers to give consideration to cases where veterans have come through the first war and who are now feeling the effects of that war. Some of these men received a pension, some received a pension and were taken off pension, and others did not receive any pension.
I have a particular case in my own constituency in mind. I wrote the minister about it some weeks ago, and I hope he is still investigating the matter. This case concerns a man who enlisted with the Canadian army in the first war. There were many volunteers from the west. This man was

stationed in the barracks in Regina. There was a call for men to go out on harvesting leave to help with the harvesting. A great many men were called out at that time. His statement to me over a period of years has been that these men were ordered to go out on harvesting leave; the men were told they were expected to go out. His statement to me is they went on leave in that regard. He was unfortunate enough, while on leave, to have his arm badly mangled and the result was an amputation.
Apparently the officials of the department at that time-that is the Department of National Defence-thought this man deserved a pension and he received a pension of some $30 or $40 per month for the balance of the war. He continued on pension until 1919. He thought that was what was going to be paid to him. He had certainly been badly disabled, but perhaps not in active service. However, the pension was cut off and he has been denied any pension since that time. He continued all through life with his arm amputated and with that disability he carried on as best he could. The man is now retired and can no longer work. The pension he receives as a result of the work in which he was engaged is very small because he was in a more or less minor position and could not receive the same wages as an able bodied person would receive. He is now over 60 years of age. His pension is so small that he and his wife find considerable difficulty in making ends meet.
He is not a complaining man. He does his bit. He is a fine citizen. The pension commission refuses him any consideration on the ground that his service while going out on harvest leave was voluntary. He states that it was not voluntary. He only has his statement against that of the pension commission and they refuse to give any consideration to the matter. I have written to the minister and have asked him to take the case up and look into it with a view to seeing whether or not this man, for the few remaining years of his life, is not as much entitled to a pension today as he was when he first received the injury. I doubt whether the matter of whether or not he was ordered to, go on leave can be finally settled at this time. I would just ask the minister to take into consideration the fact that this man volunteered to go and was willing to serve his country. He was granted a pension during the war. Public opinion probably demanded it. When the war ended or at least shortly thereafter his pension ended. The dispute about whether or not he was sent on harvest leave has been the one thing that has barred him.
Pension Act
I just draw this matter to the minister's attention and ask him if he would give this case consideration under the circumstances. If he can find proof that these men were not ordered out on harvest leave and can substantiate it, all right. But we have at any rate the statement of men who served at that time and others since then that those men were ordered out to do harvest work. Surely this is a deserving case. I am drawing it to the minister's attention and asking him if he will look into it and give me a reply to my letter.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I thank the hon. member for Yorkton for drawing my attention to this case. As a matter of fact, I recall reading the case not very long ago and looking into it. This soldier received his pension I think in 1916.


George Hugh Castleden: That is right.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is when he had his accident. The Pension Act was passed in 1919 and in the act there is a section, namely section 13 subsection (f), which reads as follows:
(f) no pension shall be paid for disability or death incurred by a member of the forces,
(i) while on leave of absence without pay_
Unfortunately under that section it is impossible to grant a pension to this man, unless that section should be amended at some time.


George Hugh Castleden: The passing of the Pension Act excluded this man, in spite of the fact that the man had done what he considered was his duty. I would ask the minister to look into the correspondence. Several appeals were made. In one case where an investigation was made of the case those who came up and presented the case to the pension commission recommended in his favour. There has been considerable correspondence over the case. The man will not be with us for too many years. I think it is a case that is deserving of more consideration than it has had at the present time. He certainly had a pension during the time that the war was on. Since that time it has been cut off through a technicality.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes. I think I recall some of the other facts of the case. The man went home to his father's farm, and it was while threshing on the father's farm that he lost his arm or it was mutiliated by the threshing machine.


George Hugh Castleden: Yes. I draw the attention of the minister to the case. In fact, he had gone home on harvest leave and when the voluntary harvest leave was completed he went back to camp. It was after he went back to camp that they were ordered to go

Pension Act
out and complete the harvest because the harvest was not completed. I think a search oi the newspaper records of the time will vindicate what he said. However, I will not take up the time of the house any longer. I believe the minister will give the case consideration later.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 1 carry?


John Horne Blackmore: May I suggest to the minister in all kindliness that I believe the house would entertain very thoughtfully any suggested change in the act which the minister thought appropriate to make. The act is not sacred as it stands.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Pension counsel.
Louis Deniset: The more I read this section, the more I am convinced that there is in it what I would call a loophole. In order to explain what I mean I think I shall be obliged to read the old section first. It reads as follows:
There may be appointed such number of persons as may be considered necessary, who shall be barristers or advocates of good standing at the bar of any of the provinces of Canada, to be officers of the department and to be called "pension counsel".
The amendment reads as follows:
There may be appointed such number of persons as may be considered necessary, who are or have been barristers or advocates of good standing at the bar of any province, as officers of the department to be called "pension counsel".
I fully appreciate the purpose of this amendment which, as is stated in the bill itself, is to permit the appointment of persons with training in law who have elected to make a career in the public service, whether or not they have continued to pay annual dues to their respective law societies.
I submit that when you look at the persons eligible, who are or have been barristers or solicitors in good standing at the bar of any province, you might have a barrister who has been in good standing for quite a number of years and yet has become disbarred. With the way this section reads at the present time I submit that you could have a disbarred solicitor appointed as pension counsel, advocate or officer of the department. I would submit quite respectfully to the minister that somewhere in there, possibly after the words "of any province", he should add the words "who have not been disbarred". Otherwise you run the danger of possibly having a disbarred solicitor appointed as counsel for the department.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I may explain to the hon. member that that point was fully considered when this bill was before the committee on legislation. It was felt that anyone who had been disbarred would not be considered for an appointment. The reason the section was changed was that in order to be in good standing with the law societies across Canada in the different provinces they would have to pay their fees. That is one of the qualifications, as the hon. member mentioned. But there are a good many younger lawyers who, after graduating, take up work with the public service. We did not think this section was broad enough to include them. The idea in changing it was to allow those younger men or men who had been in the public service and not paying fees to any barrister society to be eligible, to give them an opportunity. However, it was not felt that we were running any risk in connection with this question of disbarment; they would not be appointed.


Louis Deniset: I respectfully submit that it is not clear just the same. You are leaving yourself open. Why leave a loophole in the legislation? Why not correct it before the bill is passed?
You might have solicitors who have been in good standing for several years but who have been disbarred for, let us say, two years and then have been re-instated. What of them?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Well if they are re-instated they are in good standing.


Louis Deniset: I respectfully submit you are taking an awful chance of something like that happening. Why not have something like "have not been disbarred" or something like that. It is not because the bill has already been printed that you do not want to change it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We did not consider it necessary.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It does not change anything
much with the intention of the minister, but if it was marked on the bill it would be much clearer that a lawyer who had been disbarred would not be entitled to practise in that profession. I do not see why the minister or the government should refuse to accept the suggestion of the hon. member who has just spoken.


William Joseph Browne: If I might make a comment, I think their experience with the clause as it is at the present time should be sufficient guarantee of the adequacy of the wording they are putting in, because it says "shall be barristers in good standing". That is in the act as it stands now.


Louis Deniset: I am sorry but it does not say shall be-it says "have been".
Pension Act
On clause 16-Pension to parent where dependent.


William Joseph Browne: I am speaking of the amendment as it is today, on this page you read yourself. A man might have made some mistake in his past life and might have been disbarred and then re-instated. Well then he is a barrister in good standing so he is qualified under the present legislation. I think their experience shows they are men of good sense in selecting counsel for their departments and they will do the same thing again. I do not think the danger is as great as the hon. member believes.


Louis Deniset: Oh, I agree that we can expect a lot of good sense from the department, or any government department as a matter of fact; I think they would be very careful but you still have a loophole in there and I do not see why we should pass legislation that has loopholes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 8 agreed to.
On clause 9-Physical or mental infirmity.
William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that clause 9 be changed as follows:
Clause 9 subclause (2)-page 4, delete lines 23 to 29, both inclusive, and substitute therefor the following:
"(10a) when any pension has been awarded to a child or children of a member of the forces who, at the time of his death, was a widower and who,' during his lifetime, maintained a domestic establishment for such child or children, pension at a rate not exceeding that provided in schedule B for a widow may, in the discretion of the Commission, be paid to a daughter or other person."


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I may say, Mr. Chairman, that that is one of the recommendations of the Canadian Legion and we agree that it should be changed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
On clause 11-
William Joseph Browne: I beg to move that on page 5, line 19, the words "not more than" be deleted so that it will read:
"(b) when entitlement to pension is granted by the commission, or by an appeal board thereof, upon a date 12 months or more after the date upon which application therefor was made to the commission, from the date of grant, or, in the discretion of the commission, from a date 12 months prior to the date of grant."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister explain just how close this clause comes to meeting the requests of the Canadian Legion?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: This clause, Mr. Chairman, was considered by the officers of the department and myself with the members of the Canadian Legion just the other day. We spent some time on this clause and it was agreed that it be left as it is and they expressed the wish that when the committee was set up it would give further study to this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.	. [DOT]
Clause 17 agreed to.
On clause 18-
ivir. Browne (St. John's West): I have the same amendment to make here, Mr. Chairman, with respect to clause 18-
On page 9 at line 9 the words "not more than" t0..,.?v.deleted so that wiu read it did beforeWhere pension is awarded by the commission', or by an appeal board thereof, upon a date twelve months or more after the date of death, from the date of award, or, in the discretion of the commission, from a date 12 months prior thereto;"
Alfred Johnson Brooks: This is another recommendation of the Canadian Legion.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
On clause members.
21 Decision of remaining
William Joseph Browne: I have an amendment to move here, Mr. Chairman, to subclause (2) on page 10, line 4, to delete words "of an appeal board" and substitute therefor "on an appeal from a decision" so that the subsection will read:
An application based upon error in any decision on an appeal from a decision of the commission by reason of evidence not having been presented,-
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 25 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: the third reading of the


Louis Deniset: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to labour the point which I was discussing a minute ago, but I think it deserves attention, though it might: be considered a legal technicality. I strongly urge the minister to think it over, and possibly next time he will decide to amend the bill accordingly.

Industrial Relations


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I assure the hon. member I will think this matter over, and I thank him very-much for his suggestion.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, November 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Starr for the second reading of Bill No. 16, to provide for annual vacations with pay for employees in public works, undertakings and businesses.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, it was on November 8 that I adjourned the debate on the second reading of this bill. The house will recall that at that period of the session we had been having considerable discussion about holidays with pay. A good deal has happened here since November 8, and possibly some hon. members may have forgotten that this was one of the topics of discussion at that time.
When I rose to speak on that occasion I drew to the attention of the house the fact that a bill somewhat similar to the one the minister is bringing in had been first introduced in this house in 1956 by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Perhaps I may also remind the house at this time that a bill similar to the one which he introduced in 1956 has been under discussion in this house under another order.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out when I was speaking for a few minutes before this debate was adjourned, the principal point of difference as far as I see it between the bill which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has brought into the house and the proposal which has been brought in on behalf of the C.C.F. group by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is that the minister's bill requires that an employee shall be entitled to only one week's vacation with pay after a year of employment whereas the bill which we are proposing would require that employees be given at least two weeks vacation after one year's employment. That, Mr. Speaker, will be the principal point on which we differ from the minister in the bill which he has introduced. I made it clear that we were glad that at last we had a bill of this kind sponsored on the government side of the house, and that in general we had no quarrel with the minister for bringing in a bill the principle of which was to provide for annual vacations with pay.
One of the interesting things which was mentioned by my colleague the hon. member

for Skeena (Mr. Howard) when he spoke on November 8 was the fact that on July 27, 1956, ten of the members of the present government voted in favour of a bill which provided for two week's vacation with pay after one year's employment, and therefore we are somewhat at a loss to know why the present Minister of Labour has not seen fit to incorporate this provision into his bill. There is another point in the bill which we have under discussion which I think deserves some attention. When the minister introduced this bill on second reading, he pointed out on page 925 of Hansard that the provision for annual vacation does not apply if the employment is less than 30 days in duration.
Mr. Speaker, I have given this question a little thought. I have in my hand a copy of the bill providing for annual holidays with pay in British Columbia, and I think I should point out to the minister that there is no limiting factor such as he is suggesting in our British Columbia act. Section 5 of the annual holidays with pay for employees act of British Columbia provides in subsection 1, and I am quoting:
Where an employee's employment terminates before he becomes entitled to an annual holiday in accordance with section 4, the employer shall on the termination of employment pay to the employee in addition to any payment accruing to him for his service an amount equal to 4 per cent of his total wages and salary earned during the period of his employment.
As you will note, Mr. Speaker, there is no limiting period during which an employee must work for a given employer in order to be entitled to holiday pay. Theoretically, at least, if he has worked for one hour he is entitled to 4 per cent of that hour's wages when his employment is terminated, and while I am not suggesting that normal employment should be of that short duration, nevertheless this is an important question in respect to many of the tradesmen of our country. This was the experience we had when holidays with pay were first brought in by law in British Columbia; many of the tradesmen of our province, carpenters and plumbers and electricians to name only a few, were being disqualified from receiving the benefits of the legislation because of the fact that they normally did not work a full year for one employer.
Now I should like to suggest to the minister that the effect of this limitation in his bill will be to disqualify tradesmen who may be working in the employment of companies under federal jurisdiction.
As a result the tradesmen, if they happen to work in an undertaking under federal jurisdiction, are going to find themselves in

many cases entitled to less vacation pay than they would have if they confined their activities entirely to work under provincial jurisdiction. Certainly that will be the case in the province of British Columbia and I think that is a point well worth consideration because of the fact that workers in those categories normally do not engage in a continuous period of employment with any one particular employer. In their case at least there would be no validity to an argument being advanced that attachment to a certain employer for a given minimum period should be a requirement of entitlement to holiday pay.
This bill, of course, is confined to providing vacations with pay for those who are not employed by the federal government but who do come under federal labour jurisdiction. However, I think it should be considered in relation to the provisions which do apply to those who are directly employed by the federal government. According to information I received on a quick check of this matter I believe those who are classified as civil servants receive one and one-half days off for each month with pay for the purpose of vacation up to a maximum of 18 days exclusive of Sundays and holidays in one fiscal year.
Generally speaking those who are in the category of being prevailing rate employees receive one week after one year of service and two weeks after two years of service but there is one particular classification of people employed by the federal government for whom no provision for holidays is made. I refer to those who are considered to be casual employees. Those are people who may work for the government for a period of time and in this case, we will say, then work for an employer who comes under federal labour jurisdiction; as it stands those people are going to be entitled to less than the normal period of vacation with pay.
I think it might be well worth considering when we are passing a bill providing vacations with pay for employees under federal labour jurisdiction we should at the same time pick up these loose ends of employment in the government service. The minister should consider this question in relation to this bill and should be prepared before consideration of it is completed to bring in some appropriate amendment to the bill which would ensure that those who are in the direct employ of the government of Canada in any capacity are not going to be entitled to vacations with pay under conditions less favourable than those that are going to be provided in this bill.
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since it is within two minutes of ten o'clock perhaps you might permit me to move the adjournment of the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Has the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre permission to move the adjournment of the debate at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On motion of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what will be the business for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall commence with item No. 9 on today's order paper, the second reading of the bill to provide for the stabilization of the prices of agricultural commodities and then take the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Justice.


George Carlyle Marler: Has the house leader been able to peer into the future as far as Saturday?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, it is rather
dangerous to peer very far ahead in this parliament, I think. I am not sure yet about Saturday. We may go on with the agricultural bill or we may take estimates and if we do take estimates we would take the same two departments, and possibly add one or two more departments just for good measure.


George Carlyle Marler: There is no law against optimism.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the rumours that some of the employees around the building have heard to the effect that the government might change its plans and have us adjourn tomorrow night, may I ask whether or not that is correct?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, now I know where the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre gets a lot of his information.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
must admit they are a very good source.


Howard Charles Green: I am hoping that the Prime Minister will be back in his seat on Saturday morning. There is no intention whatever of adjourning tomorrow night.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on December 2, 1957.
[Stage Direction]
Questions ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
The following answers deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Bourgel: 1.	Has the government decided not to proceed during the present fiscal year with certain of the
projects provided for in the main and supplementary estimates of the Department of Public Works?
2.	If so, what projects?
Answer by:	Mr. Hodgson, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	Yes.
2.	The projects listed below:
Location	Project	Reason
New Glasgow, N.S	
Oromocto, N.B	
Dorion, P.Q	
Nicolet, P.Q	
Quebec, P.Q	
Morrisburg, Ont	
Emerson, Man	
Glacier National Park, B.C London, England	
Architectural Projects
Federal building	 Site unsettled.
Federal building	 Site unsettled.
Federal building	 Drawings had to be changed.
Federal building	 Site unsettled.
Postal terminal	 Site unsettled.
Post office	 Site unsettled.
Customs building	 Requirements changed.
Federal housing	 Alternative scheme	being investigated.
Canadian government building.. Site unsettled.
Engineering Projects
Glace Bay, N.S	
Harbour improvements	
The original project has been found unsatisfactory and alternate proposals are being studied.Pleasant Harbour, N.S	
Breakwater-wharf	
Site changed to Carter's Point.
(Glawson's Cove)
Port Hood, N.S	 Breakwater	 Borings show that known deposits of rock
do not continue in depth and as a result the cost of securing the rock has greatly exceeded the original estimate. Efforts are continuing to find suitable rock at a reasonable cost.
Port Medway, N.B. (Long Cove) Breakwater reconstruction	 Site has not been acquired.
Back Bay, N.B
Wharf extension	 This project requires further study to effect
most economic method of repair.
Ste. Agathe des Monts, P.Q. Wharf	 Site not obtained.
(Lac des Sables)
St. Flavie, P.Q	 Dredging	 This was to remove old wharf. Project was
abandoned after many protests.
Mutton Bay, P.Q	
Wharf	
Site has not yet been acquired.Pointe au Pere, P.Q	
Wharf improvements	
It has been found necessary to carry out
further planning.
Riviere du Loup, P.Q	 Wharf improvements	 Detailed borings on the site have shown that
a very expensive type of construction would be required to provide the improvements.
Little Cascapedia River, P.Q... Dredging	 Bathurst Power & Paper Co. were to share
cost with Department of Public Works. Company advised that dredging was unnecessary because they had revised their proposed construction layout.



LABOUR FORCE


Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What was the total number of workers added to the labour force In Canada in each year from 1953 to 1957, inclusive?
2.	What was the total number of unemployed in Canada on or about December 10, in each year from 1953 to 1957, inclusive?
3.	What was the total number of unemployed registered at the Edmundston, Campbellton and Bathurst offices on or about December 10, 1956?
4.	What was the total number of unemployed registered at the same offices on or about December 10, 1957?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
1. Growth of the labour force-1953-1957 (in thousands)
1952-	1953	+ 681953-	1954	+ 431954-	1955	+1311955-	1956	+148
1956 (to Nov.)-1957 (to Nov.) +209 (difference between eleven month average in 1956 and 1957).
2.	Latest available data on without jobs and seeking work Nov. 16, 1957 from DBS monthly labour force survey. Comparable dates for previous year used.
Without jobs and seeking work (in
thousands):
Nov.	21,	1953	
153Nov.	20,	1954	
215Nov.	19,	1955	
162Nov.	17,	1956	
135Nov.	16,	1957	
292
Questions
3.	Registrations at N.E.S. offices-December 6, 1956
Bathurst	 1,676
Campbellton	 778
Edmundston	 752
4.	Registrations at N.E.S. offices-December 5, 1957 (Latest available information)
Bathurst	 3,096
Campbellton	 1,577
Edmundston	 1,725



VETERANS HELPLESSNESS ALLOWANCE

Mr. Benidickson: 1.	How many veterans are now in receipt of the maximum $1,800 helplessness allowance?
2.	How many of those receiving the maximum $1,800 helplessness allowance are pensioned for the condition or disability for which attendance is needed?
3.	How many veteran paraplegic pensioners are there at the present time and how many of these receive the present maximum $1,800 per annum helplessness allowance?
Answer by: Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):
As at December 17, 1957
1		   54
2		 50
3.	(a)	  185
(b)	  6

Colombo Plan Projects