1957-11-08

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Algoma East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to recent developments and particularly in view of the references to the matter made by President Eisenhower in his address to the American people last night, he would make a full statement to this house at the earliest possible date on defence co-operation between the United States and Canada and, more particularly, on co-operation in the field of defence research and development.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will discuss
the matter with the hon. gentleman, and as soon as possible a statement will be made.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received any communication from the province of Saskatchewan that would indicate any change in the responsibilities which that province has already accepted with regard to the building of the South Saskatchewan dam? Further, what action is this government taking to meet with the province of Saskatchewan to discuss an early start on the dam construction project, as promised by the Prime Minister during the course of the election campaign?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as far as the promise to proceed with the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam is concerned, that promise will be carried out just as soon as the province of Saskatchewan and the federal government have arrived at a decision as to the distribution of financial responsibility for the construction work. I hope that at an early date a meeting can be arranged.
As far as the practicability of the scheme is concerned, and its feasibility, we believe that has been determined. There is no need to convince the members of this government and of this party as to feasibility and practicability. All that remains is to reach an agreement as to the division of responsibility, and I hope that steps to achieve that agreement will be taken at the earliest possible date.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker; did the Prime Minister indicate that there has been any indication from the province of Saskatchewan that they would not accept the responsibility which they have already stated they would accept in connection with the dam?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I speak entirely from recollection. The only information I have had as to a changed viewpoint was contained in press references-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -in connection with a statement reported to have been made by the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan, that in his opinion the entire cost should be borne by the federal government. As far as any direct communication to that effect is concerned, there has been no suggestion that I have received any communication of that nature; but I take it that if the treasurer was correctly reported he would be speaking for the government of Saskatchewan.



SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister, if I may. In view of the aptitude of socialists generally, and the Douglas government in Saskatchewan in particular, for loading their responsibilities on someone else, would not the Prime Minister, in making his unqualified commitment to start construction of the South Saskatchewan dam within six months of being elected, naturally anticipate that he would be called upon to fulfil his promise himself and without regard to the attitude of the provincial government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I say to the hon. member that he must have composed

Inquiries of the Ministry that speech with very great care. It is one of those questions that does not seem to seek an answer.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. G. W. Ashbourne (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What progress has been made in providing a new hospital at Gander, and also what facilities for hotel accommodation will be made available when the construction of the new terminal at Gander will have been completed?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as I received no notice of the question I will take up the matter with my department and report on Monday.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the genial Minister of Labour. In view of the number of unemployed immigrants from Great Britain and other countries who have not qualified for unemployment insurance and who in many cases are destitute, would the minister inform the house what assistance is being rendered these immigrants by the federal government?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to answer that question.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility for the welfare of immigrants during the first 12 months after their admission to Canada is discharged by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. There are some existing agreements with the provinces, but generally speaking the responsibility is a direct responsibility of the dominion government which assumes and discharges that responsibility to look after the welfare of immigrants to the fullest extent.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to ask the minister a supplementary question, in view of his answer to my question. Does the minister know that British immigrants who came to this country since the first of this year have been unemployed for a period of time? They served for 12 years in the armed forces of the commonwealth, and when they applied for assistance

at the unemployment insurance office they were told there was none and that under the law they were liable to deportation. Does the minister not think we could also provide $3 a day assistance for those splendid immigrants?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not aware of the cases to which my hon. friend has referred. If he brings any specific cases to my attention I shall be glad to look into them, because I would be inclined to agree, on the basis on which he has put it, that it is not a proper attitude with which to receive those people.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there any assistance legally available to those immigrants from Great Britain or other countries who are unemployed and not eligible for unemployment insurance?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are responsibilities accepted by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I am not able to give the hon. gentleman the details at the moment, but if he wishes it I will get the detailed answer and let him have it as soon as possible.



HUNGARIAN REFUGEES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Caslleden (Yorkton):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in that regard. I wonder if the minister would tell us whether or not the government has made arrangements to accept another group of Hungarian refugees from Yugoslavia. If so, how many, and have arrangements been made to provide a thorough medical examination on their entry into this country?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. gentleman raised the question. I had intended to follow up my previous remarks immediately with a reference to that matter.
It has been decided to admit 700 Hungarian refugees from Yugoslavia.	The United
Nations high commissioner for refugees visited Ottawa early in October and made representations to us, as he told us he was doing to all other countries which he felt would be in a position to receive these refugees. There were at that time some 4,800 Hungarian refugees in Yugoslavia who had indicated they would wish to emigrate, and we have been informed that there is virtually no winter accommodation for them in that country, with the result that if countries in a position to receive them did not do so the fact would be that these men and women would face the most desperate hardship in Yugoslavia during the winter months.

Accordingly the Canadian government agreed to receive 700 of those who are in the refugee camps in Yugoslavia.
I have a table, Mr. Speaker, showing the number of these refugees in Yugoslavia which various countries have agreed to take, and with the 700 now agreed to be received by Canada the total we will have taken from Yugoslavia will be 1,779. In order to select and process these refugees we are sending an immigration team to Yugoslavia, which is expected to arrive about November 20.


George Hugh Castleden: What about their medical examinations?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The immigration team will take care of that aspect of the situation, but this is essentially a humanitarian refugee movement.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: Does the minister intend to reverse the previous policy of admitting even those who could not satisfy the medical requirements, if they were otherwise satisfactory?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I can give a categorical answer to the question in the form in which it was asked. I think we would have to look at every case and see just what were the implications. That is one of the purposes of sending the team; but as the house knows, because of the emergency and humanitarian nature of this movement, it is a fact that standards of admissibility were relaxed. The humanitarian aspects of the situation are accentuated here because if somebody does not take these refugees they will be in a really desperate position during this winter in Yugoslavia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask another supplementary question, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister consider very carefully continuing the policy of receiving a fair proportion of those who cannot satisfy the medical requirements, instead of leaving them on the doorstep of another country? That was the policy we have followed up to now, and I think we should continue it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Since it was put in the form of a question I can assure the hon. member and the house that the fullest and most sympathetic consideration will be given to the principle that he has put forward, but I cannot give a categorical answer as to just what are the details of the standards that will be applied to each case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a related question to ask the minister. I would like the minister, if he could, to tell the house whether we are continuing to take Hungarian refugees from Austria. I believe there are some 30,000 in that country.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edmund Davie Fulton: The figure I have is not as high as 30,000. There are some Hungarian refugees coming in at the present time if they comply with the terms of the directive which was issued, I think, on July 9 or July 10. Although in accordance with that directive the movement of Hungarian refugees to Canada was reduced for the winter months, there are still a few coming in.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the report that Canada's Minister of Agriculture at the FAO conference in Rome has expressed opposition to the proposal that the FAO budget be increased by $2 million?
In view of the critical world food problem, both in deficit and surplus areas, does the Prime Minister not feel that such a modest increase for FAO purposes is justified?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to forward to me a copy of the press dispatch to which he has made reference. However, a reading of the press dispatch does not indicate that the Minister of Agriculture expressed opposition to the increase asked for by the director general. He questioned whether or not that expenditure would be efficiently absorbed in the coming two years. There was no finality in the words he used, no expressed opposition.
My own attitude, and I am sure that of the minister, is that FAO has done an outstanding job in correlating the activities of agriculture in all parts of the world represented in that organization. Anything that can efficiently be done by an increase within reasonable limits in the expenditures asked for by the organization will certainly receive favourable consideration on the part of this government.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: May
I just say that we are not so much concerned with the use of the word "opposition" as we are with whether the press report and its headline are an accurate reflection of the position of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: I am reading from the press report and it says that "the Canadian minister . . . questioned whether increases of the size proposed by the director general can be widely and efficiently absorbed". I

Inquiries of the Ministry do not see the word "opposition" anywhere. That may be an interpretation of what took place-


Major James William Coldwell: I saw it in a headline.


John George Diefenbaker: -but I do not join in that interpretation.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville):: May
I ask a supplementary question. I had the same matter before me, and I have the press report from the Montreal Gazette. The heading is, "Canada Warns Against FAO Spending Increase." The first sentence in the article is in these words:
Canada, which pays the fifth highest share toward the operation of the U.N. food and agriculture organization, warned today against increases in FAO spending.
Of course I understand that the question under discussion was whether they would increase the amount of spending over last year by one-third. The implication here is that Canada opposed an increase in expenditure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the Prime
Minister replies, I am not suggesting that the question is out of order but may I just say it has been decided that it is not the function of the question period to verify the truth or otherwise of newspaper reports. If questions concerning the government's intention or decision or action arising out of such reports are asked, that is appropriate, but it seems to me that we are dealing with the verification of what is said in newspapers, which is not a duty of the ministry.


James Garfield Gardiner: With deference to the
opinion you have expressed, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the question asked was whether the government was opposed to increased expenditures by FAO, and the question was raised whether the article said that. The article does say that, but I should like to know what is the policy of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: The right hon. gentleman said that my interpretation of what the article says is that the position is one of opposition. I was reading portions of the quotations of what the minister stated, not the interpretation placed upon the matter by the headline writer or in the first paragraph.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to ask a supplementary question. As I understand it, the question which I attempted to repeat was, are the government in favour of increased expenditure by FAO or are they opposed to it?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, now that the right hon. gentleman has asked a question rather than indulged himself in the luxury of interpretation by observation, I may say that the attitude of this government is that everything that should be done and could be done by FAO to expand the development of agriculture and to dispose of surpluses will receive the favourable consideration of this government.
ILater.[DOT]]


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a further supplementary question to the Prime Minister in regard to the FAO matter. I would like to ask him if at any time he has indicated what instructions were given to our delegation to the FAO conference and, if he has not already done so, would he do so now?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, from one member I get advice that I should not give instructions; then I am criticized for the suggestion that instructions have not yet been given.
As far as the FAO conference is concerned, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) is attending there as well as other representatives, and the stand they will take in general regarding the matters that are brought before that organization will, I am sure, merit not only the appreciation of the government but of the people as a whole.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister or any of his officials given any thought to the placing of a radar reflector on a rock in the LaHave river known as Black rock, on which the Baffin went aground?


George Harris Hees: I should like to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The answer is yes; but the erection of a radar reflector on Black rock would be a difficult and costly project, particularly at this season of the year in that the rock is awash at certain stages of the tide and a heavy concrete foundation would have to be placed in order to raise the reflector beyond wave action.
As an alternative a radar reflector has been placed on the LaHave gas and whistle buoy and the buoy has been moved to a new
(Mr. Diefenbaker.)

position, latitude 40-10-29 north, longitude 64-16-03 west, so as to provide a better approach and clearance of Black rock. The installation and change were made on October 29, and were covered by a notice to shipping, broadcast by the Halifax agency.



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER    REFERENCE TO STATEMENT ON KEEPING SHIPPING LANES OPEN IN WINTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourgei (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. The minister made a statement yesterday regarding winter navigation in the lower St. Lawrence river, and said that plans are now under consideration for an extension of the service to provide improved coverage. Can the minister inform the house if by extension of the service he meant that plans are now being prepared for the construction of new icebreakers?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker. I was dealing with our plans for icebreaking operations for this year, and I outlined that one additional icebreaker would be used and we hoped that two would be used. I was not dealing with plans for the construction of additional icebreakers.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. What action has been taken by the government to establish crown corporations in the Atlantic provinces to support industrial decentralization, in accordance with the Atlantic resolutions?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, whenever action is taken it will be communicated to the house.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: In answer to a question by the hon. member for St. John's East concerning Signal hill, I wish to say that the government proposes to have Signal hill declared a national historic park as soon as the necessary details of the survey conducted by the surveyor general of Canada are obtained this year. The work involved at
Inquiries of the Ministry Signal hill was reconstruction of the main entrance road. Next year it is proposed to construct an entrance gateway to the park and to undertake structural repairs to Cabot tower.



INQUIRY AS TO REVISION OF REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and, in his absence, to whoever is looking after that department. Some time ago I asked a question of the minister regarding the revision of the National Parks Act and a particular question regarding Banff. The minister at that time indicated he did not have any information on the subject and if I would send him some he would be prepared to make a statement in the house. I supplied him with some information several days ago, but as yet I have not received an answer to my question. I wonder if the minister would now take this under consideration and be prepared to give an answer on Monday?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the minister to whom the question was directed was required to leave the chamber for a few minutes to attend to other duties. I will see that it is brought to his attention and answered at the first opportunity.



MISSION TO UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he is now in a position to answer a question I put to him some days ago, as to whether or not he proposes to head the trade delegation soon to leave Canada for the United Kingdom. Perhaps he will recall also that I asked at the same time if he would take advantage of that visit, if he went, to discuss with his opposite number the Prime Minister's proposal for the diversion of trade purchases from the United States to Great Britain, and likewise the United Kingdom proposal for a free trade area as between the United Kingdom and Canada. On that occasion the hon. gentleman replied by saying he would have to discuss this matter with the Prime Minister. Has he now received the Prime Minister's permission so to do?
May I say that this is perhaps a good occasion upon which to ask this question, it being the minister's birthday anniversary, upon which I sincerely congratulate him.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, after reading the complimentary article about the hon. gentleman in the Citizen last night I shall have to examine that last sentence very closely in Hansard tomorrow to see that there is no hidden meaning. However, taking it at face value I thank him for his remarks on the occasion of the anniversary of my birthday. I hope the next 59 years will be as interesting as the first 59 have been.
With regard to the question he has put to me, I have not had a chance to refer back to Hansard, but it appears to be framed along similar lines to a question I thought I had answered. I do not recall having said I would need to consult the Prime Minister regarding the question the hon. member asked. I can say to him that I will be heading the trade mission to the United Kingdom; and if the house will permit me so to do, when we assemble at 2.30 this afternoon I would ask permission to make a statement at that time. (See pages 910-11.)
The balance of the long question of the hon. member was answered on the other occasion, and I do not think his question should be repeated now.
[Later:!


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he does not consider it desirable to revise a reply he made in answer to a question a few moments ago, in view of what he said in answer to the question I put to him on October 31, when among other things he said, at page 599:
I will be heading up the trade mission to England if the Prime Minister decides that I should go.
I should also like to ask if, likewise, he will not revise the answer he made on the same page on the same day:
I have not yet received any instructions as to whether I am to consult with any member of the British government with regard to any other questions.
That is on page 599, in the left hand column. They are memorable words.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on reading my answer given on October 31, 1957, I am quite pleased with the clarity of the reply.



CODFISH-STATEMENT ON REPORTED ACTION BY JAMAICA TO SHUT OUT IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question yesterday by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) in these terms:
Will the minister state what action the government is taking in connection with the threatened

action of the government of Jamaica in shutting out the imports of salt codfish from the Atlantic provinces?
Acting on instructions, the Canadian trade commissioner in Jamaica has had interviews with both the chief minister and the minister of trade and industry in Jamaica, at which time a full explanation of our desire to continue to trade on a friendly and unrestricted basis was placed before the Jamaican officials. The reasons why increased prices were needed for salt codfish were fully explained. The Jamaican officials were informed that Canadian fishermen would suffer if a satisfactory settlement was not reached, and that it was hoped that the threat to prohibit imports from Canada would be removed.
In reply the Jamaican chief minister denied that imports of Canadian salt codfish are to be prohibited. He further stated that the government of Jamaica planned to invite tenders from all sources of supply for its requirements of 4,800 metric tons. The closing date for tenders is today, November 8. Consequently, the Canadian salt fish trade have submitted tenders through our trade commissioner in Jamaica, and we are awaiting the result.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the reply he just gave to the hon. member for Trinity-Conception. Is it not a fact that the conditions attached to the tenders called by the Jamaican government require that a sample shipment be sent along with the tender, and that the closing date of today which he has just mentioned has the effect of preventing any such shipment or any tenders coming from Newfoundland?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have not all the facts which appear to be at the disposal of the hon. member. I think in the course of the representations made by our trade commissioner to the officials at Jamaica some of these points were dealt with, and my hope is that some of those conditions might not have to be fulfilled prior to determining the tender.
iLater:l


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not get all the answer the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave in reply to my question. I would like to ask him whether he would be good enough to inquire further into the details of those tenders required by the Jamaican government, and if he finds that the facts are as I stated them will he take further steps to make sure that Newfoundland fish will not be barred from the Jamaican market?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly do everything possible to make sure that the Newfoundland market for fish in Jamaica is protected, and I will make the investigation the hon. member has requested.



REFERENCE TO STATEMENT ON MISSION TO COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I
ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of his statement in the house on November 1, at page 654 of Hansard, to the effect that in December, 1955, China was listed as falling within the responsibility of Canada's trade commissioner in Hong Kong. Can the minister explain, in view of that statement, why the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce dated March 1, 1957, lists the territory covered by this trade commissioner as Formosa, Cambodia, Laos, Viet Nam and Macao, and makes no reference to China at all?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have simply relied on the information obtained on the action taken by the late administration.



REFERENCE TO SURVEY ON RESULTS OF SMOKING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question. I hope he will forgive me for not giving him notice of the question, but he can take this as notice. The former minister of national health and welfare had one of his departments do considerable research on the effect of the use of tobacco on the cause of cancer.


Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the hon. member is asking whether or not my department is making such a study. I shall certainly have the matter looked up and will then report to the hon. gentleman.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you.



GLASLYN, SASK.-ALLOCATION OF BOX CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Hornby Harrison: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. He may wish to take it just as notice. In view of a wire that I have received this morning-a copy of which I will send to him immediately after the orders of the day are concluded-which states that the town of Glaslyn has had only 96698-57
Inquiries of the Ministry eight box cars for the delivery of grain since the opening of the crop year on October 1, as against 50 for the same period last year, I wonder whether the minister would look into that situation and see what can be done.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look into it.



STATEMENT ON 1956-57 WHEAT, OATS AND BARLEY POOLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the house whether the Canadian wheat board will be making interim or final payments on the 1956 or 1957 crop in the very near future? I think it is unnecessary for me to point out to the minister the financial straits of many prairie farmers.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this question, I think, was originally asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) some time ago. I am prepared to give some information to the house on this important matter, after consultation with the wheat board in relation to the 1956-57 oats, barley and wheat pools.
The board states that with regard to the 1956-57 oats pool, there is still some selling to do before the pool can be closed out and that unless there is a sharp change in the market situation there may not be a surplus for distribution to producers. This results from relatively low prices during the selling period of the 1956-57 oats pool account and some increase in carrying charges for the account of this pool.
In regard to the 1956-57 barley pool, the situation is different. It is definitely in the black. Further selling is necessary, however, before the pool can be closed. It should be wound up before the end of the calendar year and the final payment made to producers.
The 1955-56 wheat pool account was closed as of May 3, 1957; therefore the 1956-57 wheat account has been under sale for a period of only about five and a half months. The volume of wheat in the 1956-57 pool is 519 million bushels. Having in mind the volume of wheat in the pool and the short time during which the pool has been under sale, hon. members will appreciate the fact that it is impossible at the present time to assess the pool in terms of an interim payment. I might add that in the case of the 1955-56 wheat pool an interim payment was

Inquiries of the Ministry made. This payment was not established until Mr. Robichaud: When the minister answers February, 1957. The wheat board expects will he also state whether facilities will be that another three or four months of selling made available to the fisheries council of experience is required before the 1956-57 Canada, fish dealers, and producers to appear wheat account can be examined from the before a committee of the house to discuss standpoint of an interim payment.	the amendments that will be made?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. In the light of the obvious decline in prices of grain generally, and the announcement that there will be no further payment on oats, will the minister say whether the government has considered the many requests of farm organizations that a deficiency payment be made at this time, which would in effect be an interim payment, on all these grains?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the question of deficiency payments has been raised on several occasions and brought to my attention. I notice it is receiving increasing emphasis at meetings of farm organizations. The government fully appreciates the condition in which agriculture has found itself over the last few years, and evidence of the government's concern was given last month when the proposal for making cash advances on farm-stored grain was put before the house, a proposal which was accepted as a suitable measure by hon. members opposite.
We are giving extremely close attention to agriculture in this country, and every suggestion that comes from farm organizations or from hon. members will receive very close attention. We consider that this is a matter which requires action at the present time if at all possible, and this government is quite prepared to do everything in its power on behalf of agriculture.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister advise the house if his department has taken any decision with regard to amending the regulations under the Fish Inspection Act in order to introduce during the 1958 season compulsory inspection of fresh fish and, if so, would he suggest what stage of the production, processing or marketing will be covered by such inspection?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration. I have not had notice of the question, but I will be glad to take what the hon. member has said as notice, and give him a reply at the first opportunity.


John Angus MacLean: I will take that also as notice.



LAMPREY EELS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister any recent information on the effectiveness of poisons and are there plans to use them against the lamprey eel in inland waters, especially in lake Superior? I ask the question because of press reports of sensational success in the use of those poisons.


John Angus MacLean: A great deal of research is being done by the fisheries research board into this very vexing question of the infestation of the great lakes by lampreys. I am not familiar with the press reports to which the hon. member refers, but I will have the matter looked into and reply at a later time.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I recognize the Minister of Transport may I say that two of the last three questions might much better have been put on the order paper. They do not have the urgency that requires their introduction at this stage. As the house will observe, we have now spent an hour on questions, and I hope members who still have questions in mind will consider whether they are properly asked here or might just as well be dealt with on the order paper.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES CANADA COUNCIL  SUGGESTED SCIENCE SCHOLARSHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: I call upon the hon. member for Macleod. May I say that effective Monday the microphone will be lowered somewhat to make it easier for hon. members to hear me when I am seated.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is based on the fact that apparently the other day he declined to say whether the federal government is planning any assistance by way of scholarships in the field of science. Since there is an evident need for an acceleration of scientific studies and training in certain fields of science, would the government consider that the

Inquiries of the Ministry
awarding of scholarships in this field should over at the end of their runs, and my under -be part of the responsibility of the Canada standing is that that was done by regulation. Council?	Is this problem not analogous to that one?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman is well based. However, I am not so sure that at the present time the granting of scholarships by the Canada Council will completely cover the situation in connection with scientific education. However, that matter and that suggestion will be looked into, and I thank the hon. member.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Finance, arising out of his answer to a previous question regarding requests by trade union groups that transportation and living expenses incurred by travelling construction workers be allowed for income tax purposes? In view of what the minister said to the effect that an injustice exists, due, as he explained, to the bungling of the previous government, what action does the present government propose to take to right this wrong?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I pointed out to the hon. member when he asked this question the other day that this does not appear to be a problem which can be solved by regulation, as he suggested at that time. The matter has been carefully looked into to see whether there is any power open to the government to exercise by way of regulation, but the problem is a difficult one, having regard to the difficulty of defining what is intended to be covered. The whole subject is under careful study, as I indicated in my answer of several days ago.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The minister states that this is not a question that can be settled by regulation. Does he then suggest it can be done by legislation? If so, what legislation or amendments does the government propose to bring in to meet this problem?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member has been in the house long enough to know that legislation of the kind he asks for is not announced in advance, but only at a particular point in the session.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, some years ago similar concessions were made to railwaymen who had to stay 96698-57J


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member will recall that legislation was passed on this subject in the house about a year and a half ago, introduced by the former minister of finance, despite opposition from the then official opposition. The subject is not a simple one to deal with now in the light of all the circumstances, but the matter has been under very close study for some time, and representations have been received from various interests, not simply from labour but from the construction industry. These representations have been very carefully considered and weighed.


Major James William Coldwell: That does not deal with my point about the railwaymen.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As far as the railwaymen are concerned I recall the matter, because I had something to do with raising the question myself then. As I remember the circumstances-I will not attempt to comment now merely from recollection-so far as persons incurring expenses in the course of being transported and being recompensed for these outlays is concerned, there is no problem in that respect, where the transportation is undertaken in pursuance of duties as employees.
The problem that is under consideration now, however, relates to the construction worker who is living away from home in the course of his employment and receives from his employer an allowance for board and lodging, the question then being whether he should be relieved of taxation on the income he receives for board and lodging. That is the problem, and there are very considerable difficulties involved in regard to the definition drawing the line.
I would ask my hon. friend to recognize that the problem is not nearly as simple as it may appear on the surface, and it is because of those complications that the matter has had to be given extended consideration. It is not a problem of our creation.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, and, in his absence, to his parliamentary assistant. It has been indicated that the government of the province of Ontario is withdrawing its support on cheese. If this is true, is it the intention

Inquiries of the Ministry of this government to increase the support price to offset the effect of Ontario's withdrawal on this very important commodity?


Mr. John Charlton (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Well, Mr. Speaker, this again is a matter of government policy. I am not suggesting that the statement the hon. member has made is not correct, but I will look into it, and the government, when it changes its policy, will announce it in the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the policy?



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry Joseph Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Will the government introduce legislation this session to increase the pensions paid by the government to former employees of the Intercolonial Railway, which he himself has termed totally inadequate; and does he not consider this to be emergency legislation?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is another of those questions which use up the time of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Promises.


John George Diefenbaker: It is another of those improper questions that are being asked as to what is going to be done by this government in the future.


Pierre Gauthier: Promises.


John George Diefenbaker: I might say, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the desire on the part of the hon. member which was not apparent in the house under the last government for action in this regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who is using up the time of the house now?


Henry Joseph Murphy: It was; read your Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: I would simply point out that when a decision is made it will be announced to the house.


Pierre Gauthier: Promises.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Read your Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the right hon. Prime Minister is raising a point of order, but I do suggest to the house that

the general question of whether or not the government intends to introduce legislation seems to me to be improper in the question period, because it is asking the government to announce its policy at question time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That has been done from time immemorial.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question of how far matters of policy can be raised during question time is a rather difficult one. I do not propose to make any ruling, but I would like to take an opportunity soon to give my views on the subject and see if I can clarify the difference between asking the government its intention with respect to its administration and daily responsibilities, and asking it to declare broader matters of policy which obviously cannot be dealt with at question time. If the house will allow me to prepare something for its guidance on that subject and submit it to the house I welcome the opportunity.


Pierre Gauthier: I think the difference is the promises they make.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond O'Hurley (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek some clarification from the Minister of Transport concerning a rumour spread by a Montreal newspaper to the effect that damages have been claimed by the authorities of the Montreal cathedral against the Canadian National Railways authorities responsible for building the new Queen Elizabeth hotel. Is the minister aware if such damages have occurred and if a claim has been made? If this is the case, will payment be considered?


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. When I heard of this story this morning I made inquiries, and the management of the Canadian National Railways advise me that there has been no damage to the cathedral; that there has been no claim and, of course, no payment made. The management further advise me that the closest co-operation has been maintained between the railway and the diocese throughout the construction of the hotel, and that that co-operation is very much appreciated by the management.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the reports of Mr. Belyea, chief air pollution control officer of the municipality of metropolitan Toronto, that the tremendous amount of the air pollution coming from the railway roundhouses and locomotives in the city of Toronto is alarming; in view of the fact that an Ontario legislature select committee on air pollution and smoke control noted that "in Ontario, railways still operate under the provisions of an obsolete order of the board of transport commissioners of 1908" which reduces the efficacy of smoke-control laws in Toronto; and in view of the possible air pollution by ships that will be coming to the Toronto harbour when the St. Lawrence seaway project is completed, he will ask his officials to look into the matter and co-operate with the air pollution control officer to reduce this hazard to health and property.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to do that.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Blake Huffman: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. This question follows the question of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) on November 6 regarding the dismissal of a government employee in Brantford. In his question the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked specifically about one employee. It does appear that there was more than one involved in the dismissal and rehiring. When the minister is replying will he include all who were concerned in this issue?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: I will be very glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.



SOCIAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry Joseph Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Inquiries of the Ministry Is the minister aware that the purchasing power of family allowances is being destroyed by inflationary pressures, and what action does he propose to take to increase family allowances?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Why don't you read Beauchesne?


Henry Joseph Murphy: I read the
Conservative promises.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) asked me if it was the intention of the Canadian National Railways to undertake a $17 million extension of freight yard facilities at Moncton. I am sure he has seen the announcement in this morning's press that the Canadian National Railways are undertaking such an extension.



LACHINE SECTION, ST. LAWRENCE RIVER-STATEMENT ON APPLICATION BY QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: On November 1 the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) asked me this question:
Can the minister tell the house whether the government of the province of Quebec has made an application to his department under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the development of power in the Lachine section of the St. Lawrence river?
I answered on November 5 to the effect that there had been no such application. The hon. member then asked me a supplementary question as to whether, falling short of a formal application, representations have been made in that direction to the Department of Public Works. The answer to that supplementary question is yes. In 1956 the Quebec Hydro Electric Commission asked what technical demands or requirements would be imposed on the commission by the Department of Public Works in connection with the Lachine water power project. The reply was made that the interests of the Department of Public Works would appear to be limited to the protection of navigation, but other departments would also be concerned. Nothing further transpired between the Department of Public Works and the Quebec Hydro Electric Commission.

Pension Act PENSION ACT



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING DEPENDANTS, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 6, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Brooks-Mr. Courtemanche in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Pension Act to place dependants of persons who served in world war II in a position comparable to that of dependants of persons who served in world war I in cases of disability or death due to improper conduct; to ensure that pensions may be paid to the dependants of deceased members of the forces resident and domiciled in Newfoundland; to provide for the continuation of disability pensions and widows' pensions to the end of the month in which death occurred except in cases where no additional pension for dependants is payable; to provide for the payment of pension to the daughter of a pensioned widower where the domestic establishment is maintained after his death; to provide for an increase in the clothing allowance on account of amputation or use of appliances; to provide for an increase in the allowances for funeral and burial expenses; to remove the limitation on the amount of pension payable to a dependent parent of a deceased pensioner after discontinuance of pension to other dependants; to authorize payment of widows' pensions at current rates upon reinstatement of discontinued pension; and to remove the limitation on payment of pensions to or in respect of children born after a specified date, or to wives whose marriage to a member of the forces or a pensioner took place after a specified date; such measure to include, in addition, certain consequential and clarifying amendments.
Walter Adam Tucker: Is the minister not going to make a statement?


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to make a statement. This resolution is somewhat extensive, because it lists the majority of the features in the amending bill. Many of these have been designed to clarify sections of the act in which some doubt regarding interpretation has existed. My intention is to outline the main features and, after listening to the remarks of hon. members, to give more detailed information and costs on second reading and when the bill is in committee.
The purpose of the bill is to provide, in general, for additional benefits for former members of the forces and their dependants, and to bring other benefits more in line with the increases in the basic scale of pensions for disability and death which became effective last July. I should like now to quote from the resolution.
... to provide for the continuation of disability pensions and widows' pensions to the end of the month in which death occurred except in cases where no additional pension for dependants is payable . . .
The act at the present time provides that an award of disability pension shall cease

on the date of death, and it then becomes the responsibility of the commission to determine whether death was attributable to service.
1.	The dependants are pensionable when death was attributable to service irrespective of the rate at which pension was in payment at the date of death.
2.	The widow and children are pensionable when pension was in payment at 50 per cent or more at the date of death.
The amendment, as it stated in the resolution, provides for the continuation of pension to the end of the month in which death occurred provided additional pension was in payment for the dependants. In a number of cases, death has no service relationship, and the effect of this amendment will be to permit the continuation of the pension income to the home at a time when there is great distress and, in a number of instances, need.
I quote another clause of the resolution: . . . to provide for an increase in the clothing allowance on account of amputation or use of appliances. . . .
The act at the present time makes the following provision for wear and tear of clothing:
1.	For leg amputation cases, $72 per year.
2.	For arm amputation cases, $30 per year.
3.	For other pension cases wherein the wearing of an appliance causes excessive wear and tear of clothing, not exceeding $72.
These rates have been in effect for some years and the intention is to increase them.
A further clause in the resolution reads:
To provide for an increase in the allowances for funeral and burial expenses . . .
The act gives the commission discretion to pay an amount not exceeding $185 when a disability pensioner dies and his estate is not sufficient to pay the expenses of his last sickness and burial. This total is made up of the following maximum payments:
1.	$110 in respect of funeral services.
2.	$25 for cemetery charges.
3.	$50 for the expenses of the pensioner's last sickness.
Those are the present rates, Mr. Chairman. The intention is to provide for an increase in these allowances in order that they may be more closely related to those paid by the department and to present day conditions.
I quote further from the resolution:
. . . to remove the limitation on payment of pensions to or in respect of children born after a specified date, or to wives whose marriage to a member of the forces or a pensioner took place after a specified date . . .
This, I may say, is to do away with the world war I date line or deadline, as it is sometimes called. The act provides in the

case of a world war I disability pensioner that no additional pension shall be paid when marriage or remarriage takes place on or after the 1st day of May, 1954. This restrictive measure was first introduced on May 1, 1933. It was subsequently advanced to the 1st of May of the following years, 1944, 1948, 1951, and now stands at May 1, 1954. The restriction in the statute applies to world war I pensioners and not to world war II pensioners. There is no date line as far as world war II pensioners are concerned.
The intention is, as intimated in the resolution, to remove the time limitation. There is provision in the Pension Act against so-called death-bed marriages which gives the commission discretion where the death of the husband has occurred less than one year subsequent to the date of marriage.
Provision is made in the bill for the amendments to the Pension Act which became effective on July 1, 1957, by authority of Appropriation Act No. 4, 1957. This was under Bill No. 418, to which we referred previously, and item 670 of the supplementary estimates at that time. This is part of the tidying up process, incorporating into the Pension Act payments which are being made as from July 1.
The other amendments, as I stated earlier, are mainly clarifying and do not infringe on any existing benefits, nor do they incur any added liability. I will be very pleased to give further information on second reading and when the clauses of the bill are before the committee.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, at the present time I wish to deal more with what the resolution does not do than what it does do. What it proposes to do is the sort of thing to meet difficulties that have arisen in the administration of the act and remove apparent inequities in cases affecting small groups who are benefiting from the Pension Act, or should benefit. It is the sort of thing that has to be done from time to time with respect to a statute like the Pension Act. Some of the provisions have to do with such things as increasing the clothing allowance in the case of a person drawing a pension in respect of an amputation, and are related to the rising cost of living.
These provisions are important, but they do not affect the general body of pensioners. However, to the extent that they meet certain needs of the various groups with which they deal, in accordance with the past attitude of the party with which I am associated these measures will receive very strong approval.
As I see it, the difficulty about the resolution is that in dealing with basic rates of pension
Pension Act
it only goes so far as to confirm what was done by the last government before the election, and it does not propose to increase the basic rates at all. In view of the strong attitude taken at that time by the members of the present government when in opposition in finding fault with the increases in basic rates brought into effect by the then government, I think people generally expected that the basic rates would be dealt with.
Hon. members will recall that at that time fault was found because it was said that the raising of the basic rates was an urgent matter and the government had not gone far enough, and the promise was held out that if the Progressive Conservative party was elected this matter would be dealt with at once. The cost of living has been rising steadily since then. If the matter was as urgent as was represented by the present members of the government, who were then in opposition, it is difficult to understand why the government has not dealt with this matter. The government has continually held out the idea that it is proceeding to carry out the promises on which it was elected.
There has been some suggestion that there is going to be a sudden election. However, even if things go as well, and along the lines indicated by the present Minister of Veterans Affairs, and there is a session after Christmas at which the matter is considered by the veterans affairs committee, the earliest date on which these pensioners can receive the benefit of any increase, which government supporters said this spring was so important, will be one year from that date. In other words it will be the following spring. I am sure this will come as a surprise to the veteran and a surprise to the whole country, especially in the light of what was said by the present Prime Minister during the last election campaign. For example, in a telecast on May 22, 1957, the present Prime Minister dealt with this matter. I shall quote from what he said:
We believe the old age pension is inadequate. We intend, this September, to call together parliament, and there and then fix a fair and reasonable amount for the old age pensioner,-
Then he goes on to say:
-indeed for the other pensioners, and also make provision for a formula whereby due allowance will be made in the future for the rising cost of living, providing that it continues.
If ever a person could make a definite pledge, Mr. Chairman, it would be when he carefully considered what he was going to say in a telecast to the nation. The statement is in such definite terms-"indeed, for other pensioners". What was going to be done for other pensions?

Pension Act


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I point out to the hon. member that he was speaking of old age security and other pensioners, blind pensioners, disabled persons. The pension has been raised from $46 to $55, and the bill is already through the house.


Walter Adam Tucker: I would point out to the
minister that the Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of the Conservative party, mentioned the old age pensioners, and indeed other persons. Now then, other pensioners, outside of old age pensioners, would be blind pensioners. Would my hon. friend suggest that when the present leader of his party was speaking of other pensioners he was referring only to the small group of blind pensioners, and that his remarks had no reference to the great group of ex-service pensioners? Surely the ex-servicemen are an important body of pensioners.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is going to be given
careful study.


Walter Adam Tucker: My friend says that is going
to be given consideration.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Careful study.


Walter Adam Tucker: Only careful study?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Study and consideration.


Walter Adam Tucker: We were promised more than study. Let me read again to hon. members what was stated. Why are these promises being whittled down to cover only blind pensioners when the Prime Minister said "... indeed, for other pensioners"? Are not ex-servicemen other pensioners? Here is what the leader of the Conservative party said:
We intend, this September-
A session was not called in September because of Her Majesty's visit. We now have a session called, and it was called as soon as possible to carry out the promises.
-and there and then-
No doubt about that.
-fix a fair and reasonable amount for the old age pensioners, indeed for the other pensioners.
Does the minister say that, here and now, they are fixing what they consider to be a fair and reasonable amount for the service pensioners? Then let me read to the minister what his leader said to the nation concerning another matter which was to be considered at the session this fall. There was going to be action, and here is what his leader said:
.	.	. and also make provision for a formula
whereby due allowance will be made in the future for the rising cost of living, providing that it continues.
Everyone knows the cost of living is continuing to rise. Figures put on the record

by various hon. members, and indeed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on November 4, showed that the consumer price index has continued to rise. On the basis of 1949 being equal to 100 the index had risen in 1955 to 116.4, and now stands at 122.6. If this matter was so urgent this spring it is even more urgent now. The minister's leader said that, there and then-he meant at a session in September-he was going to make provision for a formula whereby due allowance will be made in the future for the rising cost of living, provided it continued. There is a definite pledge to the people. I think the present Prime Minister, who was then leader of the opposition-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. Did his government take into consideration the rising cost of living when they increased the pension as of July 1? If they did, it has not been very long from July 1 to date.


Walter Adam Tucker: The point with which I am dealing is that the increases which were brought into effect at that time were denounced by hon. members opposite. It was in the light of these increases that the Prime Minister made this telecast. In other words, these increases had already been brought forward, and it was in the light of these increases which were denounced by the present members of the government as inadequate that their leader made this speech.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is implying that the increases were not sufficient. What representation did he make to his government before July 1 as to the insufficiency of the amounts? Did he make any? I doubt very much that he did.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am not debating the action that was taken at the spring session of parliament, because what was done then was placed before the people.


Thomas Miller Bell: It sure was.


Walter Adam Tucker: Hon. members opposite are gloating over the results of that election. They held out certain promises to the people, and all I am saying is this, that people who gloat over being elected as a result of these promises should be the first to stand up and say "Now, let us fulfil the promises on which we did get elected".
Seme hon. Members: Hear, hear.


Walter Adam Tucker: The attitude of their leader was very definite on this matter. For example, he is reported as having said this at Victoria on May 22, 1957, at about the time of this other telecast. He is reported as saying "We

Pension Act
will provide fair and realistic pensions based on the cost of living and a fair comfort in living". Then he went on to say this:
I say our promise will be carried out. That is my idea of public life. Promises must bear a distinct mark of responsibility.
Here was their leader not only holding out these promises but saying:
I say our promise will be carried out. That is my idea of public life.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We have made a good start on them.


Walter Adam Tucker: My hon. friend is saying they have made a good start.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In a few months, we have done more than you did in 22 years in some of them.


Walter Adam Tucker: But his leader said, "I do not believe in making irresponsible promises; what I promise will be carried out".


An hon. Member:: That is what we are on now.


Walter Adam Tucker: What was his promise? His promise was that at the session in September, there and then, pensions would be increased and they would be tied to the cost of living or a formula would be established "whereby due allowance will be made in future for the rising cost of living providing that it continues". I wonder whether my hon. friends opposite, in their minds, really believe that a promise to study this matter and perhaps do something about it a year later is carrying out a promise that within a matter of four months this matter would be dealt with in a certain definite way, namely by increases with provision for a formula in the acts tying the pension to the cost of living.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. The hon. member has taken a sentence out of context. As I remember it, the Prime Minister was speaking of old age security at that time, and he said that old age pensions and other pensions which he had been mentioning would be dealt with at this session. They have been dealt with.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no; they have not been dealt with. The promises have not been carried out.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, I am only dealing with this matter as I read it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You are taking one sentence out of a whole context.


Walter Adam Tucker: No. When the Prime Minister said, as I read to the house, that this September he would deal with old age pensions and indeed with other pensions, is my hon. friend
suggesting that people listening to that speech would know that he did not mean veterans
pensions?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Having heard his previous remarks, yes. You have taken only one sentence out of the whole context.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have read the whole thing having to do with what the present Prime Minister said. He said this, and I take it that he said it deliberately. He spoke first of the old age pensioner, and he said, "indeed for the other pensioners". Is my hon. friend trying to tell us now that his leader intended to say that they were going to increase old age pensions and were going to tie them to the cost of living, but that he had no intention of doing anything like that for service pensioners, or in other words that he did not intend to do as much for service pensioners as he was doing for others?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The Prime Minister realized that there could be a review of the Pension Act. Such a review of the Pension Act takes a considerable time. It is with regard to the veterans pensions. As I stated in this house, Mr. Chairman, it is the intention to review the Pension Act at the next session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not what you said before June 10.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is, of course, exactly what I have been trying to say, namely that his leader held out one promise to the people and that now it is not being carried out in this legislation. If the minister admits that they are not keeping this important promise, I am satisfied. Surely the keeping of a promise to increase the basic rates and to tie them to the cost of living this fall was much more important than clearing up the small points, important as they are, which are dealt with in this legislation. Surely the raising of the basic rates affecting all pensioners, which rates were held out by hon. members opposite when they were in opposition as being so inadequate, was an important matter. As to the promise they made that they were going to be dealt with this fall, surely if they were going to deal with them at all they should have dealt with the main point of attack they made on the government last spring and during the election campaign.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Your government considered them adequate to July 1, or just a few months ago.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, I believe in democracy as, I think, do most of us here. When our government set the amount which they indicated was as far as they were ready

Pension Act
to go at that particular time, the hon. member's leader and his associates said, "We think something should be done this fall to go much further", and the people indicated their approval. Now I am just asking them to do what they promised to do, on the basis of which they are sitting where they are today. That is all I am doing.


Thomas Miller Bell: The people also indicated disapproval of you.


Mr. Lambert:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he would not agree that if everyone in this house had the opportunity to speak, and spoke as long as has the hon. member, we would not get even the emergency legislation through at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: More closure.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not intend to deal with the point of order, Mr. Chairman, because I do not think it can be said the opposition have unduly held up the war veterans allowance bill. On the first day it was introduced it went through all stages, or rather it went through second reading, the committee stage and, by consent, third reading. I wonder whether it is fair to make a statement such as the one which has just been made, in view of the fact that there is that co-operation shown not only by the party with which I am associated but by all parties in this house to forward this legislation. Is my hon. friend suggesting that when his government speaks nobody else dare say anything, that they must just say "Aye"?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No, no.


Norman Platt Lambert: He can speak on the whole problem, as suggested by the hon. member.


Walter Adam Tucker: After listening to his leader indicate his disapproval of that idea, suggesting that members should be heard from and that whatever the government said should not be accepted without comment, I think such a suggestion should come from any place else in the whole house but from the place whence it came, right behind his leader.


Mr. Small:: What a transformation.


Walter Adam Tucker: I agree with that statement. It is indeed a transformation.


Robert Hardy Small: On your part.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is indeed a transformation, having heard day after day about the fact that hon. members were not saying enough, that the government was having its way without the members being heard from enough. Then when a spokesman for the official opposition is pointing out that it would

be a good thing for the government to carry out its promises, a man on the opposition side of the house rises and objects to 40 minutes being taken to deal with this most important matter. Verily it is a real transformation.


Robert Hardy Small: You are not suffering from closure at the present time.


Walter Adam Tucker: Of course, Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised that hon. members opposite, faced with this situation wherein there is an open breach of a promise they made to the veterans of this country, should be raising all these spurious points of order and trying to divert me from presenting that viewpoint. I don't blame them, but it just shows how uneasy they are in their own consciences about the thing they are bringing forward.
Mr. Chairman, when the suggestion of increasing these pensions was brought in by the last government, it was dealt with as an emergency measure because it was thought that there should be an election, and rather than have the pensioners wait for an increase until after that was over, an increase was given. That was an emergency, because in order to have an election in June, as was asked for by all parties-the present government party was as anxious to have an election as anybody else-it was necessary to dissolve parliament in April, and accordingly the increase had to be granted before that date. But despite these circumstances there were demands that the matter should go before a committee. Surely there is more time now in which to deal with this question than there was last spring.
Then again there were demands and statements that the amount should be raised because it was not enough. I do not think it can be denied that the present leader of the house and Minister of Public Works was one of the outstanding and acknowledged spokesmen for his party on veterans affairs. His position was such that he was recognized as one of the real spokesmen of the Progressive Conservative party on this matter. What did he say with regard to the announced intention by the government of that time, as an emergency measure, to tide over the veterans until this matter could be dealt with in the ordinary way by a veterans affairs committee? I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Then sit down.


Walter Adam Tucker: 
An hon. Member:: What did you say?


Walter Adam Tucker: I understand. You don't like the quotations. You don't like to hear quotations from your present leaders showing what they said while in opposition. If it was something said before the election that would gather votes, you were ready to cheer. Now, when it is a matter of delivering the goods, you don't want to hear them.


An hon. Member:: You don't want us to deliver the goods.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is what I am asking you to do. The bill deals with relatively small, though important, matters, and the main thing you said you were going to deal with you say you are going to let stand till next year-


The Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, before making a few remarks on the subject matter of the resolution now before us, I should like to say that the C.C.F. group was originally to have been led on this important question by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, but he is away today attending the NATO conference. I have been asked to substitute for him, and I do so with pleasure.
We are grateful that the government has indicated in resolution No. 9 that some of the problems which arise in connection with the Pension Act will be dealt with very shortly, but I think it must be a matter of keen disappointment to hon. members and to all veterans that no provision is being made in this resolution for an increase in the basic rate of disability pension. I do not propose to take seriously what has been said on the subject by the hon. member for Rosthern-


An hon. Member:: Nobody does.


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: It
is very hard to take seriously his complaints on that subject when for so long his government failed to bring these disability rates up even to the level of those paid for common and unskilled labour. And that should be the test under this act.
This act gives veterans, as a right, not as a matter of charity or social assistance, an amount which is supposed to put them in as good a position as if they had not suffered their war disabilities. Unfortunately, the rate of pensions has gradually lagged behind the

Pension Act
cost of living on one hand and the rate for even common labour at union rates on the other; it has lagged behind the increase in our gross national product, and again I say it is a matter for keen disappointment that this government has not seen fit to go further at this time than the Liberal government did on March 14 of last year.
In the short time that has elapsed since March 14, 1956, the cost of living in Canada has increased by approximately 4 per cent. This means, for instance, that the rate of $200 a month for a totally disabled married veteran since that time has already suffered a shrinkage of $8. In the light of what has been said previously by prominent members of the Conservative party, and in the light of their attacks on the inadequacy of the increase of March 14, 1956, which became effective in July, I do not think they are justified in failing to bring in further increases at this time.
The proposal of the Canadian Legion that the increases instituted in March, 1956, should have been 33-J per cent and not an average of 17 per cent, which was as far as the government of that day was prepared to go, represents a modest request. As a matter of fact it strikes me that the veterans of Canada have a most honourable and enviable record in the matter of the requests they have made to governments of Canada for adjustments in pension rates. They have not made the excessive demands which I think have been made in some other countries; instead, they have merely asked that the disabled veteran be placed in the position where he has not actually suffered loss as a result of his war service and, of course, monetary pensions must fall far short of that. In view of the rise in the cost of living since the Legion first requested a 33J per cent increase their present request in my opinion is a very modest one.
We are opening up the Pension Act by means of this resolution for many rather detailed and complicated changes. It seems to me, therefore, this is clearly a case where a standing committee on veterans affairs should have been appointed, or at least a special committee should have been called together to consider the bill the minister Will present to the house. We do not want to delay the passage of any legislation designed to improve the Pension Act, but we have been sitting in this session of parliament since October 14, which would have provided ample time for a special committee to be called together to consider this legislation. I am convinced that the representatives of the veterans organizations would be pleased to come to Ottawa quickly and
[Mr. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway) .1
present their views, and I believe the committee could be called together, perform its function and report back to the house within a period of two weeks. In view of the ambiguities which do undoubtedly still exist in the Pension Act it is a pity the government has not yet proposed that this procedure be followed.
I would now like to refer to what was said by the present house leader on July 11, 1956, as reported at page 5867 of Hansard of that date. The hon. member informed the house in extremely definite terms;
When we form a government, we certainly will have a full-time Minister of Veterans Affairs and we certainly will have a standing committee on veterans affairs.
Unfortunately there are many wrinkles in the Pension Act that are not going to be ironed out by the measures indicated in this resolution, and when you try to deal with an act as complicated as this on a piecemeal basis without it being referred to a committee for thorough study, you are bound to leave many injustices in the wording of the act.
I would like to briefly refer to some of the good things in the resolution before us. Of course we are all pleased that the veteran of world war I who did not embark on the sea of matrimony until after May 1, 1954, is finally going to get some recognition for his wife. It is surely a praiseworthy matter that such a veteran did not. reach a decision to marry too quickly, that some have given long and careful consideration to this important step. However, the resolution does not propose that any recognition will be accorded to the children of such veterans. Are we to assume that a veteran of world war I who did not marry until after May 1, 1954, cannot have children? I think we would be making a big mistake if we decided this, because this philosophy has been contradicted many times already in this country. I would ask that this part of the resolution be extended so the families of such veterans may be protected.
Another matter not dealt with in the resolution is the status of the common law wife of a veteran. Under the Pension Act the common law wife of a veteran is recognized if they lived together as man and wife at the time of enlistment and she had then been publicly known as his wife. Unfortunately there are many cases of veterans who, finding themselves unable to marry, live in a common law union after their service to their country has been rendered, and their wives are not recognized as having official status under the act. It is unfortunate that in legislation in the parliament of Canada we

should have to consider giving recognition to the position of common law wives, but as long as we have medieval divorce laws in this country, as long as divorce cannot be obtained even on the grounds of incurable insanity, in the case of a wife deserted without means by her husband or even on the ground of cruelty resulting in a breakdown of health, we must realize that common law liaisons are bound to take place. Many children have been born to common law unions and have grown up to become good citizens. It seems to me this resolution should go further and accord recognition to the common law wife of a veteran who has lived with him and perhaps done a fine job in raising a family but, due to the archaic divorce laws prevailing in Canada, the couple have not been able to have the union regularized.
There is another case I think should be dealt with, and I hope the government will consider including a clause in the bill when it is introduced in this house to cover the situation. That is the case of a British subject who joined the British forces in world war I and who was not at that time a Canadian. He might have been living in England and joined the British forces but since world war I has been living in this country, has become a Canadian citizen and been domiciled here. Such a veteran may receive a modest pension from the British government but he is not recognized at all under our Pension Act; the supplementary sections of that act, Nos. 50 to 53, do not help that particular individual. Surely he is a deserving case. There are many veterans who joined the forces of the British commonwealth, probably in England, before or at the time of the outbreak of world war I and who at the present time are in receipt of pensions from the British government of not more than $4, $6 or $8 a month.
I am particularly pleased to see that the government in this resolution proposes an increase in the clothing allowance for amputation cases and I suppose that allowance would also be increased for paraplegics, but I am afraid it does not fully cover the needs of this particular class of veteran. A married paraplegic veteran is considered totally disabled.
He would receive $200 a month and in addition $120 a month helplessness allowance. But I respectfully suggest to the government, Mr. Chairman, that this is not adequate. In addition to the wheel chair, of course, these people need special housing; they need ramps in their houses; they need larger doors. They
Pension Act
cannot move into houses that have too small rooms and they require transportation by automobile, perhaps with special equipment in it, not as a luxury, as is the case with other people, but as a matter of necessity.
Therefore I would hope the government, through the minister, when they introduce the bill will give further consideration to increasing the helplessness allowance of the paraplegic cases. I understand that at the present time-and I hope I am wrong-these cases do not receive the full helplessness allowance unless the veteran is completely and at all times bedridden. Perhaps when the minister makes his statement he will clarify that point because, if it is the case, I think it is a most unjust situation.
Another point I think should be dealt with when the government brings in the bill is the vexed question, which has been raised many times by members now sitting on the government side, of diseases or injuries of pre-enlistment origin. Many claims are rejected, of course, by the pension commission at the present time because they rule that the disease or injury was of pre-enlistment origin. Yet the man will have had his medical examination when he enlisted in the forces, and that disease or injury would not appear on the medical report. We say that in such a case there should be a presumption, if the injury or disease does not show up on the medical examination, that it was not of pre-enlistment origin.
The house leader, then the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra dealt with this question in 1956, at page 5868 of Hansard, in these words:
I believe the time has come to write into that act a presumption that injury or disease occurred after enlistment.
I could go further into the quotation, but this indicates his thinking at that time. This is an additional reason why a committee, even a special committee, of this house is badly needed, so that in addition to the improvements in the legislation which the government is indicating in the resolution, other improvements can be made to make this a model piece of legislation for the disabled veteran.
I should like to close, Mr. Chairman, with one final point. I regret that the resolution does not deal with the retroactivity of the pension awards. When an applicant applies to the pension commission he may find that to establish his claim takes as much as two years. It may take longer before he has got together the witnesses and the evidence he needs to establish his claim; but once granted by the pension commission that pension should date back to the date of application of the

Pension Act
veteran. Again I say that in the Pension Act we are not dealing with any kind oi social assistance; we are dealing with something that belongs as of right to the veteran, and if the commission rules finally that the veteran was entitled to the pension on his application, then it should be made retroactive to the date of the application.
Certainly that is the rule if a company goes through the courts, perhaps up to the exchequer court, with a claim that it is entitled to, say, special depreciation on its equipment to write off against taxable income. If, after years of litigation, the court rules that the company was correct in its contention of course it dates back automatically without question to the date of the application. When we do that with financial matters and with company matters we should see that the veterans pension dates back to the date of application. There could very well be in the act a saving provision to the effect that this would not revive old claims existing, say, prior to the last war. I do not suggest that that should be done, but with such a saving provision surely pensions could be made retroactive.
I have finished with the proposals that I hope the government will take into consideration, Mr. Chairman, but in conclusion I want to say my main point is that I regret the government has not increased the basic rate in its disability pensions. Frankly, I do not think we are living up to the standards with our veterans that we do in the financial and material sense. When war equipment or material is damaged or destroyed we replace it at once without question. The companies which produced war materials in the last war received not only profits but often write-offs on their capital costs, so that in effect they got a gift of the capital equipment they were using during the war. The biggest case in point, of course, was the special write-off allowed to the Aluminum Company of Canada for its work at Arvida, which resulted in effect in that company being given a gift of that huge power installation.
We have to ask ourselves whether we are treating the veteran on the human level as well as we are treating the financial aspects of fighting a war. In view of that it does not seem to me that these pension rates at the present time do put the veteran in the position where it can be said that he has not suffered loss as a result of incurring injury or disease in the service of his country. To the extent that we can remedy that situation by financial measures we should generously and quickly do so.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is one o'clock. I wish to go on this afternoon, but I understand the Minister of Trade and Commerce has an important announcement to make at 2.30 o'clock. Might I ask that we rise and report progress?
Progress reported.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether I might have the opportunity now, which I asked for this morning, to make an announcement to the house with regard to the trade mission which is going to proceed to the United Kingdom. I presume I may do so under leave to revert to motions.
The Canadian trade mission to the United Kingdom, comprising leading representatives of business and industry from all areas of Canada, will leave Montreal for London on Thursday, November 21. The mission will also include representatives of labour, agriculture and fisheries. The purpose of the mission is to stimulate purchases from United Kingdom sources of goods now imported by Canada from non-commonwealth countries. Its immediate objectives are to provide a favourable climate and to seek specific opportunities for the expansion of British exports to Canada, so that Canada may take full advantage of sources of supply in the United Kingdom, and British exporters may participate increasingly in Canada's growing import requirements.
To this end, membership of the mission consists largely of businessmen whose companies represent some 20 groups of industries across Canada which, it is believed, can use increasing quantities of British products. The mission represents an annual purchasing potential of many millions of dollars worth of imports.
The mission will depart from Dorval airport, Montreal, on the late afternoon of November 21 and will arrive in London the next morning. It will remain in the United Kingdom from November 22 until December 18, during which time it will follow a program arranged by the United Kingdom authorities in consultation with Canada House.

Following preliminary talks in London with ministers, senior government officials, the dollar export council and its affiliated industrial bodies, visits will be made to important centres of industry and commerce throughout Great Britain to permit of direct factory and plant visits and meetings with British exporters and businessmen. The mission will conclude its visit with final conferences to be held in London from December 16 to 18.
The list of names of those who have accepted an invitation to join the mission will be released today. The list is complete except for the addition of two representatives of agriculture from whom I am awaiting word and except for one or two changes which will result from withdrawals that are expected because of personal reasons on the part of those who have already accepted an invitation.


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house will welcome the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) and do and will extend their very best wishes to him and to those who will be accompanying him on this mission. There is no doubt that greater diversification of our import trade would be beneficial to our economy, and the government has come to the concluson that this is apt to be an effective way of furthering that objective. We hope that their prognostics or hopes in that regard will be realized and that there will be the furthering of what has been, I think, the desire and objective of all parties in the house, to see restored to the greatest possible extent the multilateral trade that used to exist and that did have beneficial effects for all those who could participate in that mutual trade.
There have been dislocations which brought about inevitable results. I hope those results are not to be permanently inevitable and that they can be overcome. I can assure the minister that we wish him well in his endeavours to restore as near an approach to multilateral trade as can be realized under present world conditions.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, we join very heartily, of course, with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) in wishing this delegation every success in Great Britain. I noted that in the minister's statement-I understand why, of course-he laid particular stress on the desirability of British exports to Canada. I am sure that the delegation will not lose sight of
Trade Mission to United Kingdom the other side in which we are also very interested, namely the question of enlarging our exports to the United Kingdom. The more imports we take from the United Kingdom and commonwealth countries, the more we provide them with the necessary dollars which they can spend in Canada for the exports that we wish to send abroad.
Representing, as I do, an agricultural constituency, a wheat-growing area, I am anxious to see an expansion of trade with the United Kingdom not only for industry generally but particularly to help our agricultural situation. Even if the list of gentlemen who are going to England has not been completed, if the minister has the list there I would ask him if he would like to table a partial list this afternoon and add to it later.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join the other two speakers in wishing the minister every success. I hope the result can be a substantial expansion of trade with Great Britain and the sterling area generally. I should like to ask the minister this question. In view of the success of the United States surplus disposal program in making surplus food available to nations that are not able to obtain it through the normal channels of trade, while at the same time substantially increasing their sales for dollars, will the minister give consideration to the advisability of Canada accepting sterling under a firm agreement that such sterling will be spent within the sterling area so that it may be used to buy goods which we are at present buying from the United States, thereby helping to reduce our imbalance of trade with the United States and at the same time helping Britain to reduce her imbalance of trade with Canada?


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all agree with previous speakers that anything that can be done to advance trade relations and increase trade is very commendable, but I should like to ask the minister a question, if I may.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I understand the practice when statements of this kind are made, and I am sure the house will correct me if I am in error, it has been customary for a spokesman for each party to be given the opportunity to comment on the statement but it is not customary to ask questions or to open the door beyond that. I think we would do well to confine ourselves to the practice of having one comment from each group in the house, which we have now had. I would ask my hon. friend to defer his question until the next period when such questions are dealt with.

Pension Act PENSION ACT



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING DEPENDANTS, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Brooks -Mr. Courtemanche in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Pension Act to place dependants of persons who served in world war II in a position comparable to that of dependants of persons who served in world war I in cases of disability or death due to improper conduct; to ensure that pensions may he paid to the dependants of deceased members of the forces resident and domiciled in Newfoundland; to provide for the continuation of disability pensions and widows' pensions to the end of the month in which death occurred except in cases where no additional pension for dependants is payable; to provide for the payment of pension to the daughter of a pensioned widower where the domestic establishment is maintained after his death; to provide for an increase in the clothing allowance on account of amputation or use of appliances; to provide for an increase in the allowances for funeral and burial expenses; to remove the limitation on the amount of pension payable to a dependent parent of a deceased pensioner after discontinuance of pension to other dependants; to authorize payment of widows' pensions at current rates upon reinstatement of discontinued pensions; and to remove the limitation on payment of pensions to or in respect of children born after a specified date, or to wives whose marriage to a member of the forces or a pensioner took place after a specified date; such measure to include, in addition, certain consequential and clarifying amendments.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, before the resumption of the debate on the resolution I should like to make an observation regarding a remark by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I did not wish to interrupt him at the time he was speaking. He expressed his pleasure regarding the removal of the dateline for the marriage or remarriage of world war I veterans and mentioned his disappointment because the resolution did not say anything about children. Naturally the resolution is abbreviated, and I am happy to assure the hon. member and other members of the committee that the bill which will be introduced provides for the removal of the dateline with respect to marriage and also to children.


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: am glad to have that assurance, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Irwin:: I listened with some degree
of disfavour to the hon. member for Rosthern as he made his contribution to this debate. It seemed to me his speech had nothing to do with the resolution and contributed nothing to either the welfare of the veterans or the subject matter under discussion. I doubt very much that the veterans will thank him for his remarks or that his constituents will approve of his attitude. On the other hand, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was extremely instructive and I hope, sir, I can do as well as he did.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I want to pay tribute to those responsible for the administration of veterans' affairs in British Columbia. So far as that province, at least, is concerned, they have been extremely efficient and extremely careful to interpret the regulations and the act under their administration as well as they possibly could. I should like to pay particular tribute to General Roaf, while he was the administrator for British Columbia.
In so far as these proposals are concerned, an assessment of the extent of them indicates the obvious necessity for a permanent committee on veterans affairs. No legislation as important as this should be permitted to get into such a state of desuetude as the proposals in this resolution would indicate. I express regret on behalf of the veterans of Canada that no provision is made in this bill for a rise in the basic pension. I know, Mr. Chairman, that Rome was not built in a day. I know that this government cannot do everything all at once, but at the same time they could have gone a long way towards helping the veterans of this country by raising the basic pension to a point where it would be at least equal to the salaries and wages received by the lower classes of labour in this country.
I should like to quote from page 5 of the veterans brief which was presented the day before yesterday to the cabinet. On that page it will be noted that in 1920 a single pensioner received $900 and today under this measure he will be receiving $1,800; that is a rise of 100 per cent. The same situation applies to a married pensioner. His pension goes from $1,200 in 1920 to $2,400 in 1957. The widow is not so fortunate because she was receiving $720 in 1920 and is now to receive $1,380, a rise of $660. When we compare these pensions with the pay of the armed forces and with that of some members of the civil service, we find a great difference. We find that a single private-please remember that this is the initial payment, and do not forget that a private can rise through the various grades of private and receive a considerably increased emolument -in 1920 was receiving $930.75, and today is receiving $1,980. A married private in the army was receiving $1,130.75 in 1920, and today he is getting $2,700, that is a rise of $1,569. When we come to the civil service, we find something else. A customs guard in 1920 was getting $1,260 and today he is getting $3,360. A cleaner and helper in 1920 was getting $900, the same as a pensioner on that date, and today he is getting $2,910.
Now, may we examine this in the light of the brief that was presented last year, Mr. Chairman. I should like to point out to you

that the condition of the pensioner, as compared with these categories, has deteriorated even in the one year. The brief last year was presented on November 9, and let us have a look at it. On a percentage basis the pension of a single pensioner had risen 66 per cent on that date and the pension has now risen 100 per cent. The pension for a married pensioner has risen approximately the same amount and the same is true of a widow's pension. However, when we come to examine the others, we find that the single private in the army has received pay increases amounting to nearly 108 per cent in 1956, and 112.7 per cent in 1957. The married private had received pay increases amounting to 134.4 per cent in 1956 and is now up over 154 per cent. The customs guard received pay increases amounting to 166 per cent between 1920 and 1957. I should like to point out to you that in 1956 his percentage rise in pay was then 154 per cent, and it went up again this year. The pension has not gone up that much.
In the light of these figures, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that the Pension Act should be revised in such a way that the pensioner today would be at least on a level with those who are engaged in business or who are in the armed services. These figures show a disparity between the pension of the veteran and the pay of the armed forces as well as certain classes of civil servants. I put it to you, sir, that this disparity should not exist. I should like, in fact I would almost insist, that the disparity should not exist as between a man disabled as a result of war and those fellows who are capable of maintaining themselves.
These pensioners sacrificed all they had or hoped to have in the service of their country, and they should have a standard of living at least equal to the men and women of the armed forces. They do not have this today. By what process of mental calisthenics the official mind has arrived at these figures is something that is quite obscure. Historically, these pensions have been tied in with what one could receive in the labour market. The examples I have pointed out show you that today such a comparison is not applicable. During the years since 1920 the disparity has steadily widened. I would submit to you, Mr. Chairman, this condition should not have been allowed to develop and pension rates have failed to keep pace with wages in the services or in industry.
Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I note that a widow is always expected to live on less than a single pensioner. Just why this should be so is not apparent to me. Why one single individual should be expected to live on less
Pension Act
than another single individual is something that is not quite apparent to me. Evidently this results from one of those peculiarities that exist in the official mind. Apparently the government can not grasp the fact that the war disability pension is a matter of contractual right and not a matter of charity. It is a moral obligation based on equity and should be looked on in that particular way because when we come to discharge this obligation, we are in a much different position than we are in so far as any other obligation we might assume is concerned, that is in regard to old age pensions or anything of that kind.
Then there is the question of the effective dates of the pensions. A man may have made an application for a pension three years ago and his pension may be granted today. However, there is no guarantee it is going to be retroactive to the date of the application. Why not? If a man is eligible for the pension now, then he should be eligible for it when he made application. He should therefore be in the position to collect for the difference in the length of time and should not be subjected to the loss of that pension merely because the pension board could not make up its mind.
Again I should like to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that one of the features of the act that has always caused a great deal of discussion in veterans organizations has been this question of disability in a pensioner that was regarded as pre-enlistment, not aggravated. My own contention right along has been and still is that where a man has been accepted by the armed forces and has been passed by the examiners in those armed forces, that man is assumed to be in top medical condition-it is agreed that he is-and that if something else crops up during his service there must have been some degree of aggravation or it would not have cropped up. We therefore insist that, where a person was entitled to a clear medical sheet when he enlisted, anything that crops up subsequently during his service should be regarded as a disability created or aggravated by service.
Then again I notice that in these amendments no mention is made of any improvements with regard to orphans of veterans. They are not receiving a raise and they did not receive a raise last time.
There is another thing I wish to mention, namely the question of widows. While under these amendments the widow is being granted a raise the fact remains that if she happens to have a couple of children on her hands, those children are not subject to a raise. While the raise may and certainly

Pension Act
must be of value to the widow who is entitled to it, the fact remains that it is not going to help her a great deal if no raise is given to the children who are left under her care.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer you to Mr. Lapointe's attitude towards this matter at the last session of this house. That gentleman for a good many years was minister of veterans affairs in the previous government. I would commend his remarks to the present minister and suggest to him that the implications of those remarks are now in his hands. I hope that he will govern himself accordingly.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I take it that the purpose of discussing this resolution is to enable the house to come to a decision as to whether the minister shall have leave to introduce a bill to amend the Canadian Pension Act. This would therefore appear to me to be a suitable opportunity to make a few observations so that the house may be informed as to how this act as at present administered applies to Newfoundland veterans. I particularly wish to bring this matter to the attention of the minister and his colleagues at this time in the hope that he may find it possible to include in his amendments some solution to the situations which I am about to describe.
Hon. members may have noticed that the province of Newfoundland is given the distinction of being the only province of Canada mentioned by name in the resolution now before the house. Since Newfoundland was supposed to have become a part of Canada in 1949, hon. members may like myself be wondering why it has been necessary to single out my province for this special mention. When Newfoundland joined Canada we all took it for granted that Newfoundland veterans would automatically become Canadian veterans and would be treated in every respect as though they had served in the Canadian forces. Very few veterans had access to copies of the terms of union at the time of confederation but most of us were supplied with a little booklet entitled, "Canada's Veterans Charter, How it Applies in the Province of Newfoundland". I should like to read a few short paragraphs of the introduction at page 4 of this booklet which was issued under the authority of the Hon. Milton F. Gregg, then minister of veterans affairs. The introduction on page 4 reads as follows:
This is a booklet addressed to Canada's newest veterans in the province of Newfoundland, those who in world war I and world war II fought so gallantly in the battles for freedom. The booklet is designed to inform you of those rights and privileges which you now have in common with your fellow-veterans who served from Canada.

Then follows the paragraph I wish to underline, Mr. Chairman:
Under the agreement for confederation the veteran who served from Newfoundland is in exactly the same position as those who served from the other nine provinces.
When we come to the terms of union we find that the rights and privileges of Newfoundland veterans are outlined in section 38. I do not intend to read the whole of this section but I think it would be helpful to hon. members if I put on the record the first two subsections. Section 38 of the terms of union is entitled "Veterans" and it reads in part as follows:
33. Canada will make available to Newfoundland veterans the following benefits, on the same basis as they are from time to time available to Canadian veterans, as if the Newfoundland veterans had served in His Majesty's Canadian forces, namely,
(a)	The War Veterans' Allowance Act, 1946, free hospitalization and treatment, and civil service preference will be extended to Newfoundland veterans who served in the first world war or the second world war or both;
(b)	Canada will assume as from the date of union the Newfoundland pension liability in respect of the first world war, and in respect of the second world war Canada will assume as from the date of union the cost of supplementing disability and dependants' pensions paid by the government of the United Kingdom or an allied country to Newfoundland veterans up to the level of the Canadian rates of pensions, and, in addition, Canada will pay pensions arising from disabilities that are pensionable under Canadian law but not pensionable either under the laws of the United Kingdom or under the laws of an allied country;
Then follow subsection (c) dealing with the Veterans' Land Act, subsection (d) dealing with re-establishment credit, subsection (e) dealing with vocational and educational training and subsection (f) covering the Veterans Rehabilitation Act.
In 1947, another official document was published entitled "Proposed Arrangements for the Entry of Newfoundland into Confederation". On page 11 of this document, war service benefits are outlined as annex 1 and I should like to read the first paragraph on that page:
Canada will extend to Newfoundland veterans who served with any of His Majesty's forces the following benefits on the same basis as if these Newfoundland veterans had served in His Majesty's Canadian forces . . .
Perhaps we were not justified in assuming that Newfoundland veterans would automatically become Canadian veterans upon confederation. In the face of the official statements I have just read, hon. members will have to decide this question for themselves. Whether we were justified or not, the fact remains that we did believe that on confederation we would be treated exactly as if we had served in the Canadian forces,

and when I say "we" I mean not only Newfoundland veterans but the Newfoundland public as well.
During the eight years that I have been a member of parliament I have had occasion to address a considerable number of letters to the Canadian pension commission dealing with the problems of Newfoundland veterans, and I must confess that I have often been puzzled by references in the replies I have received to the establishment of domiciliary residence in Newfoundland.
So firmly was the idea embedded in my mind that Newfoundland veterans upon confederation would be treated as if they had served in the Canadian forces that I must confess I was completely blind to the possibility that any other interpretation might be possible, and it was not until last year that it suddenly dawned upon me that not only were Newfoundland war veterans not regarded as Canadian veterans but that they were not even regarded as Newfoundland veterans, but as imperial veterans. That came as somewhat of a shock, because prior to confederation Newfoundland veterans had never regarded themselves as imperial veterans, nor were they so regarded by the Newfoundland government. It is true they served with the United Kingdom forces under United Kingdom command, but their identity was preserved by supplementary pay and allowances provided by the Newfoundland government, and on discharge their pensions also were supplemented by that government in accordance with a scale designed to bring them as far as possible in line with Canadian pensions.
I am not blaming anyone for this situation. I do not think it was done deliberately. I am not saying that the terms of union in this respect are incompatible with the interpretation which has been placed upon them. On the contrary, I have the highest regard for the personnel of the Canadian pension commission, as I have for the personnel of the war veterans allowance board and for the heads of the various branches of the Department of Veterans Affairs. But I say that I feel the interpretation which the Canadian pension commission is placing upon the Pension Act in its application to Newfoundland is not in accord with the spirit of the terms of union as expressed in the preamble to section 38 of the terms of union and in the booklet entitled "Canada's Veterans Charter".
I know it has been argued that the present arrangement works to the advantage of the Newfoundland veteran in that it gives him a choice of dealing either with the British ministry of pensions or with the Canadian pension commission; in other words, the Newfoundland veteran has two strings to his
Pension Act
bow and can choose the better of two possible worlds. I should like to reply to that argument now.
Canada's veterans charter has been described as the best and most generous in the whole world, and I believe every member of this house will subscribe to that view. But if that is true, as I believe it is, what advantage is there in being compelled to apply for the inferior British pension before being able to qualify for the more generous Canadian pension? If there is any advantage, I am unable to see it. I can, on the other hand, see a great many disadvantages. Hon. members will recall that section 38(b) of the confederation terms says that Canada will supplement the British pension up to Canadian rates.
Under this arrangement the Newfoundland veteran is, first of all, compelled to make his application to the British ministry of pensions. This means that the application must be forwarded to England to be adjudicated there, and the first disadvantage is the long delay while waiting for the application to travel back and forth and because of the time required by the British ministry of pensions to reach its decision. This process often takes weeks and it may even take several months. If the veteran concerned is incapacitated, or if his earning power is diminished by his incapacity, he and his family must exist all this while either on charity or on government relief, which constitutes a hardship which increases in severity as the period is prolonged.
In dealing with the application, the officials of the British ministry of pensions might arrive at one of three decisions. They might admit entitlement and grant a pension based on a percentage assessment of disability. In the second place they might grant entitlement and assess the disability as nil or, thirdly, they might reject the application altogether.
If the application is rejected outright the Newfoundland veteran then has the privilege of applying to the Canadian pension commission in which case he must begin all over again with still further delay and still more loss of time and prolonged hardship. If the British ministry of pensions grants entitlement but assesses the disability as nil, the veteran may find himself worse off than if his application had been rejected outright because he cannot then benefit from the supplementary provisions of the Canadian Pension Act even though, by Canadian standards, he might have an assessable degree of disability. The very fact the British ministry did not reject his claim debars him from taking advantage of section 13 (7) of the act even though his claim might easily be established under Canadian law and assessed under the Canadian table of disabilities.



S16 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Pension Act
I am not able to follow the mathematical reasoning of the Canadian pension commission in taking this stand. When I went to school I learned that zero plus one equalled one, and that zero plus ten equalled ten and that zero could be supplemented in any degree by adding whatever digit to it you wished to add. All I can say is that if the Russian scientists and mathematicians had adopted the new mathematical law formulated by the Canadian pension commission we would not have to worry today about sputniks travelling around over our heads. In any case the present situation where a veteran whose claim for a pension is rejected is better off than one whose claim is admitted is a bit ridiculous, to say the least, and I urge the minister to take whatever steps lie in his power to have it changed.
Should the British ministry of pensions grant a pension the Canadian pension commission will, as I just said, supplement the British pension under section 13 (7) of the act with an amount that will bring it up to Canadian standards but even then the present supplementary provisions of the Canadian Pension Act fail to provide complete coverage even for those who, in the main, qualify for supplementation, because should the Newfoundland pensioner who is in receipt of supplementation, or his dependants, subsequently take up residence outside of Canada they immediately lose the supplementation and revert back to British rates. This result gives rise to a most peculiar situation in that a veteran wounded in action whose claim is granted by the British and supplemented by the Canadian pension commission loses his supplementation if he leaves Canada. The same thing is true as far as his widow and dependants are concerned. Should the widow find it necessary to go and live with a daughter in the United States or anywhere outside of Canada she loses the benefit of the supplementation but on the other hand the veteran who never left Newfoundland during service or whose claim having been rejected by the British is established directly under section 13 (7) is paid at Canadian rates as a matter of right and he and his widow and dependants can go anywhere in the world without losing the supplementation. This is not only ridiculous, it is totally contrary to the spirit of the terms of union and it is not in accord with official statements which have been made concerning Newfoundland veterans.
One other serious complaint that Newfoundland veterans have is the long time between appeal board hearings. The last hearing of the appeal board in Newfoundland was held last September and the one before

that was held in April 1956. The long interval between hearings of the appeal board is not only a poor service to the veterans of Newfoundland but a cause of great inconvenience since some appellants are compelled to wait as long as 15 months before their cases are heard.
According to the Canadian pension commission the Pension Act does not make provision for payment of widows pensions as of right to those widows whose husbands were in receipt of 50 per cent or more pension at the time of their death if death occurred prior to April 1, 1949. Although these widows have been provided for from a special fund they have not been automatically granted the last two pension increases and I should like the minister to pay special attention to this matter and see what can be done to ensure that these widows will receive their benefits as a matter of right the same as do widows of veterans who serve in the Canadian forces.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Perhaps I might just interrupt for a moment, Mr. Chairman, to assure the hon. member that we will take into very careful consideration the points he has raised; but I do express my amazement at the fact that this is the first time the hon. member, who has been in this house since confederation, ever brought this to the attention of the House of Commons. It is very amazing to me.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I explained to the committee why it was we did not bring it up before.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Chesley William Carter: It did not dawn upon us before.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Chesley William Carter: We took for granted what the veterans charter said.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You made a big mistake there.


Chesley William Carter: And we took for granted what the terms of union said. I will read that section to the minister again if he wishes to have his memory refreshed.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member need not read the terms of union to me. He has been complaining that his government did not take this into consideration.


Chesley William Carter: I am not complaining at all nor am I blaming anybody for this, but I am pointing out to the minister that this situation does exist now and it is one that should not be allowed to continue further.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I agree with the hon. member.


Mr. Maclnnis:: The government has improved the situation.


Chesley William Carter: These amendments will not represent any improvement as far as these problems are concerned. I hope that when the minister brings in his legislation it will be drafted in such a way as to provide a satisfactory solution to the problems I have outlined. In fact, my purpose in speaking now rather than on second reading is to acquaint the minister with these problems so he can see whether something can be done in terms of finding a solution.
The reason we were blinded and it took us so long to realize what the present situation actually is was the ambiguity of section 38 of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada. This section reads:
Canada will make available to Newfoundland veterans the following benefits, on the same basis as they are from time to time available to Canadian veterans, as if the Newfoundland veterans had served in His Majesty's Canadian forces-
I would point out that the Newfoundland veterans are not being treated as though they had served in His Majesty's Canadian forces but rather as though they had served in His Majesty's imperial forces.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It certainly took you a long time to realize that.


Chesley William Carter: That may be, but better late than never; and the minister and the commission will now have no further excuse for delaying action to correct the situation.


Mr. Byrne:: We are just working harder than the other opposition.


Donald MacInnis: What excuse do you make for your own government?


Chesley William Carter: I wish to bring to the minister's attention the fact that the wording of the present Canadian pension life certificate, CPC-103, is misleading in regard to children over 16 and 17 who are attending school or who may be incapacitated mentally or physically. I have come in contact with several cases of pensioners who did not know they could claim additional pension for their children up to the age of 21 as long as such children continued to make satisfactory progress in school and I would be grateful if something could be done to clarify the wording of that particular clause.
Finally, I should like to point out to the minister I have been informed that there is a precedent in the department which, if it were adopted, would alleviate all of the problems to which I have just referred. I can understand that distinction would be made between a veteran who deliberately by-passed the Canadian forces and went and enlisted in the forces of another country. I can understand that such a veteran would not have the same claim as a veteran who did not by-pass those forces; but that does
Pension Act
not apply to Newfoundland veterans. We did not by-pass the Canadian forces; we had no other choice at the time. I understand that during the war an occasion occurred when it was necessary for a number of the Canadian air force personnel to be transferred to the British air force. I am not familiar with the complete details, but I understand that in the case of those veterans special treatment was given. In other words, this particular group of veterans was not treated as though they had by-passed the Canadian forces to join the imperial forces. If that same reasoning could be applied to the Newfoundland veterans most of our problems could be worked out and I heartily commend this to the minister's attention.
(Translation):


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in this debate, I have no intention of delaying the adoption of the resolution now before us. Rather do I wish to say how pleased the veterans of this country have been with these amendments to the various pieces of pension legislation which are of special concern to them.
Like so many other younger members, especially those who sit on this side of the house, I am a veteran. Thanks to Providence I came out of the war without any wounds or illness. However, thousands of my comrades have had a different fate, and it is up to us to see to it that they receive an adequate pension. I think that the adoption of the amendments which are being discussed this afternoon, and which in any case will be considered for several days, will help us achieve our aim, that of granting these men an equitable pension.
(Text):
I would like to say only a few words, Mr. Chairman, as one of those in this house who is a veteran and perhaps among the luckier veterans who came out of world war I or world war II without any wounds, any disabilities and I hope no lasting illnesses. I merely say that we as Canadians owe to these men who offered themselves as volunteers in the defence of this and other countries a great deal; that we should help them to maintain a decent standard of living by affording them some measure of pension.
Like many members on both sides of the house I, too, feel that we can go a long way yet to achieve the ideal pension scheme. Notwithstanding what may have been said by others, I look to the early setting up of a permanent committee on veterans affairs to investigate our whole pension scheme and all matters related to veterans affairs. However, I do not agree that at this moment we should

Pension Act
have held off the early consideration of these emergent matters for the purpose of going into a long and careful study of the subject. I am sure hon. members will agree that it is not something that can be decided or investigated within the confines of a week or two. It will require representations and investigations on all sides if we are to achieve what we believe to be the ideal, and I feel that great injustice would have been done by adopting a long procedure.
We have before us what are considered to be very distressing conditions, as the Canadian Legion has pointed out for many years. I come from Edmonton where I do have the support of a great number of the members of the Canadian Legion. Edmonton is proud of the fact that its principal branch, the Montgomery branch, is the largest branch of the Canadian Legion in this country. In addition, we have two other branches, so it is not an isolated movement in Alberta and in Edmonton in particular.
Following the observations of some hon. members, I would say that I have some reservations on the point advanced by the Legion and by hon. members in this house that pensions should be tied in to the scale of pay of the services. It must be remembered that the scale of pay of the services is tied in closely with the competitive labour market. I do not think the same parallel exists between the pension and the competitive labour field. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would say that I am prepared, along with many other hon. members, to support the general principles of this bill.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see how bipartisan the veterans policy is. Like most hon. members, I too am a veteran and in the past I have been very proud of the part that the Department of Veterans Affairs has played in the welfare of our returned people. On most occasions it has been bipartisan, and we are pleased to see that it is so today. Of course, I think a committee could be set up to study veterans' affairs. I do not think the fact that we pass this legislation will take away the need for setting up such a committee to discuss further the problems of veterans that are not settled by this resolution.
I should like to congratulate Mr. Burgess, the dominion president of the Canadian Legion, on the presentation that they made and the able manner in which the work has been done which has gone into that presentation.
In my particular area the Canadian Legion has always played a prominent part in veterans affairs. From my reading of the

brief and from the knowledge that I have of veterans problems-it may be small-I think the Minister of Veterans Affairs might have given more consideration to increasing the amounts which are being increased to bring them up to the 33i per cent which has been asked for by the Canadian Legion. At all times I have found the Legion moderate in the extreme. They have always tended to be on the conservative side, with a small "c". At no time have their demands been anything other than reasonable.
I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that at the present time there are people working in the House of Commons who are veterans of the British armed forces. When they applied for jobs here they were instructed that they did not come under the veterans preference. That is a matter that could be taken into consideration and perhaps some thought given to it.
I have found on many occasions that persons reporting to the pension board for their annual check-up-I have been in that position myself-have been instructed by the doctors sitting on the board and dealing with the review of pension cases that they have looked in the files and found no entries, no medical evidence that the pensioner had needed attention since the last time they saw him. I think some consideration should be given to this problem in those instances where medical plans are in operation. A doctor may be working continuously in an area under a medical plan and in many cases he does not see fit to fill out the forms for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Therefore, even though the man may be treated once a week, once a month or at irregular intervals, there is no record of such treatment, and when he comes before the board for the annual review there is no record of any medical service having been given to that particular pensioner. The obvious conclusion drawn from the blank record for that year is that he has not needed any treatment.
I am not sure what amount doctors are paid for calls involving pensioners but it may be that the rate is not sufficiently high to warrant the doctor filling out the form. He may find it is much more profitable to use the medical plan in that particular area.
There are also a number of cases, including one in particular about which I can speak with some authority, where the veteran comes before a pension board in a small community and there are no specialists attached to the review board with the result that the pensioner is sent somewhere else to see a specialist. In some cases I think the pensioner is legitimately justified in saying that when he is sent to a private practitioner

he should only be sent there for examination and should not be compelled to take treatment, treatment that would only serve to put a few dollars in the pocket of the particular specialist and would have no bearing whatsoever on the pension review being undertaken.
In the particular case I have in mind the person's pension was cut because he had refused the treatment, and he had simply been sent to the specialist for an examination and not for treatment. If these matters are brought to the minister's attention I am quite sure he will take cognizance of them and it will not be necessary to say any more about them.
On occasion we have had problems with a type of veteran who does not appear to be covered by the Department of Veterans Affairs Act. There are a number, some of whom I know personally, who served in the merchant navy, saw action and were wounded by shells or torpedoes and are unable to get any type of pension. It seems that originally there was a pension for merchant seamen and that when the war began that pension was discontinued. A period of time elapsed before the pension plan under which they were then brought was put into effect. One particular chap I know lost an arm and was badly shot up, but there is no coverage for him. I believe this matter has been raised in the house on a number of occasions. This person has never received any pension, and I think it can be legitimately argued that he was serving in a very active field of hostilities.
In talking to soldiers, airmen and navy personnel recently I was most surprised to find that they do not come under what we would have considered the protection of the Department of Veterans Affairs while we were service personnel. It is true that while they are on duty for their eight hours a day they would be covered in case of accidents when working at the job they are supposed to be doing. I am not going to repeat a number of cases that have been mentioned. There was one discussed at some length in 1956, an accident where a man was killed while still under the orders of his superior officer. But because what he was doing was considered to be outside the line of duty his wife received no pension.
However, it would appear to me that in such cases we could reasonably ask the government to provide and pay for an insurance plan that would at least supply some of the necessities for the widows and dependants of these service personnel who at the present time are serving their country not only in Canada but in foreign lands. It does not
Pension Act
appear to me that there would be much satisfaction involved for some lady, whose husband had been killed on the streets of Paris, being told that he was not on duty at that particular time and that nothing could be done about it. There has always been a certain honour and pride in serving in the forces of Canada and I think we should protect that at least with insurance which would cover these people in the hours when they are considered not to be working. I think that rates could be arranged whereby insurance of $20,000 or $25,000 would not be prohibitive in cost and I believe such a move would be very favourably received by the armed services.
Finally, I should like to leave the thought with the minister that some consideration be given to setting aside November 11 as a national holiday. Every person in Canada has had some close friend or relative who gave their life in the service of Canada. Indeed, many of us have had hundreds. The least I think we can do for them is to set aside one day on which to honour their memory.


Mr. McLeod:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be confined to the difficulties that pensioners encounter in having their medical condition reviewed and given what they consider is proper attention. It is not unusual for a veteran to find after appealing a decision that the same members are sitting on the court of appeal as were on the original examination board. I think all members will agree that is not a fair practice. Generally, pensioners have found that once a negative decision is made by an appeal board or by an examining board, as the case may be, it is almost impossible to have the decision changed or modified despite any evidence from local or family doctors that may be presented.
I am going to deal with a couple of cases for which I can vouch personally, and the information I am going to give the house is on record. There is a veteran not too far from my home town who suffered gunshot wounds in 1918. Shortly after being treated in hospital he was demobilized in the last year of the war and had only been home a short time when he became crippled with sciatica. This was in 1919. Since that time, Mr. Chairman, we have a continuous record of sciatica and suffering on the part of this veteran. At various stages during those years he was completely disabled. We have references here to statements by local doctors. I am going to read a recommendation that was made by Dr. Meekison in 1935. This is his opinion:
This man is totally disabled with bilateral severe sciatic neuritis. In the absence of other causes.

Pension Act
it is very reasonable to assume that his present condition is due to his gunshot wounds. Something should be done for this man.
We can go back a little bit earlier to 1919. This veteran was discharged and took up residence on Vancouver island. Suffering, and totally disabled as he was, he went to various doctors in his own neighbourhood and on the mainland. Finally, he was advised to seek another climate and he moved to Kamloops in the interior of British Columbia. From there, he moved a little farther westward and now is residing very close to my home town. From 1918 until the present time this man has been continuously suffering from sciatica. Various family doctors and local doctors have agreed on this man's condition. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that their opinions are just as worthy of consideration as any specialist who might sit on a board that the veterans affairs department might set up. I maintain that these opinions should be given some consideration in trying to reach a solution of this case. This example is forcibly in my mind at the present time because I have just taken it up with the pension commission in Ottawa. This morning I received a letter which does not make me feel too happy. I am not going to read the letter, Mr. Chairman, because it is rather lengthy. However, the last paragraph says this:
He is a veteran with a good record of service, and possibly would qualify for reinstatement on war veterans' allowance if he is no longer gainfully employed.
I say that if he is not employed and is entitled to war veterans' allowance then, in the face of the facts set out in this brief, he is entitled to a straight disability pension. In view of this, we feel the case should be reopened and he should receive more serious consideration.
I am going to mention one more case, Mr. Chairman. A young lad left school in 1944 to go into the armed forces of this country. He took his infantry training and was sent to Germany with the army of occupation. He had no active service, through no fault of his own. On discharge from the army he was examined by the medical officer and put in category F. Hon. members know this meant automatic attention by the pension board. The reason for placing him in this category was a severe heart condition. Within a short time he was called to Vancouver for examination before the board, and the board said there was absolutely nothing wrong with him. A few short weeks before that the army examining officer had placed him in category F and had made a remark-these are his exact words and therefore I would
like to have them on the record-"How in hell did you ever go through the army training?"
In spite of this, within a few short weeks the appeal board said there was nothing wrong with him; he had a perfect heart and was in perfect physical condition. I know this lad. I know that even today, after all these years, he has to be careful of the kind of employment he accepts. He cannot engage in sports. He cannot engage in any physical activity beyond that necessary to move in a very quiet occupation. If he cuts his own lawn, within a few minutes you will find him stretched out on a couch resting; that is the kind of lad the medical board said was in perfect physical condition.
These are examples that I think should be given a little more serious attention. There is something wrong when people such as these two I have mentioned feel it is hopeless to request that their case be reviewed. This lad who was discharged in 1946 is convinced it is hopeless to try to do anything about the decision of the board. From the evidence I have here, and from speaking to so many veterans in similar circumstances, I am inclined to agree that it is almost hopeless to try to have a case re-opened and get a decision that has once been in the negative reversed.


Robert Hardy Small: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take much of the time of the house this afternoon. In fact, I had not intended to say anything at all but I am taking part in the debate because of certain remarks that have been made. I might say that I am very sympathetic towards the cases cited by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, as well as the other grievances that have been raised this afternoon. I believe they will receive attention and correction. I believe these hon. members put forth a genuine effort in putting their cases before the committee. On the other hand, the submissions made by the hon. member for Rosthern as well as the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount are in a different position altogether.
While these hon. members were in favour of this measure, they could go along with it, they introduced the promises made by the leader of the government and stated he had not lived up to those promises. They felt the Prime Minister had not lived up to his promises because the pensions were not related to a formula tied to the gross national product of this country or the rising cost of living. The hon. member for Rosthern also made the point that our leader had not lived up to his promises in regard to this legislation because it had not been brought into effect immediately.

As I listened to both these hon. members I thought they sounded like a lawyer who comes into court with a very bad case. He has nothing to work with. So he is obliged to go into great fulminations, with great fury and furor, in an effort to try to distract the judge or the jury from the weakness of his case. This is the simple proposition with which the house is confronted.
They have now found that the leader of the government is living up to every one of the promises he has made and the people of this country have great faith in him. That is the reason they are an aggregation of Ishmalites. They found we have "Honest John" who is delivering the goods. They themselves are surprised, in view of the tortoise-like movement which the previous government had. Now they go into kangaroolike activity and say that this thing must be done overnight.
Let me tell you the people of Canada certainly placed their confidence in the right man. He is giving them the legislation and is fulfilling his promises with an alacrity that has dumbfounded the official opposition. I am not a bit surprised that the hon. member for Rosthern, when speaking the other night, said that he was amazed at some of the legislation that came in. We were amazed at his amazement. However, while they have a very weak case and they are now trying strenuously to find a way out, it is certainly amusing.
After this goes on for a few more weeks, the people of Canada will discern just exactly what they are trying to do. They will discern that they are trying to develop a case to go to the people saying, "We are now going to do something for you", notwithstanding the fact that it took them nearly 39 years to bring in their health legislation that had been promised continuously since 1919. They brought down an omnibus piece of legislation last March that covered the veterans assistance. It was nebulous. It did not have anything tied in with it and it left the government of today in a position to find the money to finance it.
However, I would say this. There is a certain amount of amusement in the situation. It brings to mind the comment once made by Patrick Henry: "How the mighty have fallen". Then I should like to wind up with a quotation from holy writ. When Eli was disturbed at the progress of the battle with the Phil-listines in which his two sons were engaged; they had not prepared for the fray and the armies were in no condition to fulfil what Israel expected of them, he died from the shock of Israel's defeat, and his two sons died in the battle. The wife of Eli's son Phineas
Pension Act
was great with child and expected soon. When the child was born, because of the calamitous defeat of Israel and his fathers part in it, she in her sorrow named it Ichabod, which means thy glory has faded. That is the condition in which the Liberal party now finds itself.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I have just a brief word to say, Mr. Chairman. I listened to the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke state the two cases with which he had difficulty. The reason why I rose is that I also had a case with which I had difficulty. I can advise the hon. member to take the same course as I took and he will not be sorry. This veteran to whom I refer had been thrown from the top of a lorry and lit on the hard road on his back. He was never able to walk very well after that time. After some years his walking ability became worse and worse and he was badly crippled. What 1 did was what I think any hon. member ought to do. I placed the case before the chairman of the pension board. I gave him particulars. In less than three months the man had a 100 per cent pension. I would advise any hon. member to do just what has been done today. I would advise him to get the particulars and give them to the chairman of the pension board. Then the doctors will be obliged to prove their cases.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to delay the house more than a couple of minutes at this stage but when my genial friend the hon. member for Danforth spoke, he made a comment about which I could not refrain from making some observations. He spoke about what was done last spring as being very nebulous. I just wish to draw to his attention the fact that what we did last spring was to increase the amount paid to the single veteran by $25 a month and that to the married pensioner by $30 a month. This increase went to all pensioners. If, in his opinion, that is nebulous, Mr. Chairman, then how much more nebulous is this bill which does not increase the basic pensions at all.
I give credit to the minister for being quite straightforward with the house in saying that he is not proposing to increase the basic pensions at all in this legislation. That makes it extremely difficult to understand why, for example, the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond seemed to think that this legislation was going to increase basic pensions. I was sorry he did not consult some of the leaders and some of the experienced members of his party who would have set him right on the matter. In fact, I am surprised that he should have said it at all when the minister was so clear in stating that the only way in which basic pensions would be affected by this legislation would be to incorporate in the bill what is already law-in other words these

Pension Act
increases that were made last spring are now the law-and put it in the Pension Act. The minister was quite trank about that matter. I think anybody who is supporting this legislation with the idea that it is increasing the basic pensions should have listened more closely to what the minister said quite honestly in speaking to the resolution.


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question. This concerns how decisions are arrived at concerning entitlement. It an applicant was accepted into any branch of the armed services as being in category A and is later discharged as being in a lower category, can the pension board disclaim responsibility on the ground that the health condition which led to discharge existed previously to enlistment?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, the question which is asked by the hon. member will be dealt with when we are discussing the bill. We are at the resolution stage now.
Having listened to the observations made by hon. members, I may say that I am pleased to have the suggestions that many of them have made. The many points which have been referred to me will be given careful consideration and when we are discussing second reading of this bill, I shall be pleased indeed to deal with them.


Henri Courtemanche: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, before I come to the matters I wish to develop I should like to ask the minister if he would give some thought to the question of the Canadian firefighters. It would, I think, be a good thing for him to examine the whole subject, to find out how many firefighters went overseas from Canada, when they went, how long they were overseas and what was the nature of the dangers they encountered; how many casualties they suffered and whether or not some consideration should be given them in order to reward them for the good work they did to assist Great Britain in the days of the war when fires were very widespread and very hard to put out.
I have listened with a good deal of thought and attention to the speeches made by the various hon. members who have taken part in the debate. I believe that if I were a reader of Hansard out in the country I should find it difficult to get an over-all picture of the situation which confronts Canada in respect of the veterans.
I thought that the submission which has recently been placed in the hands of the Prime Minister by the Canadian Legion was about as fine a thing as I have read on the whole subject. In my opinion it would be valuable to the people in the country who

read Hansard, not now, but in the future and who might bring matters before succeeding governments if we listed the recommendations contained in this submission. I should like to commend the man who drew up this brief. Already there have been a number of comments with respect to the conservative, moderate tone one finds throughout the submission and the moderate nature of the demands it contains. I should like to commend the author myself. On page 1, I read this statement which, I believe, is an important one:
In the light of this exceedingly serious situation and of world tensions today, we urge that there will be no unwarranted cutback in our defence budget and expenditures. Instead, this is a time fcr renewed and accelerated effort.
All hon. members will, I believe, support this idea, though as far as I have heard, no hon. member has supported it in the speech he made either before the committee or the house. On page 3 of the submission we read this:
The Canadian Legion therefore recommends

that manpower and equipment for the defence of Canada be maintained and extended according to the exigencies and requirements of NATO and the United Nations and our obligations to them; that the government does not reduce defence expenditure except in cases where the national safety be not impaired by so doing; and that the government shall adopt a policy in which the primary consideration shall be the fullest development of the best brains of Canada for purposes of defence by subsidizing higher education and scientific research in centres of learning in Canada.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I dislike very much interrupting the hon. member, but we are discussing the Department of Veterans Affairs. The subject matter which he is dealing with now has nothing to do with the Department of Veterans Affairs but is entirely the responsibility of the Department of National Defence, which is probably the reason why none of the other hon. members discussed it this afternoon.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I have just finished that part of my remarks. But I think we cannot stress this important matter too much, even though we are dealing only with veterans affairs-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, at the proper time.


John Horne Blackmore: Industrial Relations
provide the goods and services necessary to establish a high standard of living for her soldiers we find there is everything in Canada but the common sense necessary to make what is physically possible financially possible. Therefore, I think the people of this country ought to be aroused to the point where they will say, "Look here, if we can produce all the milk and other products of that kind to provide for our population and all the goods and services necessary to provide a comfortable standard of living, it is downright scandalous if our veterans cannot be provided with all of those things they need and can use".
I thought it would be worth while, Mr. Chairman, just to say a few words along this line. I have not said very much concerning veterans affairs during the last few years because we have had very able spokesmen in this group and because as it has been organized it has not been my particular responsibility to speak on the subject of veterans affairs. Nor is it my special responsibility today except that as a representative of the constituency of Lethbridge in which there are great numbers of veterans from world war I and world war II and a number from the Korean war I feel that it now becomes my duty to the veterans and the people of Lethbridge generally to speak out in support of a better deal for the veteran all across the board.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Brooks thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 35, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Michael Starr: the second reading of Bill No. 16, to provide for annual vacations with pay for employees in public works, undertakings and businesses.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I rise in moving second reading of Bill No. 16 which is an act to provide for annual vacations with pay for employees in federal works, undertakings and businesses I consider it a great privilege for me to be able to present this bill to the house at this time. I hope that in days to come I will have the privilege of presenting other bills which will be of benefit to the people of Canada.
The purpose of this bill is quite simple. It aims to provide two weeks annual vacation with pay to all employees who have

completed two years' employment in industries under federal jurisdiction and one
week's holiday with pay for those who have completed less than two years, but at least one year. In the first instance, pay is calculated at 4 per cent of the gross earnings, and in the second instance at 2 per cent. The bill provides an answer to many requests which have been put forward over the years by labour unions and other interested groups and, in effect, grants what has customarily been a subject of collective bargaining. It takes the two weeks vacation out of the collective bargaining arena and makes it mandatory for employees with more than two years' service.
This legislation will benefit employees in works and undertakings connected with shipping, navigation, railways, canals, telegraphs and other interprovincial and extra-provincial activities, including ferries, aircraft, radio broadcasting, banks and one or two industries such as uranium which have been declared by parliament to be for the general advantage of Canada. The act also applies to crown corporations.
A majority of employees in these industries are now getting two-week vacations as a result of collective bargaining agreements. However, there are still approximately 5,000 workers in these industries who do not receive vacations with pay as a matter of right. Furthermore, there are more than 150,000 workers in these fields who must be employed for three years before qualifying for two weeks holidays with pay as outlined in this proposed measure.
In arriving at the provisions of the present bill we felt it necessary to study the provincial legislation in this field. Five provinces provide for a vacation of one week after one year, they are New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta; two provinces provide for a vacation of two weeks after one year, namely Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Alberta also provides for two weeks' vacation after two years and Manitoba provides for two weeks after three years. Thus it can be seen that Bill No. 16 is equal to or better than the vacations provided in five of the seven provinces having this legislation. There is no provincial vacation legislation in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. The New Brunswick legislation applies only to mining, construction and related industries brought within the scope of the act by Order in Council.
As to the various features of the bill, I feel that it compares favourably with any such legislation elsewhere. A year of employment is reckoned from the day on which

continuous employment begins. There is also provision for a vacation plan based on a calendar year system, which is subject to certain conditions which will be set out in regulations. Thus, the bill will be quite flexible in its application.
The period within which the employer is required to schedule the vacation is set at 10 months following the anniversary day marking the completion of the year of employment. This is the period commonly fixed in legislation in the provinces.
Should a holiday occur during vacation- such as July 1 or Labour day-the vacation is extended by one day with pay provided that the employee would have been paid for working on that day had he not been on vacation. A transfer of business to a new owner does not break continuity of employment.
When the legislation comes into effect all those who have completed the required period of continuous employment will be entitled to the stipulated holidays with pay, as detailed in the bill.
On termination of employment an employee is entitled to vacation for any completed year in which he has not received a vacation and also for the completed portion of the year, based on two per cent, or four per cent, depending on the period of service. This does not apply if employment is less than 30 days duration.
The legislation overrides any other contract or arrangement except when such contract or arrangement is more favourable to the employee. A collective bargaining agreement, however, is an exception if it is binding upon the employer when this legislation comes into force. If the agreement provides for an annual vacation, the terms of the agreement shall continue to prevail until the agreement runs out. This will make for orderly adoption of the legislation and prevent confusion.
The legislation provides authority to make regulations dealing with administrative and enforcement matters. There is also authority to make special provisions in respect of seasonal or temporary employees.
I feel that these provisions, Mr. Speaker, should commend themselves to the house and that this legislation is a positive step toward giving labour as a statutory right what has long been a subject of bargaining.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to compliment the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) on his very worth-while contribution this afternoon and on the way in which he has explained the provisions of the bill which he proposes, which
Industrial Relations
will provide for vacations with pay for all of those employees who come within the jurisdiction of the federal government. It has always been my contention that matters such as these should not necessarily be left to the collective bargaining table. During my years of support of the Liberal administration I have worked ardently in an endeavour to get the cabinet to see my way of thinking, not only with regard to this particular measure, but with regard to union security and other legislation which might be of benefit to labour itself and to the labour movement in general. Therefore, I do not think it is inconsistent on my part to congratulate the minister on his introduction of this bill and again on the very clear manner in which he explained its various details.
I do think, however, that the minister should have given consideration to the bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) which does provide better legislation, in that an employee after working one year would be entitled to two weeks holidays with pay. After all, that employee during the year has contributed an equal amount to the industry itself, to the production of the industry and to the profit that that industry might show.
I find it difficult to understand why the government should wish to discriminate between one year of service and two years of service. If the minister intends to use length of service as a yardstick for vacations with pay then he should take the matter further, as some corporations do, and give extra holidays for continuing service. That is all I have to say on this point.
I am pleased to note that it does extend to crown corporations. While the minister has said that the majority of those employed in crown corporations already enjoy the benefits of vacations with pay, he has indicated that there are some 5,000 not now receiving vacations with pay. This legislation is certainly going to be helpful to them.
It is quite revealing to hear that 150,000 employees must work three years before receiving two weeks vacation. The federal government, which is the senior government, and which has in the past in many respects been very progressive, should be the one to take the lead in all of these matters. Therefore, I think the minister in drafting this legislation should follow the pattern of some of the provinces which do have legislation which is much better than this bill. I believe the minister did say-and I know it to be a fact-that the province of British Columbia provides for two weeks holidays with pay and, of course, that extends not only to employees of the government or corporations

Industrial Relations
coming under its jurisdiction, but to everyone. We should use that as a yardstick. I would hope that when the minister introduces the bill and we come to that particular clause he will be prepared to move an amendment which will have the effect of removing any apparent discrimination.
I am pleased to note also that when a statutory holiday falls within a vacation period the employee will be allowed one extra day of vacation and will be paid for the extra day. This follows the practice of the more progressive industries, and I am pleased to note that the minister has adopted that policy. I am pleased to note also, although it is not too important, that there will not be too much confusion with respect to collective agreements that are already in effect. I have little more to say. I welcome the legislation and I am sure that everyone on this side of the house will give the minister all the support necessary.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member who has just spoken I should like to offer my congratulations to the minister on the manner in which he introduced the bill and dealt with some of the more technical aspects of it. I certainly cannot go as far as the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) and give complete endorsa-tion to the provisions contained in the bill. In fact, when I read a copy of the bill and studied it I debated in my own mind whether it would be advantageous to vote for it because there are certainly a number of deficiencies in the proposal now before us.
In my opinion, one major one is that the bill reveals a different attitude on the part of the people occupying the government benches now from that which they expressed in 1956 when a similar bill was before the house and was voted on. I note that on July 27, 1956, ten of the present cabinet ministers stood up in the house in their places and voted in favour of a bill which contained far better provisions than this one does. Perhaps at some later date we can have an explanation of why this change of mind has taken place.
There is another matter which I think is not too good. While it does not relate specifically to the bill, nevertheless I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will grant me the leeway to deal with it. We have understood for some time that the Conservative party-this was enunciated quite strongly in some quarters during the election campaign-was in favour of a unified national labour code or uniformity of legislation throughout Canada. I would have been far more pleased if the minister had been able to introduce a bill and make the necessary changes in other legislation under our

jurisdiction that would have provided a uniform system of vacation allowances and payment therefor in all of the provinces of Canada and the Northwest Territories so as to cover all the people who at present come under the labour jurisdiction of this parliament. We would have been far better off. We could have approached the provinces along these lines and have moved towards establishing a uniform labour code by taking the first step on the question of vacations rather than adding just another system to the five or six, I think the minister said, in those provinces with vacation with pay legislation.
In my opinion, there are many other things wrong about the bill presented to us. I hope we will be able to take the opportunity at another stage of the proceedings on the bill to deal with them more particularly and to get clearer answers from the minister about them. I hope to convince him that the suggestions we will make with respect to certain clauses are valid and that they will be accepted.
Many hon. members who have been here for some years will know that the members of the present government, when they sat on the other side of the house, complained regularly, bitterly and justifiably so, I think, about too much legislation by order in council and not enough by parliament. We heard all about the supremacy of parliament in deciding these things. Yet when we look at the bill now before us we find that it makes provision for regulations which could very easily and conceivably end by being longer than the legislation itself. I for one am opposed to giving that amount of authority to make regulations under this legislation especially when there is provision for putting some extra loopholes in the regulations, exempting certain groups of people from the legislation and similar things of that nature. All that the bill does, if we accept the minister's figures as to the number of people who will be covered by the legislation, and I do accept them, is to go about halfway in effecting statutory recognition of certain rights which have been obtained through collective bargaining.
There is another point in which I am interested and I hope the minister will take the opportunity to answer regarding it. It relates again to what we understood to be the policy of the government as enunciated during the election campaign in the matter of drafting and enacting so-called labour legislation, of which this is a piece. We understood that the legislation would be drafted after consultation and discussion between labour and management groups so that all would be present at one time to

present their ideas and views, I do not know whether or not it has been done. If it has, then to my knowledge it has not been very well publicized and not too many people know anything about it other than the presentation which was made to the government by the Canadian Labour Congress.
Not only in this parliament but in the
legislatures of the various provinces where there are governments that are partial to what I might classify as the present capitalist system we invariably see that when legislation is drafted by a government following that type of thinking the legislation generally reflects the attitude of the Canadian Manufacturers Association and does not represent too well the desires and needs of the working classes. If legislation does err or is flexible in any way, it errs or is flexible so far as the employer is concerned and is not flexible with respect to the people who will receive benefits under such legislation.
If I have got the wrong impression from some of the words the minister used, I beg his forgiveness, but I understood him to say that the bill would take the question of vacations with pay out of the realm of collective bargaining. I do not see that in the bill. I do not think that is what the minister meant to imply. I hope I have got the wrong impression because I certainly would not want to see anything take place that would remove anything relating to collective bargaining from that process. Certainly the people who join unions want to see their unions get for them the best possible wages, hours and working conditions by collective bargaining and in contractual provisions with their employer. I hope I got the wrong impression from what the minister said.
Perhaps at this stage we could conclude by saying that while we do not wholeheartedly endorse all the provisions contained in the bill we are in agreement with the general principle of providing vacations with pay for employees. There is plenty of precedent for it in the various provinces that have passed legislation establishing vacations with pay for employees under their jurisdiction, and we have just followed that. When the bill reaches another stage I shall have more criticism and suggestions to make for changes to plug the loopholes that exist in this bill.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is not
my purpose at this time to go into the details of the bill. When the question of introducing this bill came up the other day I did not think it was definitely established we would go on with it today. I should like to say to the minister that I think the introduction of
Industrial Relations
this legislation is very timely. It is something which we in the Social Credit party have always advocated, that is that the working man should be entitled to at least two weeks' vacation with pay in any one year. This is the first time that the government has come forward with a bill to make it known definitely by legislation that all those employees in the federal field would be receiving this benefit.
In so far as the reference to taking the matter out of collective bargaining is concerned, it does seem to me that once this bill becomes law then all those people employed in government corporations, such as the C.B.C., the railways, those working on government ships and things of that kind, will have the right to have two weeks' vacation with pay. There is no argument about that. There is no collective bargaining about that. This does not mean to say, at least I take it does not, that collective bargaining is stopped. Certainly this measure should not bar employees from bargaining if they so choose for an even greater number of days of vacation with pay. However, it does state very definitely that the law shall be that employees shall have two weeks' vacation with pay. I do not think there can be any question about that.
There was a question raised about the regulations. As we all know, it is a fact that regulations must be made under any act, but no regulation at any time can contravene the act itself. All we are concerned about now is the act itself. We cannot debate any of the details of the bill. It is a rather long and involved bill and therefore we shall not at this time endeavour to discuss the details. It is not my intention to deal with any of the clauses, although there are some clauses that are probably important-


Michael Starr: With the hon. member's permission, and since this question of collective bargaining has been brought up by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) as well as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), I may say that in my statement I said that this bill will override any other contract or arrangement except when such contract or arrangement is more favourable to the employee.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think those are the words I used, or words to that effect. The bill states definitely that there is two weeks' vacation with pay, so there can be no bargaining about that. I do not think the employees would want any bargaining on that point. They may agree to bargain, though, and it would be their right, for any

Industrial Relations
increased number of days of vacation with pay. In my judgment at least, the bill does not bar them from that.
A moment ago I was speaking about the regulations, and I pointed out that the regulations will not be contained in the bill. There will no doubt be regulations attached to this act in the course of its implementation, but no matter what those regulations may be there is no regulation that may be made contravening the act itself. Hon. members who are here should see that this bill is for the purpose of protecting the labouring people. It has been our contention for quite some time that legislation of this type should be introduced. On many occasions we have expressed the thought that surely in this economic age, with all the tremendous developments and production we have in this country, people should be entitled to two week's vacation with pay after working for 50 weeks. We have always taken that stand and shall continue to take that stand.
When the bill reaches the committee stage we will be able to discuss it in more detail. For the moment, let me say we are in favour of the general principle of this bill but we will have remarks to make on the different sections, probably suggesting to the government that there should be changes made here and there. However, in principle, we do agree with it and will support it to that extent.


Mr. T. S. Barneii (Comox-Alberni):: It was
on May 11, 1956 when a bill incorporating the principle of providing vacations with pay for employees under federal jurisdiction was first introduced into this house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on behalf of the C.C.F. group. I must say that I regret the hon. member is compelled to be away at a time when this bill is being introduced for the first time from the government side.
As has already been made clear by the minister and by others who have participated in the debate, there is a very important difference between the bill introduced in 1956 by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the bill we now have before us. This difference is that this bill provides for two week's annual vacation with pay only after an employee has completed two years of service rather than after the completion of one year of service as in the former bill. Perhaps one could agree that the action which has come from the government side has arrived a little more quickly than in former years in so far as bills in the field of labour legislation introduced by the C.C.F. group are concerned. This is perhaps the

result of an election which has given us a government who may feel disposed to act a little more quickly than would otherwise have been the case because of the complexion of the membership of the house.
I am quite sure that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) is sincere in his desire to have this legislation become part of the law of Canada. I would suggest, however, he is perhaps adopting some of the practices of his predecessor in office in that he seems disposed to drag his feet considerably in the introduction of certain measures. I would have been much happier if in this bill he had been disposed to go at least as far as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did in 1956. To the working people of Canada it would certainly have appeared that this bill was being brought in with more alacrity than that with which it will appear to have been brought in at the present time. I think that is particularly true because of the fact that it is such a short time since the delegation of the Canadian Labour Congress presented their request to the government for a bill which would provide by law two weeks' vacation with pay after employment for a period of one year.
I must say that I felt the minister's remarks had a familiar ring in respect of the reasons why he was not prepared to go any further than he has gone when he outlined to us the provisions that were existent in the various provincial acts in this same field. He apparently is quite content to stay with that line of argument we used to hear from his predecessor, namely that in the field of labour legislation under no circumstances is the federal government ever to get even half a step ahead of any of the provinces.
Coming as I do from a province where our labour legislation in this field now provides two weeks' vacation after one year of employment, I perhaps am more aware of the fact that the present government is dragging its feet than I would be if I came from one of the other provinces he mentioned where they have not yet any legislation in this field.
In discussing this type of bill previously, I have expressed the point of view that in this field the federal government could very well be the one that was leading the way. We hear a great deal of talk about the need for national unity and for the development of a sense of our Canadian nationhood. I suggest that nothing could help more to create among the working people of Canada that sense of belonging to a Canadian nation than to have a federal government which would be prepared to take a lead in these things as far as its jurisdiction extends. Yet apparently this government, as was the previous government, is prepared to drag its feet and go

only as far as it is pushed by the sheer weight of public opinion as it has expressed itself through the various provincial legislatures.
The minister made reference to some figures with respect to those who now enjoy vacations with pay as far as employees under federal jurisdiction are concerned. If I caught his figures correctly, he said that about
150.000	employees under federal jurisdiction now enjoy two weeks' vacation with pay after three years or more of employment. Those employees, of course, under the bill which he is bringing in, will receive some benefit.
I am interested in the figures he used because of the fact that his predecessor, the former minister of labour, on May 11, 1956, put on Hansard a table indicating the situation in respect of employees under federal labour jurisdiction. According to the figures he gave us at that time, there were about
167.000	employees under federal jurisdiction who were entitled to two weeks' vacation with pay after three years of service. I mention that figure given to us by the former minister of labour and I contrast it with that given today because it indicates that the need which was put forward in 1956 by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for statutory provision for two weeks' vacation with pay after one year of employment is approximately the same now as it was then.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, at this point may I say this to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. In my statement I said that there are more than 150,000 workers in these fields who must be employed for three years before qualifying for two weeks' holidays with pay. I did not say the figure was specifically 150,000; I said it was more than 150,000.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am glad to have the minister's clarification of the meaning of the
150.000	figure. I think perhaps it lends point to what I was saying. From that I would infer that there are approximately the same number now as there were in 1956 when the former minister of labour put that table on the record. I would therefore submit that the need for providing by law two weeks' vacation with pay after one year of employment is as great now as it was when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in the form of a bill, first brought this idea into this house.
It seems to me that those of us who sit in this house should be prepared when we come to deal with matters of this kind to recognize much more fully than we do-at least from the treasury benches since I have occupied a seat in this house-the actual realities of life as the average industrial worker faces them today. The industrial worker, and those who perhaps might not 96698-59
Business of the House
be properly classified in that field particularly, see that those in other fields of activity by custom have come to enjoy a full two weeks' period of vacation with pay, with very little question of their right to enjoy that benefit. I have argued before, and I argue again that any proper concept of the kind of society in which people can have opportunities for realizing their rights as human beings requires in this industrial age that there should be at least two weeks as a matter of right during which they can get away from their normal duties without having to suffer from a loss of income.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman but as it is five o'clock I wonder whether he would move the adjournment of the debate.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should be glad to move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.
On motion of Mr. Barnett the debate was adjourned.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave to revert to motions in order to move, with the unanimous consent of the house, the following resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to motions with the unanimous consent of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That notwithstanding the appointment of Monday-next as a day for the consideration of the order for resuming debate on the motion for an address in reply to Her Majesty's speech, the house shall meet at 2.30 p.m. on that day and the provisions of standing order 2 (2) shall be suspended In relation thereto.
We are planning to proceed with the throne speech debate next week and if it were not for a motion of this type the house would be obliged to meet at eleven o'clock on Monday morning. We thought hon. members might wish to have the opportunity to attend ceremonies in connection with the Remembrance day on Monday morning and for that reason we are putting forward this amendment.


Mr. Lesage:: Is it intended by the government to repay these two hours which will have been lost in connection with the speech from the throne, at another time?


Howard Charles Green: That was not the intention, Mr. Speaker.


Major James William Coldwell: We have part of a day
coming to us now, on account of time lost on the throne speech.

Private Bills


Howard Charles Green: I believe the facts are just the opposite-we gave the house several extra hours a week or two ago.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. C. E. Rea (Spadina) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 27, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Charles Edward Rea: Mr. Speaker, I should like to try to give hon. members of the house the highlights of this bill. There is a lot of background to it. First of all, may I say this is an act respecting the Bell Telephone Company whose main object is that they wish to increase their capital. May I repeat that, Mr. Speaker, they wish to increase their capital.
For the benefit of hon. members who may not have read the bill, the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, which is petitioning for this act, was incorporated by act of parliament on April 29, 1880, just four years after the telephone was invented. At that time there were few scattered telephone companies located in some of the larger cities of eastern Canada, such as Hamilton, London, Windsor, Montreal, Toronto and Quebec. These were purely local systems having a few subscribers, they were not connected with each other. One of the purposes of the incorporation of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada was to bring these small organizations together into one integrated system so as to permit subscribers in one locality to communicate with others in another locality. To this end the Bell Telephone Company of Canada was incorporated with power to extend its operations throughout Canada.
Since the Bell Telephone Company has had to come to the House of Commons to ask for increases in capital due, of course, to increased capital expenditure in line with the growth of Canada and of the telephone service. They came to parliament in 1884; they came again in 1892; they came again in 1902; they came again in 1906; again in 1920, 1929 and 1948; and now, in 1957, they are asking that their capital of $500 million be increased to $1,000 million.
The Bell Telephone Company has, however, never extended its system throughout the whole of Canada. At no time did the company ever operate in British Columbia and in the early years of this century the company had given up its interests in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and disposed of all

its plant and property in those provinces. The result is that since 1909 the company operations have been confined exclusively to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec with, of course, facilities enabling a connection to be made with the systems serving the other eight provinces and the United States and, either directly or indirectly, connecting with all other systems throughout the world where the interchange of telephone communications is permitted by the laws of other countries and by the facilities provided by such other systems.
Connection may now be had with the systems of 133 other countries. The 2,766,153 telephones which the Bell Telephone Company served at the end of 1956 were all, as I said, located in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Here is just a little history about the percentage of people having telephones. It is estimated that there are about
4,500,000	telephones in Canada, which works out to about one telephone for every four persons. Great Britain has one telephone for every seven people and in the United States there is one telephone for every three people.
Many hon. members may not realize that in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec which the Bell Telephone Company serves there is a total of 677 separate telephone systems. That is just in these two provinces, and it is something a lot of people do not know. The total number of telephones in these provinces is 3,056,000 of which the Bell Telephone Company serves approximately 2,766,000. Of the remaining telephones all but some 300 are served by 674 connecting systems with which the company interchanges service. It is due in great measure to the company's long distance lines that these systems in Ontario and Quebec are interconnected so that a subscriber, as I mentioned before, in one particular district can communicate with a subscriber on another system.
The ratio between telephones and subscribers in the two provinces of Quebec and Ontario is one for every three people. In British Columbia the ratio is also 1 to 3. In Alberta it is 1 to 4; Saskatchewan, 1 to 5; Manitoba, 1 to 4; New Brunswick, 1 to 5; Nova Scotia, 1 to 5; Prince Edward Island, 1 to 7 and Newfoundland 1 to 12. As I said before, in the territory served by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada there is one telephone for every three people. In 1920 there was one telephone for every 10 people.
The Bell Telephone Company is not asking this parliament to vote it the amount of additional capital that it needs. What it asks is that parliament shall grant: first, the

power to create, with the approval of its shareholders, new authorized capital as it needs it to the extent of $500 million; second, the right, having the required authorized capital, to go to the board of transport commissioners for Canada from time to time and try to satisfy it of the propriety of making an issue of a specified amount of such authorized capital and of the price, terms and conditions upon which it is to be issued; and, third, the opportunity, after complying with the applicable securities acts or "blue sky laws", of going to the Canadian investors who, the company believes, have confidence in our country's future and in the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, and seeking from them the capital moneys the company needs for the purpose of serving the public of Ontario and Quebec with essential telephone service.
I have already mentioned the approximate number of telephones which are now in use. Here is something rather interesting: it is estimated that for 1957 there will be 2,980,400 telephones with 2,053,000 subscribers; of course, I suppose a lot of homes have more than one telephone. The number of applications waiting to be dealt with amounts to 18,668 for established services and for a higher grade of service, 38,200, which is over 56,000 unfilled orders. As at the end of 1956 there were 10,276,352 miles of local telephone wire and 1,090,330 miles of long distance telephone wire or a total length of 11,366,682 miles of wire in use. The estimated number of employees at the end of 1957 is 17,300 men and 25,200 women or a total of 42,500 employees.
May I again turn to the petitioner's need for additional capital and point out that at the end of July 31, 1957 it had left $34 million-odd of unissued or uncommitted capital stock. This remaining amount of authorized capital of $34 million-odd is being continually reduced by the monthly issue of shares which have been paid up under the Bell Telephone Company's employee stock plan. The operation of this stock plan will reduce the balance of authorized capital stock to something less than $26 million during the course of next year and $26 million would fall far short of the amount required to enable the company to make an issue of capital stock to provide it with the capital it requires when it next finances by that means. It is wholly insufficient to enable the Bell Telephone Company to carry on its substantial construction program which it now has underway and which it must carry on if the citizens of Ontario and Quebec are to have the telephone service they require and upon which they are dependent to enable them to communicate with citizens in other provinces of Canada, the United States of America and elsewhere in the world.
96698-59J
Private Bills
To provide the telephone facilities required to meet the heavy demand is not just simply a matter of producing telephone instruments and stringing connecting wires. Telephones and wires are useless without switchboards and the central office equipment necessary to make them function. Switchboards and central office equipment are most complicated pieces of apparatus. They cannot be obtained ready made and must be designed and manufactured for the precise place in which they are to be installed. Then too, the company cannot instal switchboards and central office equipment without having proper buildings in which to house them. These buildings and additions to buildings must be designed and erected. It will be appreciated that the planning, designing, manufacturing and erection of switchboards and central office equipment and buildings all involve projects which must be planned in advance, engineer designed and provided very far in advance of when required to provide time to carry them into effect. It will also be appreciated that in the planning and designing of equipment and buildings it is necessary for the company to be in a position where it can see its way clear to finance such projects. It is unthinkable that the company should let itself, or be permitted, to run out of the funds required for providing and extending service to the people of Canada.
Some hon. members may wonder what the company is going to do with this additional capital if it is allowed to increase and dispose of it. The company estimates that in the next five years, commencing in 1958, it will have the following construction expenditures: $191 million, $204 million, $197 million, $189 million and $181 million or a total of $962 million. Some hon. members might also ask where the company will get the extra $462 million. The company feels that with the increase in capital it will be able to use its assets for borrowing the balance and thus, with an increase in capital of $500 million, it plans to spend $962 million within the next five years commencing, as I said, in 1958.
I have given a breakdown of the company's estimated construction expenditures. The company figures it will have to pay $1 million for rights of way, $66 million for lands and buildings, $339 million for central office equipment, $236 million for station equipment, $281 million for outside plant and $39 million for general equipment.
Figures are sometimes rather pleasant to hear and I have some additional calculations which may interest hon. members. In 1947 the company handled 165,000 long distance calls every day and in 1956 it handled
317,000	long distance calls each day. In 1956

Private Bills
the company handled a combined total oi local and long distance calls of 18 million a day. There must be a lot of talking done in this country and I am sure all of it is not done on the floor of this house.
I might advise hon. members that this bill will go to the appropriate committee so that if hon. members wish to ask technical questions they will have the opportunity of addressing them to officials of the Bell Telephone Company who will be present to answer them. I take pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the recital of the history and accomplishments and purposes of this company by the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill. I judge that the document was carefully prepared by the solicitors of the company because it read in quite a legal form.
This is a very important bill. We have here a private corporation coming to this house asking for permission to increase its capital by $500 million. As a matter of fact, this bill provides for a billion dollar development by a private company over which this house has very little control. Now, I would not deny the necessity for the extension of the services rendered by this company in that portion of Canada it serves but this is a tremendous expansion by a private monopoly largely owned and controlled in the United States, and while the telephones are located in Ontario the ownership and control is located south of the border.
A search of the records of the combines investigation branch, in this house and in other places, and a reading of the history of monopolies in Canada will provide illustrations of many unsavoury developments and incidents. The whole history of combines development in this country is marked with unethical practices. We had that brought to our attention just the other day by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) in his announcement to the house with respect to the intended prosecution of a supposed combine in this country. One has only to read the records of the past of the comparatively small number of investigations and prosecutions in relation to the number of combines that exist in Canada to realize that this type of development, in the opinion of this group and in the opinion of an increasing number of people in this country is not in the interests of the Canadian people. It is no wonder that increasing numbers of the public are becoming suspicious of the large scale development of these monopolies. We all know that recent disclosures with respect to the control of pipe line companies, their financing and the

profits made by a very few individuals, which the consumers of this country will have to pay, are increasing that concern and causing it to grow from day to day.
I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am normally a very placid and mild mannered man but I am surprised at the letters I receive from people, who are even supporters of the government party in this house, expressing concern over this developing control of our economy by very few individuals. This is also indicated by editorials in the press across this country. One has only to read the Free Press of recent date, the Toronto Telegram, I think it was, and the Vancouver Sun, to realize that even these orthodox papers are becoming conscious of public opinion in this respect and are reflecting public opinion to the extent that they deal with this question. The combinations that are developing in the transportation of gas, oil and other public services and the development of our natural resources are causing the promotion of larger and larger combines of capital and are handing the actual control of this nation over to fewer and fewer people.
What about this company? I do not blame individuals. After all, we are creatures of the environment in which we live. I think we in this House of Commons are sent here to express our opinions and to express them fairly and clearly when we see situations developing, as a result of the rather better opportunities we have than the average Canadian citizen has to see how these things are developing. What about this company? Outside of obtaining a licence from the board of transport commissioners and the reference as to rates, there is actually no other control over this company. So far as services are concerned, this company can do exactly as the British Columbia Telephone Company does, carry on its extensions and developments according to its own desires and its own wishes and give service where it is profitable and deny it where it is not. I do not think that is a proper situation, Mr. Speaker.
No doubt when the present legislation was first introduced it was satisfactory because there were relatively few large corporations in this country and monopoly development had not gone to the stage that it has today. However, we are living in changing times and circumstances and I suggest we have to use new procedures to meet those changing times and circumstances if we are to make certain that these developments are to the advantage of the people as a whole. Therefore, I am going to make a suggestion, and I am not for one moment suggesting that it is an original thought with me. I think it is

time that we had a committee of this house and of the Senate to inquire into the activities and effects of public service corporations which are monopolies in this country.
In this house we have an opportunity periodically to examine the operations of the nationally-owned railroads. That is done in a committee of the house. We have an opportunity to examine the banks, but once this company obtains its licence and its rates are established by the board of transport commissioners there is no control, no planning and no direction. These financial groups are carrying on in that way. As I said before, I do not blame any individual but I think it is about time that a committee of this house, in association with members of the Senate, had the opportunity to make a thorough investigation of the activities and the effects of these large public service corporations which are monopolies.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is about time that the people knew the facts and this is one way to obtain the facts which hon. members should take advantage of and exercise some increasing control over these large corporations and monopolies through this house which represents the people.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which affects Ontario and Quebec, I think, more than it does any other part of Canada. I have not had time to go over it too carefully. It is a rather complicated bill. Our experience in the past when dealing with subjects of this kind, has indicated that there should be a good deal of careful thought and study before this house gives its consent to such a measure as this. Last year we had the experience of a pipe line company which wanted to divide its shares five for one. On the surface there did not seem to be much objection to it. I took the stand on that occasion that we would not give our consent to the passing of the bill until it had a thorough going over in the committee and after that had been done we would be in a better position to give our decision as to whether or not we favoured the bill. I think the same thing could be true here.
This is a large company. Of course, I am not objecting on the ground that it is a large company, as the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) did, and certainly not for the same reasons he gave; but I think we should be careful with a bill such as this one before we pass judgment on it.
The sponsor has stated that it is going to the committee. Since he has said that it is not necessary for me to dwell too long on the bill because my experience has been that
Private Bills
when a bill of this kind gets before the committee and the proper witnesses are called that is the time and place when all these different details can be brought out.
On the surface, it seems to me a rather large order for this company to come here and ask permission to double its capitalization, and especially when it wants the right to raise its capital another $500 million from time to time without coming to the house for consent.
I have never known the house on any occasion, when there was a bill of this kind put before it and the reasons were legitimate and it was supposed to be in the interests of Canada, not to give consent. It does seem to me a pretty big order when they say that the company shall increase its capital assets from time to time without having to come back to the House of Commons. In view of the fact that it is a rather large order to ask for we should be a little cautious and at least the members of this house and of the committee should go into it very carefully.
As I say, the hon. member has indicated that the bill is to go to a committee. I am going to leave my reservations at that; I am not going to commit myself one way or the other on this bill, whether we will give our consent to it or not, until we have had it before the committee and there decided on its merits.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Speaker, in the request in this bill the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, with control from the other side, is coming to the government and asking permission to expand its capital assets by another $500 million. That is quite a heavy order. It is becoming a rather powerful company.
The member who is sponsoring the bill indicated this afternoon that the company is going to do some expansion in the way of providing telephone service to the people of Ontario and Quebec. There is a great demand for such service and I am sure that these people would like to see telephones installed in their homes as quickly as possible so that they may receive service. But surely it would not require this amount of money to provide these services for the people of these two provinces.
As a matter of fact I believe that behind the bill is a plan to get control of a much larger field of communications than simply telephone service and not only within two provinces. I believe their aim is nationwide control in some fields of communication which are very important to us. When the president of this company dealt with the matter in a speech about a year ago, as reported in the Financial Post, he indicated a much wider and broader field of expansion

Private Bills
than presented this afternoon by the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill. The president of the company indicated pretty clearly what their plans were. He told about what the company was doing in the expansion of what they called the picture-phone. The company's laboratories are now working on a project whereby when you telephone someone and they answer a picture will appear and you will be able to see the person to whom you are speaking.
There is also expansion in the field of long distance dialing. Those who use the long distance services can verify that very quick service is given by means of long distance dialing. Operators in one city can dial almost directly through to other cities in different parts of Canada and give very rapid service.
There is also rapid development in the teletype field and in what the company calls integrated data processing whereby business machinery in an office in one part of the country is connected with mobile radio installations and central control agencies and can receive signals from other offices of the business throughout the whole of Canada. The example the president of the company used at that time to illustrate the company's intentions was the trans-Canada pipe line. When the line is finally in operation the central control office of the company is going to require immediate data respecting the flow in various parts of the 2,000 mile pipe line. This is an excellent project and shows remarkable progress.
The president of the company referred to another field which the hon. member did not mention at all this afternoon, the rapid expansion of control by this company of the whole microwave relay system across Canada which will extend from Sydney, Noya Scotia, to Vancouver. The telephone company has already built most of the system and by the end of next year they expect to have the microwave relay stations completed. It will be a billion dollar operation before final construction is completed.
What I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members and warn them about is the fact that once this company gets this amount of money, proceeds to expand and and is given the right to control the microwave relay field, practically every television station across Canada will have to rent the service of the Bell Telephone Company in Order to secure transmission of television programs. The president also stated that the company would have facilities for colour television. I should like to know the extent to which the C.B.C. is renting the service of the Bell Telephone Company microwave relay system: for their broadcasts at the

present time. What is the tribute being paid by the C.B.C. to the Bell Telephone Company today? What is going to be the position of the Bell Telephone Company in another ten years with regard to complete control of the microwave relay system? When it is estab-listed they can quite readily and easily prevent any competition of any kind. They will remove competition from the field. If they remove competition from the field, then what is the toll the Canadian people will have to pay for the operation of the telephone company's television relay and communication systems throughout the country?
If private enterprise can carry out this project, let it do so, but everyone who supports the private enterprise idea states that one of the main objectives, one of the things which keeps private enterprise on the go, is competition. What happens when you eliminate competition? Is there any possibility of competition in this most important field? Communications are vital to modern industry and modern living. Does this bill mean that the company is going to have a monopoly in the television microwave relay field throughout the country? If it does, then I think we should oppose it.
My reason for saying that is that when competition is not possible we have a system of guarantee extortion from the Canadian people, and I do not believe our people will support the granting of monopoly in a public service to any company. To prevent that kind of thing, we believe it is a good idea for the government to go into the public service field. If there are any profits to be made from that field, then those profits will accrue to all the Canadian people rather than one powerful, wealthy firm being permitted to have control and name its price for its services.
In the province from which I come, and a number of the western provinces are the same, the telephone service has never been a private enterprise concern. Telephone communication is considered a public service. We have a government telephone service, in my opinion the best service in Canada. I might say that the profit motive is not the only thing involved there. I think the province of Saskatchewan is the only one where local telephone calls through pay telephones still only cost a nickle. Every place else it is 10 cents.
There is another field I should like to look into here. To what extent are the rights of a province respecting communications within its boundaries protected? Can we guarantee that each province that wishes to maintain control Of , its own communications will be

protected and that it will not be affected adversely by agreement or otherwise or through lack of service because it did not wish to pay a toll to this giant corporation for communications throughout the province? Surely the province has certain rights, and I hope they will be protected. I hope that when the bill goes to the committee the members who will investigate the company and ask questions will make very sure that the rights of the provinces are not interfered with in any way.
The provincial governments are watching the situation very carefully. I know that my own province of Saskatchewan has made arrangements for the use of the microwave system. They are using the microwave facilities and are connected with the long distance services of other communication systems across the dominion by means of arrangements and agreements. I want to see that these things are maintained and that nothing harmful will be done in the future.
I do not wish to frown on private enterprise where it is providing a service but I do frown on private enterprise when it becomes a monopoly. I do not think the actions of this or any other government or anything that we do in this house should in any way lead to the establishment of a monopoly in a public service, something which is essential to civilization as we know it. With these safeguards, I would be glad to see this bill passed, go to the committee and when it comes back it will have our blessing. Without these assurances, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I and others in this group will oppose it.


Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the house that if the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I
should like to ask the hon. member to answer a question when he speaks. We in Fort William were disappointed when telephone rates were increased. We sent in a petition, but I do not know that we got very far with it. I was just wondering, if this bill is passed, does that mean rates will be reduced or increased or will we have any say about it? I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the telephone is one thing that should be publicly owned and the profits should go to the common people. I hope to have an answer to these questions.


Charles Edward Rea: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) I may say that this bill has nothing to do with increases in rates at all. It only has to do with an increase in the capital stock of the Bell Telephone Company.
Private Bills
The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castle-den) talked about the lack of control. May I remind him that this company is under the jurisdiction and control of the board of transport commissioners. This board has very wide powers. They can, from time to time, as the occasion may arise, review, rescind, change, alter or vary their own decisions. They have power and jurisdiction over all requirements under the company's special act; any agreements the company enters into; to make inquiries into the company's operations; to inspect the company's work; to regulate the construction of the company's work when matters of public safety are involved, for example as at railway crossings. The board can order the company to make repairs; they regulate the company's tolls and tariffs.
The board of transport commissioners regulates the company's rates; regulates joint tariffs. They have jurisdiction over the publication of tariffs; over contracts to limit liability; over construction of lines upon or across highways; over construction of lines across other lines; over construction of the company's lines with the lines of other systems; over all contracts the company makes with other telephone systems and subscribers. They have the right to inquire into any contract whatsoever into which the company may enter. Also, as I mentioned before, the Bell Telephone Company shall not have the power to make any issue, sale or other disposition of its capital stock without first obtaining the approval of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada of the amount, terms and conditions of such issue, sale or other disposition of such capital stock.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Mr. Gordon Chown (Winnipeg South) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 29, to incorporate Investors Trust Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which will inaugurate a free enterprise which I think will be more palatable to my friends across the way in that it is concerned with selling the idea of savings to the people of Canada. This, of course, as they will agree, is of an anti-inflationary nature which accrues to the benefit of us all in a country of this nature. As our time is short, for the benefit of this house I shall read the history of the company sponsoring this bill, namely Investors Syndicate of Canada Limited.

Private Bills
The Investors Syndicate originated in the United States before the turn of the century. There was a Minnesota company called Investors Syndicate. It was owned by Investors Diversified Holding Company. That company in Minnesota started doing business in western Canada, under the firm name and style of Investors Syndicate of the United States. They started business in the twenties and they sold here in Canada the same form of investment contracts that they sold in the States. They are contracts where the purchaser names the term at the end of which he desires to provide for himself a lump sum of money, in consideration for which he can arrange either for part, or a stipulated payment, and they invest these moneys, generally in mortgages, and have done so very successfully. They are cash values and form a sinking fund.
In 1940 they decided that it would be better if they had a Canadian company, so they obtained a special act in Manitoba in 1940 incorporating Investors Syndicate Limited of Canada, being chapter 88 of the statutes of Manitoba, 1940. As pointed out previously, the Canadian company was still owned by the Investors Diversified Services Incorporated. They have over $1 million in assets now. They continued to sell investment contracts providing a stipulated sum at the end of a specified term.
The so-called Investors Mutual of Canada Limited was incorporated in 1948. It has assets of $150 million. Since 1950 it has become the largest mutual investors fund in Canada, even greater than the Canadian Investors Fund. The assets of Investors Syndicate are largely formed of mortgages, about 75 per cent, and the rest in bonds. The assets of Investors Mutual are all in bonds and stocks, with hundreds of millions of assets.
The third company was incorporated this year and was called the Investors Growth Fund Limited. The purpose of this new company was to have a separate mutual investment in which the assets would be invested solely in common stock.
As already mentioned, the Investors Syndicate consists of principally mortgages, a few bonds and even fewer stocks; the Investors Mutual consists of bonds and stocks, no mortgages; and the Investors Growth Fund consists of nothing but stocks, preferred and common.
In 1956 they concluded, with the growth of their business in Canada, that it would be better still if it were controlled in Canada rather than still controlled by the holding company in the United States, namely Investors Diversified Services Incorporated. In 1956 they issued additional stock in Investors
[Mr. Chown.l
Syndicate of Canada and they increased it to the same number of shares as the holding company had outstanding and then they issued these shares to the individual shareholders in the United States and Canada.
The ownership of Investors Syndicate of Canada was transferred from the holding company in the United States to the individuals in the United States and Canada of which there were many. Many of the individuals in the United States in turn sold their shares to Canadians, with the result that many of the shares are now controlled and owned, to the extent of 75 per cent to 80 per cent, by Canadians.
Why do they want the trust company now? They do not intend to engage in most of the usual fields of trust companies. They do not intend to administer estates. They do not intend to look after cash deposits or trust funds. Their reasons for wanting a trust company are: One, to enable the trust company to manage a group pension plan for employers who desire to run their own plans rather than to place them with insurance companies; two, to take full advantage of the amendment to the Income Tax Act under section 79 (b), both for employers and selfemployed.
Their form of investment is mostly mortgage. They want to be in a position to compete with other trust companies. It is correct to say that the trust company is not seeking any special powers but only powers comparable with the trust companies in the pension field. As they wish to look after personal investments, they must be a trust company under Dominion statute.
Under clause 5, the company shall not commence business until at least $1 million of its capital has been subscribed to and paid for. Under clause 6, the company acquires the same powers as any company under the Trust Company Model Act. Therefore by this act they can go into other trust company fields in estates or deposits, if they so desire, at a future date.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, the sponsoring company, namely Investors Syndicate Canada Limited, is now 75 per cent to 80 per cent Canadian owned. The objects of Investors Syndicate and its existing subsidiaries, Investors Mutual Limited and the Investors Growth Fund Limited, are to encourage Canadians to save something which of itself is an anti-inflationary objective. Now they want to incorporate this company to be known as Investors Trust Company so that they can operate in another aspect of the field which has as its objective plans for saving money.
It is my privilege to know the president of Investors Syndicate and many of the other

officers of this company and of its existing subsidiaries. They are all of the highest integrity and greatly respected by their friends and their competitors across the nation. For this reason I have no hesitation in asking this house to assent to the second reading of this bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 105, this bill now stands referred to the banking and commerce committee.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) for the second reading of Bill No. 2, to provide for annual vacations with pay for employees.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, this bill was debated at some length earlier in the session and we were having quite a bit of debate on topics related to it. I think that certainly the provision in the bill for two weeks' vacation with pay after one year of employment, as introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is one that this house could very well support. While I do not want to duplicate the debate which has already taken place on this subject, I nevertheless felt that I wanted specifically to express in a few words my support of the bill which was introduced or re-introduced again this year by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I move the
adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Green the debate was adjourned.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.
Industrial Relations


Mr. Speaker:: Did I hear someone say that it is six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave of the house I will call it six o'clock, and the house stands adjourned until Monday. But first there is the business of the house to be announced.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Paul Joseph James Martin: I believe the business of the house was announced at five o'clock but it might be more convenient if it was announced again so that it would appear at the end of Hansard where members could see it readily. Before that is done, does the leader of the house not wish to give consideration to the plea made by the hon. member for Kent, Ontario, that, in view of the fact that we have already dealt with certain emergency legislation it is desirable in the public interest that we should proceed with the farm stabilization bill which concerns so many primary producers all over this country as well as in certain particular sections.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid that the hon. member for Kent, Ontario, (Mr. Huffman) and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) are just trying to get a little bit of publicity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. friend to withdraw that remark. There are farmers in eastern Canada who require consideration at the hands of this government, and it does not do them any good to have made cheap observations like those just made by the acting leader of the government.


Howard Charles Green: In reply, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am pleased to note that the hon. member for Essex East at long last is now interested in the farmers of eastern Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I make it clear to my hon. friend that before he ever came into this house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the odds are about even on that one and we might call it a draw. Does the minister have anything further to say?


Howard Charles Green: The business on Monday will be the throne speech debate.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[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. Huffman: 1.	Is Australian beef coming into Canada?
2.	If so, what were the amounts for each month to date for 1957?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1.	Yes.
2.	Imports of beef from Australia January to July, 1957 (latest available):
Item	Month	Quantity	ValueBeef and veal, fresh	January	lb.	$(Item 2251)	February	-	-March	-	-April	24,097	4,081May	41,815	5,801June	7,671	1,478July	527	606Extracts of meat and fluid beef, not medicated	January	37,184	51,754(Item 2265)	February	5,488	7,979March	-	-April	1,904	2,768May	11,284	10,567June	-	-July	-	-Beef, canned, n.o.p	January	96,765	19,355(Item 2273)	February	109,004	23,515March	113,121	38,526April	18,000	5,516May	129,308	29,676June	111,636	32,347July	209,592	47,559Corned beef, canned	January	437,562	153,221(Item 2274)	February	208,310	71,462March	61,920	18,250April	140,400	45,034May	224,441	63,123June	249,100	78,198July	489,104	156,168INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS, WOODS AND	2. If so, in	what years were they	made andCONSTRUCTION EMPLOYEES	what are the names of	the officials?	
Question No. 127-Mr. Fisher:	Answer by:	Hon.	Donald M.	Fleming
1. Have any officials of the government made any	(Minister of Finance):			
studies and/or reports on the application and the possible effects of the extension of the expense deductions given to transport employees under subsection 7, section 11 of the Income Tax Act, to workers in either the woods or construction
1.	Yes.
2.	It is not the policy of the government to disclose the names of officials making reports
industry or both?
to it.

Monday, November 11, 1957