1961-02-07

REPRESENTATION ACT


Mr. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-65, to amend the Representation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to change the name of the Charlevoix constituency into that of Charlevoix-Montmorency.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government would consider having arrangements made so that the question of monetary policy could be referred this session to the standing committee on banking and commerce for examination and report.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this question was dealt with on an earlier occasion. I believe the Minister of Finance said some time ago that the report by Mr. Coyne, governor of the Bank of Canada, would not be available until March.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the decline in the consumer price index and the continuing rise in unemployment, will the Prime Minister tell the house whether it is the view of the government that monetary policy should be directed primarily to fighting unemployment rather than inflation?


John George Diefenbaker: This is a question on policy, Mr. Speaker, and is very improper.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easi):: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Prime Minister says it is improper likely makes it proper, but that is a matter for you to decide.
90205-6-114


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the Prime Minister to express a view on a matter of policy, and if exception is taken by the government or by the Speaker questions on policy are not normally answered.



PROPOSED U.S. RESTRICTIONS ON TOURIST IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: In the
absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce perhaps I can direct this question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister comment on President Kennedy's suggestion that United States tourists will be able to bring back only $100 worth of goods from abroad duty free? Will the Prime Minister say whether the Canadian government has made any representations to Washington in protest against this move?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the first portion of the question is concerned, it is naturally not considered proper for the parliament of one country to pass observations on the policies of another, and that applies also to anyone who is a member of the government of one country in dealing with matters particularly within the jurisdiction of the other country.
As to the second portion of the question, naturally the matter is receiving continued attention, as do all the changes in economic or other relations between our countries.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister say whether any representations have been made to the government of the United States following the consideration to which he has referred?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be helpful at this time to go further than I have already gone.



REPORTED IMPORTS OF VEGETABLES FROM CUBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arlha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. As I am speaking there are 20,000 twenty-pound lugs of Cuban tomatoes on their way to this country by truck from Miami and, as is also reported in the newspapers, a shipload of tomatoes, cucumbers, etc., is due to

Inquiries of the Ministry arrive at an east coast port. Can the minister tell us whether this is a fact? If it is, what is the government doing to protect the hothouse growers of Ontario?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take this question as notice and look into the matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has the Minister of Agriculture not been advised already that this action is contrary to section 56 of the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I know now where these questions originate.



ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY- INVESTIGATION INTO USE OF BARBITURATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice, but in his absence perhaps the parliamentary secretary may be able to deal with it. Will the minister report to the house on any inquiry being held in St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary on the use of barbiturates by inmates?


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: There is a full investigation under way into this whole matter, and a report will be presented to the minister. I am certain that it then can be brought forward to the house at the same time.



BARBITURATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Romuald Bourque (Outremont-St. Jean):: Mr. Speaker, in 1957 I brought up the question of goof balls-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Romuald Bourque: -and was laughed at as I am laughed at today. At that time I was denounced, and it was stated there was no such a problem as the problem of goof balls. In view of all the murders that are being committed and the riots that are taking place at the present time in all the jails of Canada, I should like to ask the minister whether he intends to take any measures to curb this evil and place this drug under the narcotic drugs act.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Naturally I do not think I have anything to say with regard to


the hon. member's preamble, but we have been making a special study of this particular barbiturate problem.


Romuald Bourque: A supplementary question. May I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has just stated that his department has made a considerable study of the goof ball problem-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Romuald Bourque: Hon. members seem to think it is very funny when we talk about goof balls-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a supplementary question to clarify- would the hon. member resume his seat? The hon. member received what appeared to be a clear answer to his question, but if he has a supplementary question to ask I would, of course, give him the floor, though not to make a speech on the subject.


Romuald Bourque: I wish only to ask the minister if he would be good enough to table the studies which have been made in relation to the goof ball problem.


Jay Waldo Monteith: At the moment, Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of an intensive study of this particular problem. In the very lengthy preamble to his earlier question the hon. member made several statements which tempt me to debate the matter, but I shall reserve my observations until the estimates of my department are under consideration.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillingafe):: I wonder if I might ask the hon. gentleman a supplementary question. Is this study a secret study?


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is not completed.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received a protest against the 15 per cent dividend tax from the director of the $100 million Anaconda development in northwestern Ontario, on which they have already spent $5 million? If so, have they indicated that they will suspend operations on the property, thereby displacing 100 men employed on the project?


Mr. Speaker:: I raise the question with the hon. member whether this is not a matter that could more properly be dealt with on the resolutions which are to come before the

house, or are now before the house. It relates to fiscal policy and normally I have not admitted questions on fiscal policy on orders of the day. I would permit, I think, a question with respect to whether the minister has received the communication. If it were limited to that I think it would be in order.


Hubert Badanai: Will the minister indicate whether he has received such a protest?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I have received no communication in writing from this company that I am aware of.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the statement made by Sir Colin Anderson, a director of the P. & O. line, as reported in the Vancouver press on February 3 and 4 on the occasion of the visit of the new P. & O. liner Oriana, to the effect that docking facilities in Vancouver are "among the poorest in the world", can the minister comment on this statement and indicate whether he will have the national harbours board investigate this condition?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have read the press comment on the visit of the Oriana, which appears to indicate that Sir Colin Anderson's statement was directed to criticism of the harbour facilities in general. We have assurance from Sir Colin that he was referring specifically to the passenger reception facilities on the particular pier at which the ship was docked, which incidentally is a privately owned facility.
Although it has not been requested to provide such accommodation, the national harbours board has been for some time interested in the possible provision of a deep sea passenger terminal in the port of Vancouver, and has approached local and Pacific coast shipping agents handling passengers with a view to modifying one of its existing piers for this purpose. Agents and owners have stated a preference for berthing their ships in a location where they may be readily observed and visited most conveniently by the largest number of people possible, and none of the existing board facilities meet these requirements.
It should be kept in mind that to date deep sea passenger traffic through the port of Vancouver numbers well under 20,000 passengers 90205-6-1141
Inquiries of the Ministry annually, a substantial number of whom arrive and depart on freighters and who consequently would not use a terminal created for the exclusive use of passengers. This circumstance imposes obvious and severe economic limitations on the construction of such a terminal. However, I can assure my hon. friend that this is a matter which is being given consideration by the Vancouver harbour planning committee.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I should like to answer a question asked of me last Wednesday by the hon. member for Kootenay West regarding requests received from Prince Edward Island for Sable island ponies. The generous and kind interest of Prince Edward Islanders had already been brought to my attention by the hon. member for Queens, and I want to assure the house that we are giving the matter of these ponies close and continuing attention.
I think it might be well to point out that the ponies are completely wild and would not become manageable as pets without long and patient training. Another factor to be kept in mind is that as there is no harbour or wharf at Sable island, and also because the ponies are not tame, safe removal of a few or indeed any number without injury would be costly and would require special skills. However, as I say, we are keeping the matter very much in mind.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE TAX SHARING    REQUEST FOR STUDY BY PROVINCES OF FEDERAL PROPOSALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the government intend to comply with the request contained in a letter from the premier of Quebec to the Prime Minister that the federal proposals on tax sharing be sent to the provinces for study before the conference reconvenes?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from the premier of Quebec along the lines suggested in the question. All I can say in that connection is that when a decision is made whether there should be an announcement of the terms or particulars in advance of the conference or whether the unveiling of the

Inquiries of the Ministry proposals should take place at the conference itself, the house will be made aware of the decision.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the Prime Minister say how many premiers have already responded to his letter, and whether a definite date has yet been fixed for the conference?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not that information at the moment, but in general I think it can be said that those who have replied have been in favour of the February date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask a further question. Will the Prime Minister follow the usual custom and, at his convenience, table the correspondence in the house and have it put on Hansard as has been done formerly so there will be a continuous record of this matter?


John George Diefenbaker: When I have heard from all the provinces, consideration can be given to the hon. member's suggestion.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport, and I thank him for his answer to my question respecting his cronies and their ponies.
In view of the fact that the Navigable Waters Protection Act prohibits the disposition of rubbish and other material in navigable waters, and in view of the fact that under section 22 of the act a proclamation has been issued exempting the Labrador Mining and Exploration Company Limited from the operation of section 20 of the said act, would the minister inform the house whether this proclamation represents any change in government policy with respect to the pollution of navigable waters in Canada?


Léon Balcer: It does not imply any change in policy.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  C. W. Carier@Burin-Burgeo: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Justice. In view of the fines levied on eight electrical companies in the United States for bid rigging and price fixing, will the minister tell the house whether any investigation is being made or is contemplated by the


combines investigation branch into similar practices by the Canadian counterparts of these electrical companies?


Hon. W. J. Browne (Acting Minisier of Justice):: I will take this question as notice and give the member an answer at an early date.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hubert Badanai: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works arising out of a letter which I received from the minister on February 2 relative to the stage 3 contract of the lakehead harbour terminal. Can the minister inform the house whether all stages of construction of the terminal will be completed in 1961?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minisier of Public Works):: No, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. When will the answer to my starred question having to do with matters in the Department of Finance and made an order for return on January 18 last be tabled?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Stale):: 1
am sorry, but I did not hear the number.


William Hector McMillan: It was No. 57.


Noël Dorion: I shall make inquiries and give an indication to the hon. member.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question arising out of a speculative story in today's Globe and Mail about warfare amongst the unions. Has his department under study any information regarding alleged intimidation or beatings which took place in recent years relating to the activities of Mr. Hal Banks and the S.I.U. in the transportation field?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker.



MONCTON, N.B.-NUMBER OF UNPLACED APPLICANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, notice of which I sent him yesterday. The question is this. Will the minister give the house the number of unplaced applicants for the latest date for which computation has been made in the national employment offices for the region supervised by the Moncton regional office?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave me notice of this question yesterday and I am able to give this information. On January 26 the figure was 110,635; on January 28 of last year the figure was 108,482.



SPRINGHILL, N.S.-IMPLEMENTATION OF WINTER WORKS PROJECTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of representations which I have received on behalf of the wives of 600 unemployed miners at Springhill, Nova Scotia, representations to which I should like to reply as soon as possible, is the minister in a position to give a report to the house on winter works projects planned or under way in this particular community?


Michael Starr: similar question was asked last week, and I made the suggestion that if this were placed on the order paper we should endeavour to assemble the information required.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is Canada one of the countries that has been consulted by the United States with regard to its plan to bring peace in the Congo and preserve the integrity of the Congo, as announced by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs yesterday in Washington?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secreiary of Siaie for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government welcomes the United States initiative. The new policy contains a number of important elements which Canada has always believed were necessary to a solution of the crisis in the Congo. For example, it implies an attitude of impartiality in the
Inquiries of the Ministry internal political affairs of the Congo. This is the attitude which Canada has maintained from the outset of the crisis, consistent with Canadian membership on the secretary general's advisory committee for the Congo and our participation in the force. As the hon. member knows, Canada is one of the 18 nations represented on this Congo committee, all of them having substantial forces in the Congo.
It implies a willingness to face realistically the fact that there are a number of contending political elements in the Congo, each with a certain strength, which cannot simply be wished out of existence. In the Congo debate in the general assembly just before Christmas the Canadian spokesman, namely the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), who is my parliamentary secretary, argued that no political solution was likely to be viable in the Congo which did not take these facts realistically into account.
The new United States policy will also presumably be an important factor in meeting the request which the secretary general once again made to the security council on February 1 for a clarification of his mandate. On this point also the parliamentary secretary, in defining Canada's Congo policy to the general assembly in December, pointed out that Canada believed the mandate should be properly defined and that member states could hardly complain at the way in which the secretary general carried out his responsibilities so long as the general assembly was unable itself to agree on what the role of the United Nations should be and left the task of interpretation to the secretary general.
There may now be grounds for hope that some of the limitations on past United Nations action in the Congo can be corrected. I sincerely trust that this will be the outcome of recent developments and the current security council debate. The Canadian government will continue to advocate and support all measures which are designed to strengthen the position of the secretary general and are consistent with a policy of strict impartiality in Congolese internal affairs.
In this way we believe United Nations influence in the Congo can effectively be brought to bear in order to assist the Congolese to resolve problems which are essentially their own.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): May I ask the minister whether members of the United Nations withdrawing their forces from the Congo cease to be members of the advisory committee.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, to date I think the forces of only one member nation which is
1800	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry also a member of the advisory committee have been withdrawn. I refer to the United Arab Republic. The whole of their forces as yet may not be out of the Congo, but I know the bulk of them have been removed. Whether that nation will continue as a member of the Congo committee I cannot say at the moment. I would doubt whether the U.A.R. would be qualified to continue as a member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think the Secretary of State for External Affairs gave an answer to one part of my question, namely whether Canada had been consulted by the United States regarding this plan.


Howard Charles Green: We have been kept closely in touch with the attitude of the United States, and I expect to have a conference later today about this question.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: should like to ask the Prime Minister the following question. Does the Canadian government view with favour the efforts of the many so-called "ban the bomb" movements which exist in Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know the significance of the question. I will say this; that the attitude of the Canadian government to the question of disarmament has been very definitely placed before the United Nations and also before people throughout this country by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself. We believe every effort must be made to attain disarmament under, of course, appropriate controls, so that all nations agreeing to disarmament will be subject to inspection and to the control that is incidental to inspection.
Any group of people who desire to obtain disarmament are naturally welcome to express their views, which are, of course, in line with the views of the government. We believe in disarmament and its attainment. Until it has been attained we also think it is realistic to realize this fact, that our defences must be maintained.


FEED MILL PURCHASES-REPRESENTATIONS BY FARM ORGANIZATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of growing opposition


to feed mills buying grain outside wheat board quotas, despite the minister's claim that this opposition comes from only a few organizations.
Has it been brought to the attention of the minister that the national farm union and the Saskatchewan federation of agriculture have requested by a resolution passed unanimously that the present policy be discontinued immediately?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, it has been brought to my attention. I should like to repeat what I have said earlier in the house; that a good many of the farm organizations, outside a few union locals and so on, have been sending in resolutions in support of what we have done.


Hazen Robert Argue: My question is, is the government considering the request of this important body of farm organizations and, if so, what action is being taken by the government? Perhaps I might try it this way. In view of these important representations made to the minister, have the minister and the government under consideration the discontinuation of this policy?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: One thing the government has under consideration is this; letting the people of western Canada know all the facts. I think when the people of western Canada know all the facts this pressure play on the part of two or three prairie farm organizations will dissipate and fall apart.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is not the farm organizations that will fall apart.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate inquired on February 2 with reference to advertisements appearing in British newspapers seeking radio and television technicians for employment in Canada. Reference was made to these in a news dispatch appearing in the Telegram of Tuesday, January 31. When I saw this news dispatch I immediately initiated inquiries of our London office requesting all available information as to the details of the advertisements reportedly appearing in the London Daily Mail and other newspapers.
We have not yet received full details on this matter from our London office, but I can assure the hon. member that the advertisements in question were not placed with the advance knowledge or approval of

this department. We have, of course, no means of controlling the placing of advertisements by private concerns in British newspapers.
When requests of this kind are received from employers in Canada our practice is to refer them to the national employment service, which endeavours first of all to fill the order from available applicants in Canada. Only if it is established that persons with the required qualifications are not available in Canada does the national employment service refer the order for completion to its overseas office in London.
Employers who do not follow this practice but who, instead, advertise directly in overseas newspapers can have no assurance that candidates recruited directly by them without clearance with the N.E.S. will be allowed to come forward to Canada. All such applications are dealt with in accordance with section 20(a) of the regulations, which provides that a British subject by birth or naturalization in the United Kingdom must first establish as a condition of his entry to Canada that he has sufficient means to maintain himself in Canada until he has secured employment therein. If the conditions laid down in the regulations are met the applicant is, of course, allowed to proceed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might address a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour, and ask him whether to his knowledge there are any unplaced applicants in these particular categories to which the hon. lady has referred on the books of the employment service at the present time.


Michael Starr: I am unable to give an answer offhand, but if the hon. member wishes to specify the type of applicants to whom he is referring and put his question on the order paper I shall be able to get that information for him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, this information has already been in Hansard, and the question was first raised nearly a week ago.


Michael Starr: The question the hon. member asks certainly has not been on the order paper. If he is very interested in this matter he will probably put it on the order paper.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY STATEMENT ON REPORTED U.S. ORDER RESPECTING AID SHIPMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Peterborough asked
Pension Act
me a question concerning a ruling made by the international co-operation administration, which is a United States government agency that channels foreign aid and which ruled that effective February 1, freight will be paid only on aid cargoes moving in United States ships. I now have an answer to that question, which is as follows.
Under general United States legislation the international co-operation administration has been required to ship at least 50 per cent of the gross tonnage of commodities purchased under its programs on United States privately owned commercial vessels. By a recent order the United States international co-operation administration announced that ocean shipping costs of all commodities, materials and equipment procured from mutual security program funds shall be eligible for I.C.A. financing only if transported on United States flag vessels except-and this exception, I think, is important-where foreign flag vessels are required to ensure timely delivery of merchandise and provided that such exceptions receive prior approval from the international co-operation administration in Washington.
It is hoped that these exemptions will go some way to meet the concern of the great lakes ports. I understand that the international co-operation administration intends to hold hearings on this order and to entertain all reasonable requests for exemptions on contracts that would be jeopardized by the new regulations.
The Canadian embassy in Washington is now exploring the situation which is still somewhat unclear. I shall report to the house further should this be warranted. I think the concern was that this might result in a decrease in shipping through the seaway in favour of shipping from the east coast ports of United States, but our belief is that this will not be the effect of the ruling. However, we shall be very glad to keep in touch with that development.



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, December 12, 1960, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Churchill-Mr. Rea in the chair:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Pension Act to provide for increases to disabled veterans and their dependents; to permit payment of supplementary pensions in certain cases; to permit appeals from decisions of the former board of pension commissioners; and to provide for certain further changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, as a disabled veteran of the first great war, an honorary

Pension Act
member of the War Amputations of Canada, and one who has carried his disability for many years it gives me great satisfaction to take part in the discussion of this resolution. November 17, 1960 must have been a red letter day which stirred the hearts of disabled veterans and their dependents when hearing the speech from the throne in which our beloved Governor General included the following statement:
Amendments to the Pension Act will be recommended which will include substantial increases in the pensions payable to veterans or their dependents.
Throughout the years the War Amputations of Canada, the Canadian Legion, the Army, Navy and Air Force association, the Royal Canadian Air Force association, the Polish legion, the naval veterans association and others have placed before the veterans affairs committee and our government amendments to the Pension Act and other worth-while legislation concerning their disabled comrades of world wars I and II and Korea. May I on behalf of these comrades express our thanks to the government, the veterans affairs committee, the Canadian pension commission and the Department of Veterans Affairs for their support in bringing about from time to time better conditions for those who gave so much at a time when their country was in urgent need of their devotion to duty.
It is a privilege for me to congratulate the former minister of veterans affairs, Hon. Alfred Brooks, on his appointment to the other place. This hon. gentleman throughout the years has been a real friend of all veterans, and his untiring efforts for the welfare of thousands of Canadians will long linger in our thoughts.
I understand that the total number of pensioners under the Pension Act as at December 31, 1959 was 185,536, as compared with 195,635 in 1950. This decrease is mainly due to the sad fact that world war I pensioners are steadily passing away. On the other hand the number of world war II pensioners has increased from 88,233 in 1947 to 122,296 in 1959, an increase of 34,063. It is interesting to note in regard to this group that the number of children in respect of whom additional pension is being paid is 176,409, an increase of 54,759 since 1947.
These figures were supplied by Mr. T. D. Anderson, chairman of the Canadian pension commission, to the veterans affairs committee on April 7, 1960. As these figures are placed before us we realize that in a few short years many of the disabled veterans of world war I will not be with us, and that time is also running out for many of our world war II and Korean war pensioners. At the amputations

convention last year, tribute was paid to 130 pensioners who had died in the previous two years.
The people of Canada have been very sympathetic toward our veterans, especially the disabled. Canada's military performance in the two world wars and Korea is one of the chief reasons for the growth of her prestige and influence in world affairs. Canadian people realize that Canadians fought bravely and effectively in two wars and Korea, and that we had to fight these wars at such great cost. Part of this cost was paid by many in one grim payment, life itself. Others like myself and many with more serious disabilities are still paying in day by day instalments which will continue for the remainder of our lives.
The people of our country well understand the determination shown by our disabled veterans in obtaining and holding gainful employment despite their disabilities. We should, however, recognize that these people never know from day to day how long they will be able to continue working, particularly as they grow older and their disabilities become more difficult to bear. The courage of our veterans has never been questioned, be it in war, in daily routine or in recreation. Each year the amputees of Toronto, Hamilton and the Waterloo-Wellington branch enjoy a get together at which a softball tournament is arranged. Those participating must be amputees. Each player must run and bat for himself. My position has been that of pitching, which sometimes takes in 10 innings and two games. I could go on and mention many fine players despite their handicap?
Our greatest competitor under these conditions has been veteran Ed Wilkie of Kitchener, a triple amputee who lost both legs and one arm. His performance has been the talk of our community. He bats with one hand, walks to first base and, in stealing second, if late he will slide into that base. Of course this causes a delay in the game as he requires a few minutes to adjust his harness and pull himself together. I merely mention this to show that his splendid fortitude is an example to all of us who are more fortunate, and represents the challenging sense of determination. Men of his spirit are the backbone of our country. Yes, such veterans are contributing more and more to the economic, social and political life of Canada, and will continue to do so in future years.
Under the leadership of our former minister of veterans affairs our government has brought about important improvements during the past number of years. Some of these include amendments to the Veterans Insurance Act under which benefits are now available until September 30, 1962, after which all eligibility

ceases. I understand that all possible means to publicize this fact have been used. Amendments to this act, along with Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act, have given valuable security to the dependants of many of our comrades. Much could be said of the amendments to the Children of War Dead Education Assistance Act. Over 1,800 children have been approved for educational assistance under this act up to the present time. This could be one of the finest investments that our government has ever made.
The changes in the Veterans Rehabilitation Act were largely administrative, and the changes in the War Service Grants Act dealt with re-establishment credits. The most important one could be the extension of the period of eligibility for benefits to September 30, 1962 or, in the case of Korean veterans, 15 years after discharge. The amendments to the Veterans' Land Act extended to those who needed it; the principle of supervised farms and substantial amounts of additional capital through which they will be able to extend their farm businesses and improve their net returns. Another change which I believe pleased all veterans was the decision to pay an annuity of $300 to all holders of the Victoria Cross who won this highly prized award while serving with the Canadian forces in world war II or subsequently.
Hospitalization and medical treatment are becoming more and more necessary. With this in mind our government have completed or started, or have now in the planning stage, various hospital projects. I understand that a new 300-bed wing at Deer Lodge hospital, St. James, Manitoba, was completed during the summer of 1958, and is now making a great contribution toward the welfare of veterans. Shaughnessy hospital at Vancouver officially opened a new 314-bed wing last year. I had the privilege of visiting this hospital some years ago, and was impressed with its location and the service extended to those comrades.
After the first war in 1919 I entered Westminster hospital, London, Ontario. Improvements have been made to this hospital from year to year, and construction started last year on a new wing which will accommodate 300 more veterans. The Queen Mary Veterans hospital in Montreal, Ste. Anne's Veterans hospital at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, and St. John's General at St. John's, Newfoundland, will be modernized at considerable cost. These improvements demonstrate that our government is intensely interested in the welfare of all veterans, especially those who are in need of medical care.
The War Veterans Allowance Act has been amended on several occasions, and in one instance consideration was extended to the
Pension Act
widows of recipients of those benefits which is not extended to the widows of those receiving benefits under the Pension Act. Upon the death of a married recipient of war veteran's allowance, his widow receives allowance at the full married rate for one year following his death, as she should. The widow of a person pensioned under the Pension Act does not receive any such supplementary benefits. This should be changed. This point was brought up by me in my address during the discussion of the veterans affairs estimates in July of last year. Therefore I recommend again that widows of those pensioned under the Pension Act at the rate of 50 per cent or more should receive the full married rate of compensation in effect at the time of the death of the pensioner for a period of not less than one year following such death.
Another point which I brought up at that time, and which has given others and myself much concern, was the continuation of the allowance after the death of a pensioner in receipt of a pension of less than 50 per cent. The present legislation reads:
In the case of those in receipt of less than 50 per cent at the time of death and whose death is not established as due to pensionable disabilities, no pension or allowance is paid.
In order to avoid further hardships, which have been brought to my attention on numerous occasions by widows in financial difficulties, I suggest to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the government that the allowances in respect of wives and dependants being paid to the pensioner at less than 50 per cent at the time of death be continued to the widow and such dependants as long as they remain eligible as otherwise provided under the act. Perhaps we should also use the plan that is now being used for the widow of a pensioner who has a pension of 50 per cent or over.
Our government and the Department of Veterans Affairs are continually working on improvements for our limb and arm amputees. Recently Messrs. Butler and Mc-Lachan, close friends of mine and leg amputees of the second world war, journeyed to the United States where they invested in a Hydra-Cadence artificial limb. Although these limbs are in the trial stages as far as Canada is concerned, the facility of movement in the walking of these gentlemen has improved over 50 per cent. This has been my personal observation. I understand that considerable progress is being made in the development of this Hydra-Cadence limb, and that plans are under way for the Department of Veterans Affairs to obtain some of these units for trial use. This is commendable, and our gratitude for such a move is extended

Pension Act
to Dr. Crawford and his staff. I believe these limbs may be successful, and I am hoping that future tests may substantiate my remarks.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, this week Canada will observe white cane week. We as Canadians have always supported any worthwhile cause. With that in mind, I hope our financial efforts will be substantial. Among those who carry the white cane are quite a few of our comrades from world wars I and II. These veterans, along with the paraplegic cases and other 100 per cent pensioners, especially those living in the urban areas where the cost of living is high and who have disabilities in regard to earning power, are encountering many financial difficulties. May I recommend to the Minister of Veterans Affairs that when pension adjustments are forthcoming we make certain that the 100 per cent pensioner will not experience any financial worries in addition to his physical handicap. Let us be more generous to the 100 per cent pensioner who in most cases is unable to work because of his physical disability.
I believe that most Canadians have been satisfied with the governmental legislative programs which have safeguarded the welfare of our country's veterans. I believe too that over the years the presentations made by the different veterans organizations have been both reasonable and realistic. I feel sure that our Minister of Veterans Affairs and his department, the government and the veterans affairs committee will, when considering amendments to the Pension Act, realize the great importance of these amendments from the point of view of substantial increases in pension payments to veterans and their dependants.
It has been a real pleasure for me to be associated with my colleagues on the veterans affairs committee, and I wish to commend them for their untiring efforts and sincere deliberations on those important questions that pertain to the welfare of all veterans. Finally may I extend my sincere congratulations to our new Minister of Veterans Affairs. His distinguished war service and knowledge of veterans affairs will be of great value in filling this important governmental post. I extend to him my best wishes for his future success.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by expressing my congratulations to the minister on taking over this very important portfolio. I should like to take this opportunity to thank him publicly for the personal interest he has taken in those problems of veterans which I have already brought to his attention. I should also like to join with
[Mr. Weichel.l
all those who have paid tribute to the former minister of veterans affairs, who has now departed for the more serene atmosphere of the other place. Colonel the Hon. Alfred Brooks served on the veterans affairs committee for approximately 25 years, and we always found that when it was a matter of the problem of our veterans he had a very sympathetic heart. I am sure the new minister is determined to continue in that tradition.
As recorded on pages 734 to 736 of Hansard, the minister in introducing the resolution outlined several of the proposed amendments, the chief one of which will increase the rates of disability pensions and supplementary pensions to disabled veterans and their dependants, and will also make supplementary payments available to veterans outside of Canada. The minister also listed other increases such as the increase in the grant for burial expenses, the increase in the rates of children's allowances, and an amendment which will permit children in receipt of pension allowances to have them continued until the end of the month instead of being cut off on their birthday. This small additional allowance will be an acceptable birthday gift, but as the minister told us it will not amount to any very great financial assistance because it is being introduced mainly for the purpose of simplifying administration. The minister also mentioned that payments to children will be made equal for each child rather than being on an escalator scale, and that the payment to each child will be a little better than the present average.
We also welcome the amendment the minister has indicated he proposes to introduce with respect to widowers who have to hire someone, an older sister, an aunt or some other relative, to look after the children when the mother has passed away. This is a very welcome measure and will also serve to take care of the problem of orphans, which I think has been a difficulty up to the present time. All these measures are welcome.
At this stage we are discussing the principle of these measures, and since the principle is to help our veterans we are heartily in accord with it. Before we can criticize the minister's legislation we will have to have the bill before us to enable us to see how it measures up to the recommendations that have been made from time to time by members of the house and by representatives of the Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations.
I was very glad to read the minister's statement, found on page 735 of Hansard, with regard to Canadian citizens who served in an allied force during world war I or II. This amendment will enable them to have the pensions they receive from the allied

government supplemented up to the Canadian rate. In short, this measure will put those Canadians who served in an allied force on the same footing as Newfoundland veterans. We have not been satisfied, of course, with that status, and it is a matter of disappointment that the minister made no reference to the position of Newfoundland veterans when he introduced the resolution.
We have always maintained that our veterans should be regarded as though they had served in Her Majesty's Canadian forces. That status was outlined in the terms of union. We have heard a great deal about the terms of union and one of them, term 29, has received extensive publicity. But there were more than 29 terms in the terms of union. Actually there were 50 terms, and in addition there was a schedule which outlined the federal districts in the province of Newfoundland. The term that applies to Newfoundland veterans is term 38, and I should like to put it on the record at this time. Term 38 of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada is headed "Veterans" and reads as follows:
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-
Then there follow a number of paragraphs setting forth the various benefits. Paragraph (a) deals with the War Veterans Allowance Act; paragraph (b) with the Pension Act; paragraph (c) with the Veterans' Land Act; paragraph (d) with re-establishment credits; paragraph (e) with vocational and educational training and paragraph (f) with the Veterans Rehabilitation Act. I should like to quote in full paragraph (b), which has to do with the Pension Act as it would apply to the Newfoundland veteran. This paragraph reads:
Canada will assume as from the date of union the Newfoundland pension liability in respect of the first world war, and in respect of the second world war Canada will assume as from the date of union the cost of supplementing disability and dependents' pensions paid by the government of the United Kingdom or an allied country to Newfoundland veterans up to the level of the Canadian rates of pensions, and, in addition, 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;
So far as the Newfoundland veterans are concerned, they fall into four categories. In the first category come veterans of the first world war, and in that respect there is no problem. The other three categories have to do with veterans of world war II. Category 1 would be the veterans who were already in receipt of pensions from the United
Pension Act
Kingdom. Evidently those pensions would now be supplemented up to the prevailing Canadian rates, and that is quite all right. Category 2 would include Newfoundland veterans who had applied for British pensions and had been refused. Now these veterans would be eligible to apply to the Canadian pension commission for a pension and Canada would pay the pension according to this provision:
-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;
The veteran who had been turned down would be eligible to try again with the Canadian pension commission. With respect to the third category, this would include new applicants, people who had never applied to the United Kingdom. These veterans were to be treated, according to term 38, as if the Newfoundland veteran had served in His Majesty's Canadian forces. This is the plain wording of term 38, and term 38 is part of the British North America Act. It is part of our constitution and certainly should override any other legislation. Any legislation pertaining to veterans should be interpreted in the light of what term 38 says.
This has not happened. In so far as new applicants are concerned, they have not been treated as though they had served in Her Majesty's Canadian forces. They have been required to submit their applications to the British ministry of pensions just as they did before confederation. Now, no person who served in the Canadian forces has to apply to the British ministry of pensions, wait six or seven months to have his claim processed, and then find out whether or not he is going to get something. The veteran would then have to go to the Canadian pension commission and go through all that procedure again to get the pension supplemented if he were successful in getting a pension. The words of term 38 could not be clearer. They say that the benefits will be made available on the same basis as if the Newfoundland veteran had served in Her Majesty's Canadian forces. This provision relates to new applications.
We are glad to see that other Canadians who were getting pensions from allied governments are now to have their pensions supplemented; that is a good thing. However, we point out that, so far as Newfoundland is concerned, our case is different. These Canadians who were domiciled in Canada by-passed the Canadian forces. They did not have to go across to England or France to join up with the British forces; there were forces here in Canada that they could have joined. If they deliberately chose to by-pass the Canadian forces and enlist in the forces of another country, that was their choice. I do not believe

Pension Act
their claim is so strong, although I am glad to see they are being given consideration. I think that is a good measure, and I support it.
This is not the case with Newfoundland. The Newfoundland veteran did not by-pass the Canadian forces. He had no choice but to join the imperial forces, because we came under the imperial war measures act. Term 38, which I just quoted, takes care of that.
I know that hon. members will say, why has all this time passed and nothing been done about it? This is a fair question. Nothing has been done about it because we did not know about it until 1955 or 1956. We did not get any complaints from the veterans. I suppose one of the reasons we did not get complaints was that the average veteran did not know about term 38. He did not know the actual wording of it. It was only when we began to get complaints about long delays being experienced in the British ministry of pensions that we began to dig into this question. It was only four or five years ago that I became aware of this problem myself, since I had to dig into it. The point is that it has been brought before the house on several occasions.
The former minister of veterans affairs acknowledged this problem, and I should like to read something he said in that regard on December 19, 1957, as recorded on page 2632 of Hansard. I had outlined the same problem to him as I have here today, and in reply the minister said this:
With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo with reference to Newfoundland veterans, I think there is a real case there and I am very much surprised that the problem of the Newfoundland veteran has not been dealt with before this time.
Then further down the page we find this; I am not going to quote the whole paragraph:
Any veteran who is a Canadian, whether he comes from Newfoundland or from any other part of Canada, should receive exactly the same treatment as that received by other Canadian veterans. That is my opinion and I think that would be the opinion of a veterans committee which might review the matter. I can assure the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo that it will be given every consideration.
Well, those remarks were made on December 19, 1957. We come now to December 12, 1960 and we still find nothing in the minister's statement that gives us any encouragement to believe that this problem is going to be dealt with at all. I submit to the minister that perhaps legislation is not required to deal with it because it is a matter of interpretation. I noted that, as reported at page 736 of Hansard, the minister made this statement:
In some instances, the act and the interpretation of the act have limited the activities of the pension commission, and in the revision that is now going on it is our hope that some of the sections

which have hindered the commission from time to time may be altered so that its work may become more effective.
I do not know whether there are any sections of the act that are hindering the Canadian pension commission from implementing term 38 as I have quoted it here today. But if it is a matter of interpretation, certainly term 38 is clear. I do not see how it can be put in clearer language. That was a definite commitment of the parliament of Canada to the people and to the veterans of Newfoundland. We are just asking that it be implemented even at this late date. As I said, possibly it is just a matter of changing the interpretation.
Toward the end of the resolution itself I note that there is a rather curious clause. A part of this resolution is going to introduce an amendment for the following purpose:
-to permit appeals from decisions of the former board of pension commissioners-*
The minister did not explain what that language meant when he spoke. When he replies I hope he will clear up any mystery that may be hidden in these words. I am fully in agreement that there should be provision for appeals from the decisions of the pension commission, but I think it should apply with regard to every commission and not merely the former pension commission. I think every board of pension commissioners are sometimes going to make mistakes. I believe there should be a right of appeal, and I think the right of appeal should not be confined merely to decisions of the former board of pension commissioners.
Returning to the problem of the status of the Newfoundland veteran, I have quoted previously, and perhaps I might quote again to the new minister, a precedent. If he will look back over his records he will find a precedent which I think could be used to clear up the situation in regard to Newfoundland veterans. That precedent arises out of a situation which arose during world war II. During world war II there was a time when Britain was short of flyers to man her aeroplanes and when certain Canadian personnel from the Canadian air force were transferred to the Royal Air Force. They served from, as far as I know, with the Royal Air Force for a considerable period and possibly until the end of the war. I cannot say how long they served, but in any event they served.
Some of these veterans became eligible for pensions. In the first instance they were required to go through exactly the same procedure as that which was required of Newfoundland veterans. In other words they were obliged to apply to the British ministry of pensions and try their luck there, and then

to come back to the Canadian pension commission for a supplement. Then after a while the government of Canada made a deal with the British ministry of pensions whereby the British ministry of pensions would pay a flat rate to the Canadian government and the Canadian government undertook to supplement it in order to bring it up to the Canadian level.
But I submit to the minister that it is mainly a matter of putting into effect the plain terms of the agreement between Newfoundland and Canada with respect to our veterans; and those terms are that, as far as Newfoundland veterans are concerned, having regard to their new applications, they will be treated as though they had served in Her Majesty's Canadian forces. That is all we are asking. I hope the minister will give consideration to this matter, and that when he replies he will set our minds and our hearts at rest with regard to whether anything is to be done about it at this session.
In theory the purpose of a resolution, as I understand it is to enable suggestions to be made prior to the bringing in of a bill so that all these wise suggestions can be incorporated in the legislation. I think that is something honoured more in the breach than in the observance. However, with respect to matters pertaining to veterans and veterans dependents, this is the only opportunity we shall have to do anything about it. Once we get the bill before us it will not be possible for us to bring in any amendment because then we shall be ruled out of order on the ground that any amendment we might propose in order to assist veterans will be a charge on the public treasury and, of course, under our rules it could not be permitted.
Therefore, before I sit down I want to make a few more suggestions which are going to cost the government a little bit of money, but which I hope the minister will see fit to incorporate in the amendment that he plans to set before us.
One big disappointment is that nothing has been said about extending benefits to the Newfoundland foresters of world war II. The president of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit, Mr. Thomas Curran, and the secretary, Mr. C. R. Baggs, appeared before the standing committee on veterans affairs on March 31, 1960, and presented a brief which in my opinion was well and sympathetically received by the committee. In that brief they explained to the committee that they had performed exactly the same services as had been performed by the Newfoundland foresters of world war I. In world war II they had done exactly the same work as that done by the Canadian foresters, who often worked with them side by side; that they had taken
Pension Act
the same risks and undergone the same hardships, and that the only obstacle preventing them from receiving benefits is a technicality, namely that they were not put in uniform and organized as a battalion.
If we are interested in justice; if we want to do the right thing, surely we must realize that the right thing must be based on the merits of the case and not on technicalities such as whether a person had a uniform or whether he was recruited in a certain way. Certainly those technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of administering justice.
Then, of course, from time to time we have had requests from the merchant navy, from the rescue tug service and from the firefighters. All of them have very strong cases. If we are going to do justice to them we must base it on the merits of the service they perform and not on any technicality as to how they differ from the armed forces or things like that. These merchant navy people, the rescue tug service, performed services just as vital to the winning of the war as those performed by the other armed services, and in many cases the percentage of their casualties was higher.
Today in my own riding I have a number of crippled people who are incapable of earning a living and providing for their families because they contracted tuberculosis while cooped up in some freighter during the war, or because they were floating around in the ocean for 48 hours or 72 hours and contracted arthritis and all sorts of conditions and ailments arising out of the hardships which attended their service. Yet these people who served just as truly and just as nobly as did the others who were in the fighting forces are in this situation today, namely that they and their families must depend on public charity and public relief.
If Canada is ever going to find its soul, and if we are ever going to start to do the right thing, I do not think we should hedge about technicalities; rather we should do the thing that is right because it is right. I ask the minister if he will not try, even at this late date, to find some way of incorporating in his amendments measures which would do something for these people.
In closing I wish to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Waterloo North with regard to continuing the pensions paid in respect of disabilities assessed at less than 50 per cent. In the case of the death of a veteran whose disability has been assessed at 50 per cent or more, the pension continues to be received by his widow and children; but in the case of a man who has suffered,

Pension Act
let us say, a degree of disability estimated at 45 per cent, the widow and family find their source of income cut off.
There seems to be injustice involved here, because if the principle is good in respect of 50 per cent it should be equally good in respect of 45 per cent or 35 per cent. We are not asking the government to extend the payment in respect of 50 per cent disability but to widen the principle so that those people concerned at least would not lose their source of income abruptly and be cast upon public relief and public charity.


Mr, Sevigny:: For many decades the members of the Progressive Conservative party have been the advocates of even better treatment for the veterans of our nation who served in the two world wars and also in other conflicts. While they sat on the opposition benches, the members of the Progressive Conservative party at all times asked that better pensions should be given to our veterans and that improved treatment should be accorded to those who had suffered from wounds resulting from their participation in action on the battlefield. They played a major part in securing from previous governments various improvements in the treatment of our veterans.
It is indeed gratifying to me to be an active member of a government which, ever since it secured power on June 10, 1957, has taken care of all those who served in those two wars and who, as a result of their devotion to duty were disabled on the battlefield. The former minister of veterans affairs, Hon. Mr. Brooks, devoted all his time and energies to improving the conditions existing in his department. He has, indeed, done a great job, and the veterans of this nation owe him a great many thanks and a debt of gratitude.
The work which he so ably performed is being carried on with efficiency and devotion by another veteran, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre the present holder of the portfolio of veterans affairs. As one who served during world war II, as a member of the War Amputations of Canada and of the Canadian Legion, I am pleased in the name of my fellow veterans to extend my thanks to the Minister of Veterans Affairs for the constant care which he shows for the disabled servicemen of this nation.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my colleagues of the War Amputations of Canada, and of all veterans of this country who, because they were wounded in various actions, must receive a government pension, I am very happy to

thank the former minister of veterans affairs, Senator Brooks, and the present minister (Mr. Churchill), for their magnificent work on behalf of our nation's veterans and their families.
Surely, among those who deserve the people's gratitude, none are more deserving than those who fought for months, and sometimes even for years, on the battlefields where our Canadian troops were called upon to serve and who, because of their devotion and heroism, now have to bear the scars of glorious wounds.
I want to pay a very particular tribute to those who laid down their lives because they wanted to serve their country and the cause of democracy. As I want to pay them a well-deserved tribute, I shall borrow the following verses from the poet Victor Hugo:
Ceux qui pieusement sont morts pour la patrle, Ont droit qu'a leur cercueil la foule vienne et prie, Entre les plus beaux noms, leur nom est le plus beau.
Toute gloire pres d'eux passe et tombe ephemere. Those who devotedly have died tor their country, Should rightly see the people flock to their graves to pray.
Among the greatest names theirs are the brightest. All glory, beside theirs, is fleeting ephemeral.
The heroic sacrifice of those who died at the front is equalled only by the sacrifice of those who, today, as victims of their duty, must still bear the pain of wounds received in action. For many of them, advancing years only add to their burden of suffering.
A moment ago, the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Weichel) mentioned that at the recent meeting of the War Amputations of Canada, 130 of our members who had died the previous year were missing at the roll call.
The veterans of the first great war are certainly due to disappear quite rapidly in the next few years, not only because the growing load of years affects them to a certain extent like everybody else, but also because, apart from that load, they have to bear that of their wounds which, in some cases, causes them to age before their time.
Several veterans of the second world war are now getting on in years. Some of them whom I know, find it impossible today to continue in their profession, which they had practised for many years, i.e. since the fighting ended in 1945.
Consequently, it is of capital importance to raise the level of veterans' pensions, and the action taken by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the goverment as a whole is certainly welcome at this time.

This increase will be a protection against the destitution which unfortunately, threatens quite a few of our veterans.
And while I am on the subject of the fate of veterans, I should like to pay a very special tribute to the personnel of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and particularly to those of hospitals caring for those of our veterans who, for some reason or other, have to be hospitalized.
When I came back from the war in 1945, I was fairly discouraged, and if it had not been for the good care and encouragement I received in veterans hospitals, I wonder whether my convalescence would have been as short, and if I could have made such rapid progress as I did.
This is perhaps the first opportunity I have in this house of addressing myself to the personnel of those hospitals, as well as to all those who serve in that department. And I am delighted to pay them the tribute due to them, and to thank them for all they are doing to help our war amputees and other veterans. It is from the bottom of my heart that, on behalf of all my comrades in arms, I express our most sincere appreciation for so many services rendered.
Before closing my remarks, I should also like to point out that our veterans are an example for the rest of our citizens. In fact, those men who, when the time came to serve their country on the battlefields, did so without hesitation, continue today in civil life to serve their country with dignity and competence. Only rarely will you meet a veteran who, today, does not occupy an important place in our national life; not very often, either, will you see a veteran who does not play some significant role in our country's economy.
Our veterans have learned to serve their country. They have understood the meaning of discipline. They have understood the necessity of obeying certain rules and, above all, they have learned the necessity of having esprit de corps and spirit of unity because, as everyone knows, to wage war individual effort is not enough; it requires the effort of a group which, united and fighting for the same cause and the same objective, strives to achieve the same goals. Our veterans continue to put into practice, in civil life, the spirit of co-operation which they have learned while serving their country.
I am proud to say that our veterans can rightly be considered as the best citizens of
Pension Act
this nation, because they have learned to understand the necessity of that unity while serving their country and fighting for the same cause and for the same objective. As a matter of fact, in their regiments never has race or religion separated one soldier from another; quite the contrary, regardless of their ethnic or racial origins, our soldiers fought hand in hand in splendid co-operation, realizing that it was in uniting themselves in battle, as they did, that they could achieve final victory, the ultimate objective, which was to save democracy as we understand it.
That national unity which our soldiers achieved in the service of their country, they still strive to strengthen through the efforts they make towards that end in their civil occupation.
I think the best example of that national unity can be found in such veterans' associations as the Canadian Legion, the Canadian War Amputations Association, the Paraplegic Society and other associations which maintain, in peacetime, that tradition of service and national unity for which so many of our people fought, for which so many suffered the consequences of glorious wounds or even made the supreme sacrifice.
I feel that the action taken by the government today constitutes an homage to those Canadians who fought in the army, the navy or the air force. For my part, I am proud to be a member of this government which gives such recognition to the services rendered by those veterans who have contributed to victory in two world wars and are now contributing to the establishment of peace.
(Text):
Mr. Chairman, my last remarks will be words of homage to those veterans who have died in recent years, and who were so eloquently referred to by the hon. member for Waterloo North. I believe that the finest homage which can be rendered to these men may be found in these beautiful verses which we repeat at our reunions and which move us so deeply as we commemorate the memory of those who fell on the battlefields, victims of their duty and of their desire to serve their country. These verses-and I hope my memory shall not fail me-are as follows:
They shall grow not old. as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.

Pension Act


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we all listened with a great deal ol interest and respect to the words of the Associate Minister of National Defence. We all appreciate his sincerity, integrity and emotion so calmly reflected in his remarks in view of his distinguished war record and his trials and tribulations as a result of his wounds suffered in the active service of our country. I was interested in the verse with which the hon. gentleman concluded his remarks. We fight a war on two fields in our lifetime, one on the battlefield and one at home. I wish to add to the words used by the hon. gentleman. In my opinion homage is best expressed in the words of Rudyard Kipling. They are these:
Not as a ladder from earth to heaven, not as a witness to any creed,
But simple service, simply given to his own kind in their common need.
To me that epitomizes humanity and citizenship in time of peace and war. That is the approach I wish to take in my brief remarks at this time.
I appreciated the associate minister's remarks. I can understand his taking advantage of this opportunity to pay homage to those who fought, those who died and those who returned in safety and their dependants who suffer because of the sacrifices in war. I cannot, however, agree with the remark of the minister that this has been foremost and uppermost in the devotion of the party which makes up the present government.
We in this group most certainly welcome resolution No. 9 on today's order paper which is now before us, for which the Minister of Veterans Affairs is asking the support of the house. He will most certainly receive the unanimous support of hon. members to bring in a bill to provide for increases to disabled veterans and their dependants, to permit payment of supplementary payments in certain cases, and to permit appeals from decisions in cases which are not now covered under the existing wording of the act which is subject to wrong decisions or misinterpretation.
But there is one thing I should like to draw to the attention of the Associate Minister of National Defence before he leaves the chamber. We welcome this resolution and what it purports to do. With respect to the statement as to the devotion of the Conservative party to the veterans, we wish the minister would have recalled that this legislation was supposed to come before the House of Commons last year. I say that because of the statement made in the veterans affairs committee of the year before to veterans organizations that appeared before the committee, that the legislation would be introduced in the House of Commons last year. Whatever

their devotion may be now, I am afraid they have been over a year late in fulfilling a promise given in the veterans affairs committee two years ago. I think this matter should be drawn to the attention of the Associate Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Read the committee report of two years ago and the statement of the minister. Recriminations are not important at the present time, but I had to draw this to the attention of he miniser.
We now have this resolution. I have received a great number of letters in regard to this matter, and this is why I rise in my place and speak at this time. Because of the language of the motion a number of us and many veterans are not quite certain as to how far it intends to go. It makes reference only to the Pension Act and to increases to disabled veterans and their dependants. The question I ask is, does this also cover changes in the veterans allowances? I refer to allowances to burnt out pensioners. My interpretation of this resolution is that it applies only to one act.


Mr. Churchill:: That is right.


Harold Edward Winch: I thank the minister for nodding his head and saying that my interpretation is correct. Therefore I want to add my words to those of the veterans associations, and I am certain to those of many members of this House of Commons. It is absolutely correct that attention should be paid and is going to be paid to the disabled veterans and their dependants. Surely there should not be discrimination against those whose war services have been recognized in an act of parliament but who are not going to receive attention simultaneously with the ones who are covered in the resolution now before us and in the bill which will follow. It was because of recognition by parliament in the past of the effect of war on those who are not disabled, as they advance in years, that the veterans allowance act was brought into being. Their cost of living is the same as those who are disabled. For the life of me I cannot understand why, when by law these two groups of veterans are recognized for pension purposes, one group is left out when amendments are made to the Pension Act during this session of parliament.
There is not only this fact of discrimination now. They are already discriminated against because they have to face a means test. I think that should be revised upward right now. Even if no consideration is to be given to that surely the minister will give thought to those on war veterans allowance as well as those who are disabled. If there is a reason why there should be discrimination between these two groups of veterans,

perhaps the Minister of Veterans Affairs will have the courtesy and the kindness when he concludes this debate to tell us why the discrimination should be permitted to continue at this time. Why do those on veterans allowance not need an increase in the same way as those who are disabled?
May I also add my words to those of the hon. member for Waterloo North and ask the minister whether in this resolution he has given any thought or will give any thought to those in Canada and, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, to those in his province in particular who went overseas in the forestry corps but do not receive benefits. Since the hon. member spoke of that matter in some detail I will not touch on it.
I am going to ask whether this resolution which deals with veterans gives any consideration to rectifying what I think is one of the most disgraceful things that has happened to those who went overseas and have never received any recognition. I refer to the recruiting of those who were asked to go overseas as firefighters. They were paid army pay but were never officially recognized in the same way as members of the active force on the battlefield itself, although they did serve under fire. According to statements I have received, they have never been recognized as eligible for veterans benefits and, I gather from the wording of the resolution, are not being recognized in the bill that is to be introduced following the passage of this resolution. I hope the new Minister of Veterans Affairs is giving some thought to those men who were under fire, who were recruited in Canada and did a necessary job overseas.
I said I was not going to speak at any length. There is only one other matter which I should like to place before the committee because it has been brought to my attention. I express the hope that the legislation to follow the resolution will give effect to the recommendation in the brief submitted to the Prime Minister and the cabinet by the Canadian Legion on December 12, 1960, with respect to a revised rate for dependant parents. If I may refer to that matter very briefly, on pages 7 and 8 of the brief the Legion points out that back in 1951 a widow received $75 and a dependant parent also received $75 whereas after the revision in 1951 the widow received $100 and the dependant parent $75. In addition, under the 1957 amendments the widow's rate was increased to $115 and the rate for a dependant parent to $90. As the Canadian Legion so aptly points out, there would seem to be no reason for this discrimination and the Legion recommends that the pension for a dependent
Pension Act
parent be restored to its former basis whereby the rate of payment was equal to that in the case of a widow with, of course, a more adequate additional amount where there are two dependant parents.
When the bill is before us and we know its details we will be able to discuss all aspects of this most important matter concerning our veterans with far more thoughtfulness and understanding. When the minister closes the debate I hope he will tell us about his approach to the financial problems of those on war veterans allowance. I hope he will also indicate whether anything is going to be done for those who fought overseas as foresters or firefighters. In particular, and of the utmost importance, I should like to know what the view of the Minister of Veterans Affairs is with regard to all aspects of the recommendations made by that most responsible organization, the Canadian Legion, on December 12, 1960.


Mr. Montgomery:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on the resolution chiefly because I was unavoidably absent from the house when the estimates of the department were considered last year and, having had the pleasure of being chairman of the veterans affairs committee, I should like to say a few words at this time with respect to the work of the committee. Before I go into that, may I join other hon. members in extending best wishes to the minister in his work in this department. I should also like to refer to the great work done by the former minister and the interest he always took in and out of the house in our veterans.
As I have become better acquainted with the work of the department I have come to understand that its work is quite diversified and that it has to do with the interests of veterans in many fields. While the hon. member who has just taken his seat was speaking-


Ernest James Broome: Who has just left the chamber.


Gage Workman Montgomery: -I could not help thinking that he lets his heart run away with his head, to put it in a kindly way. I think a lot of people feel the same way but matters having to do with veterans affairs should be approached in a logical, sensible and economic way. In particular, there is a great difference between veterans allowances and disability pensions, and if the hon. member wants to find out more about the matter let him talk to those members who earned their disability pensions on the battlefield. I do not think this is any time to discriminate or to bring politics and recriminations into the debate.


Ernest James Broome: The hon. member is not a member of the committee.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I do not think that makes any difference. Maybe if he were a member of the committee he would understand things a lot more. I wanted to refer to the committee before saying anything about the resolution. As chairman of the committee last year I appreciate having worked with those who were members of the committee and also on former committees when I was a member though not the chairman.
I also want to say that I think we have received the greatest degree of co-operation from the officials of the department. Prior to my experience on the committee I did not have the slightest idea of the broad field of work that comes under veterans affairs, including hospitalization, the Veterans' Land Act, rehabilitation, etc. You will find very few veterans in this country who are not ready to stand up and say that they appreciate what has been done for them.
I do not propose to talk very long. The resolution has to do with amendments respecting disability pensions. It is true that it may not meet the wishes of all of us. I am not sure what the increases will be but I have a feeling that whatever they are they will be satisfactory to the great majority of disability pensioners in this country.
There are one or two points about which I wish to say something. One of them has been covered by my colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo North. I have never been able to understand why a widow was denied a pension if her husband was not in receipt of at least a 50 per cent pension. I feel that the time has come when we should give consideration to wiping out that, what shall I call it, floor of 50 per cent. I believe that the widow should receive half of the pension the husband was receiving as long as she remains his widow. This has been my thinking for some time, and I am glad that the

matter has been mentioned. If we find the bill contains no provision in this respect, then we will keep on pressing for it and I am sure our representations will be given consideration.
There is another matter about which I wish to say a word or two, and about which the Canadian Legion has been rather critical. What I am about to say is not by way of criticism. Last year and the year before, if you look at the minutes of the standing committee, you will find there was considerable criticism of the Canadian pension commission's interpretation of section 70 of the act. This is known as the benefit of doubt section. We have been asked to make that section stronger. I should like to say to the minister, to other veterans and to the Canadian Legion, that I have studied this section and I do not see how parliament can do much more.
Every once in a while cases are brought before the committee which indicate that some veteran has not received the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless I believe we should be very careful about passing judgment on this exercise of discretion by the Canadian pension commissioners until we have heard both sides of each case. I presume that the members of the Canadian Legion who have criticized these cases have heard both sides of the story. I feel that the deputy chairman of the Canadian pension commission outlined the situation very well, as I think anyone learned in the law will understand, when he said that the discretion left with a body or with an individual is exercisable by that body or individual. If the commission is not exercising its discretion to the satisfaction of those who appear before the committee there is not much parliament can do about it. We cannot appoint a man to a position and then tell him what to do.
I feel that over the years the governments have appointed men to the Canadian pension commission in whom they had confidence. On the whole I believe those members have done a fairly good job. It may be that they are overworked. It may be that we need to appoint more members to the commission. It may be that we need an appeal board set up within the pension commission itself.
Last year I noticed a reference to the fact that a claimant had to wait for several months in order to get his case reopened. The decision of the pension commission is final, but if an applicant can secure new evidence it is seldom, if ever, that the case cannot be reopened. This reopening of the case does not mean merely a review, but the case is tried from the beginning. It might save time if we had, as we have in the supreme courts of the provinces, an appeal

Pension Act
branch within the Canadian pension commission to which these cases could be referred. If after the final decision of the pension commission new evidence were procured the case could be taken directly to the appeal branch.
If I may return for a moment to the consideration of this question of discretion, I may say that I feel the pension commissioners have not been unfair. I suppose that if I were to take a number of cases to them and the commission turned them down I would feel they had not exercised their discretion properly under the benefit of doubt section. However, what may seem to me to be reasonable doubt might not seem to be a reasonable doubt to you, Mr. Chairman. This is our difficulty. I do not see how parliament can strengthen this provision because we have placed this discretion in the hands of the commissioners. The only thing we might do would be to impress upon the commissioners the fact that we feel they are not exercising their discretion in favour of the veteran. Perhaps if the commissioners felt we were not happy with the way they were exercising this discretion they would give these cases a second look, and they might take a more lenient view in the exercise of their discretion. I believe that an appeal board composed of men who had not heard these cases should be established so that these cases could be given further consideration.
In so far as veterans allowances are concerned, I have received few complaints in my area so I judge the people are happy about it. I just get the rare complaint. I do believe that at present the dependant parent of a deceased veteran, whose widow and children are receiving a pension can only get $40. I believe there is a point there to which we could give consideration. I do not believe $40 is sufficient. However, I will not go as far as some other hon. members. After all, this dependant's allowance is like the war veterans allowance and was given in lieu of the old age pension. If a married couple are both receiving the old age pension they can get $115. There are many points to be considered in this argument. I believe that governments, over the years, have been gradually more generous. I believe these cases must be considered from every standpoint. I do not like to see a member get up in the house and commence to rail about these poor people.
The veterans, especially the disability pensioner who was wounded on the battlefield, are not asking for sympathy. The pensions we are giving them for the loss of arms or legs or something like that are not sufficient to repay them for these losses, but these same pensioners will tell you that they would rather see the boys who did not get
any recognition receive some pension than to get an increase in their pensions. These veterans who saw service are amongst the most generous citizens in this country.
I do not think I will take up any more of the time of the committee. Whatever increases are provided in this bill, they will be appreciated. No doubt there are other things to be tidied up. I have no doubt that our present minister is working on that matter with his officials.
There is another point that should be given consideration but it cannot really be raised or should not be raised on this resolution. I refer to the situation of a veteran who may be getting the veterans' allowance and the pension. He may not get the benefit from this legislation unless there is an amendment to another act. However, these things can not be handled together. Each must be considered on its own merits. I have all the faith in the world in our present Minister of Veterans Affairs. I am confident that these points we are raising will not be overlooked. Whether or not they can be dealt with at this session, I believe it is a good thing to mention them and I believe that they will receive consideration.


Mr. McCleave:: Will the hon. member permit a question before he resumes his seat.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Yes.


Robert Jardine McCleave: When the hon. member talks about the Canadian pension commission establishing an appeal board does he visualize that there would be older members serving permanently as an appeal tribunal that is apart from those who hear the cases in the first instance?


Gage Workman Montgomery: Yes. That is what I had in mind. The people who hear the cases should not sit in appeal unless it were in an emergency and even then persons could be selected who had not heard the case. There should be within this pension commission a nucleus of two or three members whose job would be to handle appeals from what we now know as the appeal board. I think we are going to be obliged to come to this procedure unless the exercise of the discretion under section 70 is used a little bit more broadly or loosely or in whatever way you want to think of it. Does that answer the hon. member's question?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Thank you.
( Translation):


Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words in French about the resolution introduced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill).

Pension Act
This resolution is made up of three parts: the first, to provide for increases in pension to veterans; the second, to permit appeals from decisions of the former Canadian pensions board and finally, the last, to provide for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
At the outset of my remarks, I should like to point out that the minister who introduced this resolution has rightly commended his predecessor, Colonel Brooks. He congratulated him for all the efforts he exerted as a member of this house and as minister of veterans affairs.
He said that the former minister, assisted by his deparmental officials, had sought to improve the lot of veterans. That is true and I commend him for it.
I believe, however, that it is fitting to recall that before Colonel Brooks, there was Colonel Lapointe, Colonel Gregg and others still.
Those ministers, with support of this house and of the committee, have worked without respite to set up what is called the veterans' charter.
They have also worked over the years to improve that charter with the help of circumstances and according to changes occurring in our economic life.
There is a point, Mr. Chairman, with which I particularly want to deal, and I am happy that the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) raised that point. Before proceeding, however, I should like to refer the committee to certain parts of the remarks made by the Minister of Veteran Affairs. They are to be found on page 736 of Hansard of December 12, 1960. Here is the statement then made by the minister:
(Text):
The pension commission is anxious to administer the Pension Act in a manner which will ensure that Canada's veterans receive in full the benefits provided by the act.
(Translation):
And further on:
(Text):
In some instances, the act and the interpretation of the act have limited the activities of the pension commission, and in the revision that is now going on it is our hope that some of the sections whch have hindered the commission from time to time may be altered so that its work may become more effective.
(Translation):
I do not know exactly what the minister had in mind when he made that statement which, you will admit, is broad enough to cover all sorts of things. But I hope that it refers mainly to possible amendments-


The Chairman:: Order.

(Text):
Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. SD-1, an act for
the relief of Jean George Lipsman.-Mr. McCleave.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this bill and all the other divorce bills under these orders of private bills be allowed to stand today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreeable that all of the divorce bills standing for second reading be dealt with in one order?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I would ask that they would be allowed to stand today.


Mr. Speaker:: I am just getting concurrence that they all be dealt with at once. Is that procedure agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreeable then to accede to the request of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) that all of these divorce bills be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



AURORA PIPE LINE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cliown (for Mr. Woolliams) for the second reading of Bill No. S-2, to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company.
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it might be properly said that if the hon. member for Bow River speaks now he will close the debate.


Mr. Arnold Pelers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, in resuming this debate on the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown) for the second reading-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before I recognize the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) may I inquire whether the hon. member for Bow River does not accede to that view. Perhaps I should hear him, otherwise it may

result in his not being allowed to speak for some time if he is put in the position of waiting to close the debate.
The situation is that the motion for second reading stands in the name of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) but it was moved for him by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown). Hence one or the other of them or perhaps both would close the debate if they spoke, in the strict view of the rule.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Your Honour, I took the position that as the motion was in my name, if I were to speak now I would close the debate. That is the position I take. I have discussed it with my colleague from Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown) and he is in accord with that view.


Mr. Howard:: That raises another point, especially in the light of what Your Honour has just said. What is the position of the hon. member for Winnipeg South who moved the second reading on behalf of the hon. member for Bow River? Is he prevented from speaking again, or could he speak again on second reading without closing the debate?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised a hypothetical question but perhaps I might express my view even though the point does not have to be decided now. The rule is that members may not speak twice in a debate. I should think that if the hon. member for Winnipeg South attempted to speak twice he would still be in his role of spokesman for the hon. member in whose name the motion stands, and he would therefore close the debate. So they have to choose between the two of them which one closes the debate.


William Arnold Peters: Again we resume the debate on the second reading of Bill No. S-2, an act to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company. I am interested in this particular bill because it seems to have aroused questions in the minds of those hon. senators who spoke on it in the other place. It has raised questions in the minds of all Canadians who have read this bill in the light of the attitude which this government has apparently taken.
This bill seems to me to personify some of the faults which are inherent in our present system, particularly in relation to primary industry. What is the Aurora Pipe Line Company? If we read what was said by the mover of this motion we find it is a subsidiary organization of the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited. One-third of the shares are held by the Hudson's Bay Company, and two thirds of those shares are held by the Continental Oil Company which is a large United States oil enterprise. Thus, I think it would be safe to say that Continental Oil,
Private Bills
because of the fact that it owns Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas, and because the executive officers of the Aurora Company are executive officers of the Hudson's Bay Company, is a subsidiary of one of the largest oil companies operating either in Canada or the United States.
It has been said that this bill would be referred to two or three governing bodies charged in Canada with the regulations of gas, oil and energy. One of those bodies would be the national energy board, which will be asked to issue a permit for the exportation of the condensates which are the by-products of natural gas. In addition, the Alberta conservation board is to be asked whether it regards this company as a suitable one or not.
If these condensates were not being handled in any other way there would probably be some justification for the present application, but not long ago this house set up a company called the Foothills Pipe Line Company which has under its control Pembina Pipe Lines Limited. It seems to me that though it may be necessary at the present time to issue export permits because of the lack of a Canadian market for the products, this company having been set up with a prime interest in handling these products in Canada for the benefit of Canadians, it would be in our best interest to see that the wishes of its founders are acceded to.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a question at this stage? These are the facts, though I have not yet had an opportunity to substantiate them-the information was communicated to me by telephone. In all probability the oil companies of which the hon. member speaks have withdrawn their applications in respect of this particular project before the Alberta conservation board. I wonder whether the hon. member has given any consideration to that?


William Arnold Peters: We are very interested in this information and if it is correct I think it would have some bearing on what the national energy board might decide in relation to this pipe line. But that is not the problem. It does not really matter who gets this export permit. What really matters, in my humble opinion, is that we should be allowing this product to be exported at all before Canadian industry is satisfied and every advantage has been taken of opportunities for the establishment of secondary industry based on the primary resources. It has been said that this company only wishes to operate in a restricted field close to the United States border and

Private Bills
that secondary industries are already established in the United States dependent upon these particular products, for which a sale is readily available.
It might be said that the point of view I am expressing is only the opinion of the official opposition in this house, that it does not represent the opinion of hon. senators in the other place, but I would refer hon. members to the proceedings of the other house when the bill was introduced. It was introduced by the Hon. Gunnar S. Thorvaldson and in the course of his remarks he pointed out that this company is not a Canadian company, that it has strong connections in the United States and that the product would be used to the advantage of industry in the United States. He based his argument for the existence of this company on the fact that Canada is not at the present time in possession of industries which would use these particular products.
The Hon. William R. Brunt, speaking in reply to the motion for the introduction of this bill and representing, I believe, the Liberal party in the other place-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Arnold Peters: It is even worse if he represents the Conservatives. This is what he had to say speaking in the other place:
It is my thought that this matter should be called to the attention of the Senate, for if the bill passes and becomes law and this company is set up, then starts to transport these by-products, we will have in Canada another industry which will have passed out of the control of Canadians into the hands of people who are not Canadians-[DOT] in other words, it will have passed into the hands of a foreign corporation.
Then he went on to say:
I think we should take a good look at this bill, because if it passes and the company goes into business another part of our Canadian industry will be controlled by people not residents of Canada but by a foreign corporation.
I was not aware that this senator belonged to the government party. If he does, hon. members opposite should give serious consideration to what was said by one of their senior statesmen. He had outlined in clear terms what I consider to be a fact. The time has come when we should give closer consideration to the question of establishing in Canada secondary industries to handle and process Canadian products.
There is in western Canada as well as in other parts of the country a great need for secondary industry. When developed here, these products will be just as saleable in the United States as they are when our natural resources are sent there in raw form to be processed in that country and to support secondary industry there. Parliament should be in no rush to pass this bill relating to a
	li
company which has no interest in developing Canadian industry as was the case of a company concerning which we recently passed another bill.
Aurora Pipe Line Company makes no claim about developing secondary industries. The company will take natural resources out of Canada and process them in the United States. This may be satisfactory to those who live in the immediate area where gas is produced and where there is no immediate need for the by-products of this industry but Canadians in general should give serious consideration to the question of keeping our products at home and processing them here to the fullest degree possible.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question. Is the hon. gentleman's party or the new party in favour of exporting natural gas or its byproducts?


William Arnold Peters: I am sure the C.C.F. is. I am
not in a position to speak for the new party but I am sure that like the C.C.F. it will have at heart the interests of all Canadians and will not want to export our natural products until we have derived from them for the benefit of Canadians all the advantages we can derive. I am sure both organizations are more interested in the establishment of secondary industry in Canada than in exporting natural resources.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon.
gentleman permit a supplementary question. Would that policy also apply to coal and its by-products?


William Arnold Peters: I doubt, Mr. Speaker, if you would wish me to deal with the subject of the coal industry in this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is nothing in this bill about the transportation of anything other than gas or oil or other gaseous or liquid hydrocarbons. I doubt that coal is a liquid hydrocarbon. If it is, the hon. member may deal with it.


William Arnold Peters: I frankly do not want to deal with the coal industry. The problems of that industry are not necessarily those of the one we are discussing. We probably will not have time to fully discuss the gas and oil industry, so we should not be distracted by attempting to deal with another.
In a publication of the dominion bureau of statistics entitled "The Petroleum Products Industry, 1958", mention is made of a survey conducted in that year. It was found that during 1958, 106,458,959 barrels of imported crude oil and 133,547,168 barrels of crude oil and absorption gasoline from Canadian wells, or a total of 240,006,126 barrels, was put

through Canadian refineries, this amounting to about 82.5 per cent of rated capacity. Of the total crude input about 0.6 per cent was imported from the United States and 43.4 per cent from other countries while about 56.0 per cent came from Canadian wells. This indicates that we are not now producing enough gas and oil for our Canadian refineries. We are importing approximately 44 per cent of our crude oil from foreign sources.


Mr. Speakman:: What about natural gas? That is the subject matter of this bill.


William Arnold Peters: If the hon. member wishes to make a speech we will be happy to hear it when the time arrives for him to stand up and reply. My point is we have not developed natural resources to their full potential. Canadian refineries are operating at about 82.5 per cent of their rated capacity. We are continually told we must have large export markets. This is true but we also must give thought to the question of developing our own industries. In some areas dependent on natural resources as a source of income it has been felt that some advantage can be gained by exporting our natural resources in their crude form but a great deal more secondary industry should be developed in Canada. Greater results would be realized if in conjunction with the exporting of our natural resources we had a policy under which secondary industry was developed to further process these products before sending them to market.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member will permit me to interrupt, I have very grave doubts about the relevancy of this debate in the line which it has taken. It is true that this bill is to incorporate a private company with power to transport oil, gas and other liquid hydrocarbons but only subject to the provisions of any general legislation relating to pipe lines for the transmission and transportation of gas, so that if the house passes the bill which only gives the company a power or capacity-it does not put it in the oil or gas business-in view of the other legislation which controls companies formed for the transportation of petroleum products in Canada I would think that with such a limited purpose or effect as there is in a bill of this kind, the house would be going beyond any reasonable discussion of such a bill if it discussed the industrial situation in the country even in the context of petroleum products.
It would, of course, be relevant to say that there are enough companies in this field and we should not create even another company with the powers that this bill would give, but my point is-and I think the point is important enough to raise it-that on every
Private Bills
bill to incorporate a private company we would not want to open a full scale debate on the industry or the economy of the country in the field in which that company intended to operate. I do not believe the house would expect to follow that course.
I do not accuse the hon. member who has the floor of initiating this irrelevant debate which began the last time this bill was before the house but I do say that the bill relates to the desirability of giving to another private company the corporate powers to enter into the petroleum pipe line field rather than to the economics of that field into which it proposes to enter. I say this because the bill only gives a corporate power and does not put the company in business. It can only enter into the business, as the bill itself says:
-subject to-the provisions of-any-general legislation relating to pipe lines enacted by parliament with respect to the transmission and transportation of oil and other liquid hydrocarbons-
Parliament must take notice of the licensing legislation which it has already passed.


Harold Edward Winch: I know we all fully understand the point you have raised but may I, sir, with all respect point out that although the bill itself speaks of incorporating a company, the act would be completely meaningless unless after incorporation the company could export. Therefore, in deciding on the fundamental principle of the House of Commons and the Senate granting an act of incorporation it is obvious that after the bill goes through all the various stages before the company can carry out its function it has to export hydrocarbons, methanes, butanes and condensates of the production of the gas field. The bill is meaningless unless the company can export. Surely the principle that we should discuss is the end result after the company goes through all its procedures and gets incorporation.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: If you desire more on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say something. I feel that the question of the export of hydrocarbons is a matter of policy which has been settled by legislation of this parliament. It has been determined that it can be done provided that certain conditions are met, and those conditions have been embodied in legislation, namely the national energy board legislation. Whether or not that is wise legislation is not open for discussion on this bill. This bill merely asks the house to decide whether certain persons interested should have the corporate capacity and be created a corporation for the purpose of then exporting, if they meet the law. The law as to whether or not they are entitled to export is determined by other legislation that has already

Private Bills
been passed. With great deference I submit it is not open, however much we may desire to do so, to argue now whether that was a right policy or a wrong policy. It is only open to us to argue on the suitability of those applicants to have corporate capacity.


Harold Edward Winch: For that purpose.


George James McIlraith: Corporate capacity for the purpose, but the policy is not open to be argued at all, because that has been settled and is governed by other legislation which is not before the house on second reading of this bill.
I did not want to interrupt the hon. member, but I think the debate-and I am not saying this in criticism of the hon. members -has been ranging away beyond the area that is permissible in the particular bill before the house at this time. Many of the matters that have been argued are matters of broad general policy which have no application to the bill before us to incorporate a private company.


Frank Howard: On the point of order, especially in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa West who has just spoken, it seems to me that if we follow the suggested course of action we would be going completely contrary to the rules of the house, as I understand them as they apply to private bills. These rules have been in existence for quite a few years since I have been here and in many years before that. If we follow that reasoning, Mr. Speaker, it would lead us purely and simply to consider the company itself without any consideration as to its relationship with the economy and the industry within which it will function, or anything of that nature.
I do not think we should attempt now to reverse the precedents that have been followed in this house for many years. In the past we have given consideration to the effect of a particular bill upon the industry within which a company would be functioning after it became incorporated. In this case, we should give consideration to the industry within which this company will function after it is incorporated and passes the other obstacles of the national energy board, and so on.
It was not the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin), as you yourself mentioned, who initiated this type of discussion; it was the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith). The hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown) moved the motion on behalf of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome), along with the hon. member for Winnipeg South, initiated the discussion of the relationship of this

company, after incorporation, with another company already incorporated, or two other companies, and with the industry itself, in an attempt to determine whether it is advisable or not at this time to give endorsation to the incorporation of this particular company. I think we must be allowed to follow that general relationship between the company we are now considering and others and especially its relationship to the industry and to other companies; otherwise, we shall just be blindly endorsing every application that comes before parliament without considering the effect it will have upon other sectors of the economy, including instances of incorporation by acts of this parliament itself.
With deference and respect, sir, I suggest that in this instance the debate should be allowed to continue on the same basis as have similar debates in the past and that we should be permitted to take into account the effect of this incorporation upon other parts of the same industry and upon our economy.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank hon. members who have assisted me with the problem which I raised myself as a point of order. I think it is clear, and hon. members will agree, that what we are debating is the principle of the bill before us on second reading, not the details. As I see it, the principle of the bill is whether this group of individuals petitioning parliament shall be given corporate capacity. I see no principle other than this involved in this bill, whether this particular group of individuals shall be given corporate capacity.
Now, from the giving of that corporate capacity under this bill when it is passed other consequences may flow. That is true; but whether they will flow or not is purely conjectural. This bill could be passed and nothing might follow. If anything follows it will be in accordance with licensing legislation which has been passed by this house in which this house has already declared its policy. For this reason I think the debate has gone beyond reasonable bounds in discussion of the principle which is really at stake, namely whether this group shall have corporate powers.
I can see the difficulty which arises because the hon. member who sponsored the bill went on to expound what the company's intention would be after it had been incorporated, and that put in issue some of the things that the hon. member is talking about. Therefore, I am not disposed at this point to say that there shall be no discussion of the probable effects of the activity of this company in the context of the oil transport industry; but I do say that ordinarily it is not a necessary part of the discussion of such a

principle except to say that there are enough companies in the field, and this particular company should not be incorporated. I hope I will not do any injustice to any member in asking that the discussion be restricted to the plans of this company as declared in the debate and not to a general debate on the economies of the oil industry.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am in particular agreement with one thing you said, namely that if this bill passes and nothing else comes of it we shall have a pipe line coming from some place and going nowhere for no particular reason. I do not want to question the argument because I think it is a sound one. However, I should like to read a part of the statement made by the sponsor of the bill in the other place. He referred to a press release that appeared in a number of newspapers, which release was in these words:
Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited has filed an application with the Alberta government seeking permission to construct a 41 mile pipe line for transportation of unrefined condensate from gas fields in southwestern Alberta to the international border.
The company's proposed line would cost an estimated $1,700,000. It would consist of 11 miles of 4 inch pipe from the Waterton-Castle river area to the Fincher creek field and 30 miles of 8 inch pipe from the Pincher Creek field to the international border near Carway. Maximum capacity of the line would be 32,600 barrels daily, and early movement would range from 4,000 to 8,000 barrels daily.
The pipe line would connect at the border with a pipe line system being constructed by Continental Pipe Line Company, the wholly owned subsidiary of Continental Oil Company. Continental Pipe Line is constructing a pipe line from Cut Bank, Montana, via Billings to Platte Pipe Line Company's Byron station near Powell, Wyoming. It is planned to extend this system from Cut Bank to the international border to connect with the proposed Hudson's Bay system.
It is indicated here, Mr. Speaker, that this line will serve no Canadian purpose at all, that its only purpose is to connect two existing gas fields in Canada with a United States distribution system already in existence not far from the border and from which a line is already being extended to a point on the international border. I believe this raises immediately the question of whether this line should exist at all. I am of the opinion that it should not exist at this time or at any time until we have explored all the possibilities of establishing in what appears to be a new field in Canada the handling and processing of these condensates from the washing of the natural gas industry.
I have been told that if we were to establish in Canada an industry which would handle these condensates we would have a number of secondary industries established for the initial processing of the by-products, and this might then warrant eventually a 90205-6-115
Private Bills
line from these secondary industries to handle those by-products which could not be used in Canada. We might then find it in our interests to export to the Continental Oil Company of the United States. We might find it advantageous at that time to construct a line then solely for the purpose of joining our producing areas to the United States market through their distribution systems.
I believe that if we build this line at the present time we will be defeating ourselves and doing away with the opportunity to establish secondary indusmes in that field to use the by-products which would be available locally and which would have to be processed in that area if this export transmission line is not constructed. They would have to be processed in that area and we would be able to establish further secondary industries.


Mr. Nugent:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in following his present line I think the hon. member is flying right in the face of the ruling you have just made. He is continuing as though you had not tried to restrict him to the point we are concerned with in this debate, and I would respectfully suggest that he should keep in line with the ruling you have made.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the hon. member who has the floor may not be in order in this discussion by way of a reply to what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg South in introducing the bill. Apart from that, I agree entirely with the point of order. The passage of the bill does not establish the pipe line which the hon. member is discussing and it does not bring about the situation which he is discussing. The passage of the bill brings about nothing except a corporate entity with the legal capacity of a natural person, in fact, a capacity which a natural person would not have under our legislation because it must be a corporate entity which applies for the further licences that are necessary before any of these matters which the hon. member for Timiskaming is discussing could come about. I think the hon. member should restrict what he has to say to an appropriate reply to what was said by the sponsor of the bill and beyond that deal only with the principle of whether this proposed corporate entity should be given the capacity which the bill proposes.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to relate my remarks not necessarily to what has been said in the house as to the purpose of the bill and the reason for establishing the company but rather to what was

Private Bills
stated to be the intention by the hon. senator who introduced the bill in the other place.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member would be out of order in following that course because to my mind the principle stated by the hon. member for Ottawa West is the correct principle, and apart from the course the debate has already taken I would not have allowed the hon. member to continue. I do not think it is in order for him to set up a case from the other place and then try to use it when it would not be relevant if that same case were set up by a member of this house.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, in closing I should like to say that I am concerned about the fact that although the bill was studied by a committee in the other place no minutes of the proceedings of that committee have been made available for our perusal and study. I hope that this will not happen again. I am also concerned with what appears to be the opinion of Senator Brunt that if the bill passes-I am not saying it should not-two thirds of the shares of the proposed company will be owned by the Continental Oil Company of the United States, a foreign corporation. I agree with his view in that regard. If we are setting up this entity that you have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that being the only thing we are actually doing, I say that this entity is not acceptable because we would be establishing a company controlled in the United States and having the avowed purpose of not working to establish industry in this country. For that reason I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin):
That bill No. S-2 be not now read the second time this day but that it be read this day six months hence.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, perhaps initially I might raise a point of order in that because of circumstances we may be assisted immeasurably in the consideration of this matter as a result of the moving of this amendment. In my opinion the amendment now before the house would allow the hon. member for Bow River to comment and perhaps he might be able to clear up some of the difficult points before us and thus bring about the early dispatch of the bill. Now that we have this amendment before us perhaps that would be an easy way to dispose of the bill. I only make this suggestion by way of a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bow River has not risen so the point does not arise.


Ernest James Broome: This amendment gives me a chance to participate in the debate again. I had certain complaints
(Mr. Peters.]
to make earlier in the debate and I have checked into these matters further. I find that although my previous criticism to the effect that we did not have sufficient information still stands, the sooner we pass this bill the better. I believe that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) is doing a disservice to the house by his statement and to the industry he is maligning. I do not want to be called to order for committing the same offence.
However, I should like to say that the effect of the passage of this bill will be to increase employment in western Canada. It will increase plant capacity in the way of facilities for scrubbing the gas. We do know that with our exports of gas which have been approved we will have more of these condensates than can possibly be used. It would be the same position if we said we should not export newsprint because we might want to have another newspaper. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the sooner we can clear this bill from the order paper by giving approval to this amendment which will enable the bill to go to a committee, the better. We can then find out the answer to one question that still bothers me, and that is why this company has not followed what I believe to be the intent of the national energy board by making a public subscription of its stock to enable general Canadian participation in this venture.


Frank Howard: I have just one comment to make arising out of the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome). I think it is extremely unfortunate and unkind when the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) suggests that there is not sufficient information during the initial stages of this bill to enable us to deal with it, when he approaches this question from the point of view of protecting Canadian interests, for the hon. member for Vancouver South to get up and level accusations against him. It was extremely unkind and unwise for the hon. member to take that course of action. It does not promote the type of comradeship that should exist between members of the house in considering matters of this nature.
I can easily understand, Mr. Speaker, that on matters of government policy there might be harsh differences of opinion because so many of these policies are foolish. However, in so far as private bills are concerned, in which government policy is only incidentally involved, I do not believe there is any need for this type of comment. I do not want to follow that line of discussion, but I thought it was appropriate to make a few comments of this nature.

Apparently we could have been assisted immeasurably if the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) had put forward in some detail the information which he has at his fingertips and which, apparently, was not available to the house a week ago. He did this, I understand, under the guise of asking a question of the hon. member for Timiskaming. Perhaps this is one thing that needs to be cleared up. As I interpret it, and the hon. member can correct me if I am wrong, he informed the house that the Foothills corporation had withdrawn its application before the Alberta natural gas conservation board. If this is so, and I have no reason to doubt it, it is completely new information. Individual members may have had knowledge of it, but it puts the whole question in a different perspective.
The last time I checked on this aspect of the matter, it was my understanding that the Foothills company or the Pembina people were scheduled to appear before the Alberta board today, February 7. This was the last information I received. Now some doubt has been cast on this fact, but merely by way of a query and not by way of a definite statement.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise to a point of order, at the risk of spending a good deal of time on points of order. I would refer Your Honour, first, to citations 482 and 483 in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition. I shall read what I believe are the relevant parts of these citations, but I give the reference to them in case anyone wants to pursue the matter.


Frank Howard: Does this have to do with what I was saying?


George James McIlraith: It has to do with that very point. This citation refers to the second reading of a bill as follows:
There is, however, a distinction between the second reading of a public and of a private bill, which should not be overlooked. A public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons; but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee.
Citation 483 reads as follows:
The house does not profess to decide upon the second reading as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations of fact upon which a proposed bill is based, and in conceding a second reading to a private bill, the house is regarded as merely giving its sanction to its general principle on the hypothesis that the committee to which it is afterwards referred finds those allegations proved.
90205-6-1151
Private Bills
Then it goes on to say that it is usual, therefore, to allow a second reading, except when the bill enunciates some principle which the house is not prepared to affirm. My point is that the hon. member is seeking to allege here certain facts in connection with the persons seeking incorporation and also certain other facts which are in doubt concerning other pipe line companies. These matters of fact can be dealt with properly only in the committee. They are not matters that can be inquired into on the second reading of a private bill in the house because there is no machinery for dealing with them, and with the whole matter that is now before us. Whether we should agree to the proposed incorporation would be a matter of fact to be determined in the committee and, therefore, for these reasons I respectfully submit the hon. member is going beyond what is permissible at this stage.


Frank Howard: I would only comment on that by saying that the practice of the house itself, since I have been here, has misled me. It has been completely inconsistent with what the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mc-Ilraith) has said. If the citation to which the hon. gentleman has referred is correct-I can only say it has been the practice on each occasion to go into these questions if an hon. member desired to participate in such a debate on a private bill-and if that is the rule the house desires to follow, I think perhaps it would be unkind and unfair to some members, especially in view of what other hon. members have said before this matter was raised.


Mr. Speaker:: I accept the authorities which have been cited from Beauchesne's fourth edition. I think it is a sound statement of principle. I also recognize that the practice in debating private bills has often allowed a wide-ranging debate without objection from the house. That fact, of course, does not alter the principle. The fact that the house goes beyond what is a proper debating course without objection being taken does not establish a new rule. That result would not follow unless exception is taken and the point is raised and dealt with. I therefore think that the hon. member should not rely too heavily on debates in which he has taken part or which have occurred in the past.
I have been looking at the previous discussions of this matter in order to see how far the sponsors have opened the facts as expressed by the people who are applying for incorporation. It was because of that initial discussion that I did not feel I could properly stop comment on what had been raised earlier in the debate on behalf of the sponsors. I still feel that way about the matter, although

Private Bills
I recognize the fact that the discussion has largely been ranging beyond proper debate on a private bill the principle of which is quite limited in that it only give corporate capacity and does not do any of the things which hon. members have been discussing.


Frank Howard: From what you have said, Mr. Speaker, I gather that it is all right to stretch the rule a little bit as long as you are not caught or as long as no one objects to your doing so. It is my error in this regard, Mr. Speaker, in not paying stricter attention to what the rule stated but rather paying more attention to what went on in the house and taking one to mean the other. However, I find that is not exactly the way in which things operate.
In view of the point of order that was raised and dealt with, perhaps I might relate some of my remarks specifically to comments which have been made by other hon. members in a preceding debate. In this regard I would refer to page 1368 of Hansard at which point some remarks appear in the name of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner). Almost at the start he is incorrect, of course, and I should like to clear that matter up. He pointed out as follows:
The last time this subject was debated hon. members of that group-
Meaning us.
-indicated that they wanted more information on the subject, that they needed certain particulars dealing with the export of the product concerned, yet today they moved to close the debate so that it could not be re-opened in this house.
This is just not so, Mr. Speaker. He goes further and makes a similar comment to the effect that the particular move we made a couple of weeks ago was one of attempting to close the debate so that it could not be re-opened in this house. That, of course, is not a factual statement; it is not in accordance with the rules of the house and it is not in accordance with the true state of affairs existing. Whether the individual amendment, which was one to adjourn the debate, had passed or had not passed, the matter could still have been re-opened, as is now being done, and it would still come up for consideration in its normal way.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member give me that page reference again?


Frank Howard: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. It is page 1368, the second or righthand column just following the listing of the names on a division.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You were doing practically the same thing that you are doing now.


Frank Howard: Obviously my friend the hon. member for Acadia is out of time and out of place. If he had said these things today, he would have been correct. But as the situation stands, he said them two weeks ago. Of course, it is not my fault that he invariably gets things mixed up.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Not as mixed up as you.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get engaged in a cross-fire conversation with my friend the hon. member for Acadia. We know the irritating things he says from time to time; and it will merely mean that we shall be engaging in a debate that is not germane to the subject matter before us.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Anything to kill time.


Frank Howard: I am afraid that my hon. friend would like to kill a great many other things but fortunately he is restrained from doing so. I will withdraw that remark about my friend, Mr. Speaker. As reported at page 1369 of Hansard the hon. member for Acadia points out something about the details and he states this:
Some hon. members are bothered by the lack of full details. We have established a national energy board to look into the questions of Canadian ownership in these companies, the feasibility of the markets the companies wish to develop and explore and whether the product can be made readily available without injuring established pipe line companies and so forth. Certainly we should allow the energy board to do the job for which it was established.
This is a commendable approach to take, of course. Parliament establishes commissions, boards and agencies and gives them certain authority, as was done in the case of the national energy board and then expects a certain course of action to be followed by those boards and commissions within the confines of the authority given to them. However, I think it is dangerous for this or any other parliament to give up blindly, holus-bolus, any sort of thing to the national energy board or to any other board merely because we established them and gave them a certain authority to run things. This blind acceptance of their ability is one of the quick ways which is leading us into the bureaucratic control of things in the country.
I think parliament must examine these matters in the light of how they will affect others and how the corporation itself will function, regardless of the fact that there may be another public body before which the corporation, if it is established, will be obliged to appear in order to get certain permission to do certain things and before which it will be obliged to prove certain facts.

I am not like the hon. member for Acadia who wants to relinquish all rights and powers-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Do not put words in my mouth.


Frank Howard: I would not dare to put words in the hon. member's mouth or anything else for that matter.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The matter can still be referred to a committee.


William Arnold Peters: Why not help him take his foot out of his mouth?


Frank Howard: If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gets his foot in his mouth regularly. I personally admit that I was off the point, but I am continually invited to get off the point by the irresponsible comments of hon. members on the other side of the house while sitting in their seats.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Churchill-Mr. Hamilton (York West) in the chair:
That, it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Pension Act to provide for increases to disabled veterans and their dependants; to permit payment of supplementary pensions in certain cases; to permit appeals from decisions of the former board of pension commissioners; and to provide for certain further changes in connection with the administration of the act.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, when I interrupted my remarks at five o'clock, pursuant to the rule which says that private bills must be discussed between five and six o'clock, I had just referred to some remarks made by the hon. member for Victoria-Car-leton (Mr. Montgomery), and I was trying to relate his words to a statement the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) made on December 12, 1980.
In that statement that at five o'clock I qualified as quite broad and which I could now call omnibus, I understood-I hope I was right-that there was some possibility that an amendment could be made to section
Pension Act
70 of the act. This section deals with the benefit of the doubt to be granted to veterans who claim a pension and I would like to put the text on record. Section 70 reads as follows:
(Text):
Notwithstanding anything in this Act, on any application for pension the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which means it is not necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions all reasonable inferences and presumptions in favour of the applicant.
(Translation):
The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton told us a while ago-and I hope I did not mis-contrue his words-that it was almost impossible to improve the wording in order for the commission or "the body adjudicating on the claim" to be in a position, because of a new wording, to make better decisions. It is evident that veterans-because in most cases claims are examined by veterans-use their discretion, as they are allowed to do under the law. But there are some cases where we, who had to deal with similar cases, feel that they do not exercise discretion as they should.
The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton said that in his opinion it was impossible to improve the act. It is my humble opinion that it is always possible to improve an act and the Minister of Veterans Affairs should, with the help of his officials-if he has not already done so-undertake a special study of section 70 in the light of the cases which were submitted to the Canadian pension commission, and try at least to find a new formula or rewrite the law so that veterans be given full justice.
Mr. Chairman, I think of at least two cases at this time. The first is the case of a veteran of the 1914-18 war, who fought in the trenches with the formation now called the Royal 22nd Regiment and who, after spending days and nights and whole weeks in insanitary trenches, as they all were, is now suffering from rheumatism and other malformations but does not receive any pension. Why? Because the physicians who testified before the pension commission of the time could not state whether the rheumatism from which he was suffering at that time and from which he is still suffering today was really due to his war service hardships. Well, in my humble opinion, it is normal to assume that the disease which then affected him and still continues now was due to his war service. And yet

Pension Act
he could not get any pension. That is a case where, I think the party in question should have been given the benefit of the doubt.
I am thinking also of another case which comes under subsection 2 of section 13 of the act since it has to do with peace time service. That young man who is now dead was suffering from a disease whose origin is now the physicians could not establish. Well the physicians cannot state whether the disease has resulted from his peacetime service or from other causes.
Well, if doctors cannot say that the illness is due to some other causes, I believe the widow of this young man should have received benefits, if he was otherwise entitled to a pension. This case is still pending and I hope that following my remarks, the minister or his officials will decide to bring in a new formula regarding section 70 of the act, so that dependents of deceased veterans might receive the benefits they are entitled to.
Mr. Chairman, our Criminal Code, relying on the theory of the benefit of the doubt, states that the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. I believe the same should apply in the case of the benefits to be paid to veterans as well as to those who devote their energy and their health to the service of our country, both in time of peace and of war. Really, they should get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to finding the cause of the diseases they could have caught during their service either in time of peace or war.
Those are the main remarks I wanted to make on this matter. I am convinced that the Minister of Veterans Affairs, himself a veteran, will give them kind consideration. There is no doubt that our veterans, those young men who made the sacrifice of their life or their health for the defence of their country, are entitled to our consideration. There should be no party politics involved in this house or in the veterans affairs committee on this matter. We all want to cooperate for the welfare of our veterans.
(Text):


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, because of the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver East I feel that I should place on the record at this time a part of the statement made by the present Minister of Veterans Affairs when he referred in this house to the record of accomplishment of this government under the previous minister as reported at page 734 of Hansard of December 12, 1960:
During Colonel Brooks' term of office $471 million was added by the consent of parliament to the

amounts already being received by our veterans in disability pensions, war veterans allowances, increases to widows and dependent parents, educational assistance to children, and increases for hospitals. Under Colonel Brooks' guidance the house increased the basic rates for war veterans allowances and raised the ceilings for permissible earnings. Residence requirements for allied vet-terans were lowered from 20 to 10 years; veterans with a year's service in the United Kingdom became eligible for allowances; that is, veterans of world war I. Equity in recipients' homes was raised; allowances may now be paid to veterans living abroad who had 12 months' prior residence in Canada; loans under the Veterans' Land Act were increased, as well as home construction loans.
The minister went on to point out:
From world war I there are now approximately
240.000	survivors. Of that number approximately
49.000	are pensioners; slightly over 25 per cent of the total number of survivors of the first world war. The veteran survivors of the second world war number 826,000, and of that number somewhat over 100,000, or slightly over 12 per cent, are pensioners.
At the present time some 5,000 children of world war I pensioners and over 160,000 children of world war II pensioners are receiving assistance.
In the standing committee on veterans affairs set up by this government I have heard it said by delegations who have appeared before us that this government has done more for veterans in the three years it has been in power than had been accomplished in any previous period of time. That is not to say that some of the points raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East should not concern us at this time just as much as they concern him.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, the chairman of the standing committee, we are concerned about the benefit of the doubt section. Let me quote briefly from a statement contained at page 10 of the brief of the Canadian Legion presented to the government on December 12, 1960:
Nearly 50 per cent of cases heard at appeal in the fiscal year 1958-59 were successful.
It is inconceivable that of the number of cases turned down after the first hearing half of them should have been allowed on appeal. It seems to me the benefit of the doubt is not being given to applicants. I support what the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton says to the effect that it is difficult to express in words what a commission shall do. You must pick good men and leave it up to them. Perhaps their hands may be tied in certain ways.
An amendment should be introduced to this section and according to the statement

of the minister something is going to be done in this respect. Speaking in this house on December 12, 1960 as reported at page 736 of Hansard, the minister said:
In some instances, the act and the interpretation of the act have limited the activities of the pension commission, and in the revision that is now going on it is our hope that some of the sections which have hindered the commission from time to time may be altered so that its work may become more effective.
Each of us will have to place his own interpretation on the words contained in that paragraph. We will not know what will be accomplished until the bill comes before us. I trust that some improvement will be brought about with respect to section 70. I also wish to refer to a statement in the Canadian Legion brief respecting conditions not recorded on enlistment:
The Legion has on record cases in which the pension commission has pointed to the lack of record of a disability on discharge and has ruled that in view of this it must be accepted that in fact there was no disability present at this time. Why then should not the commission be bound by enlistment examinations? The commission rules a condition to be of a pre-enlistment nature and then draws a totally unwarranted conclusion that there was no aggravation during service in many cases where there is a disability recorded on discharge and none on enlistment.
This problem and this section of the act are linked together with the benefit of the doubt section.
We have heard a lot about the firefighters and foresters. The hon. member for Vancouver East was most eloquent in speaking of this group of people who went overseas and performed a very worth-while function but in my opinion the forgotten people in terms of our veterans legislation are the merchant seamen. Coming from a coastal city I am keenly interested in this group. Knowing that the merchant navy suffered over 25 per cent casualties and that the provisions in the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act are very limited in scope it seems to me our merchant seamen deserve better treatment. I sincerely hope that the merchant seamen who have appeared year after year before the veterans affairs committee will somehow or other be brought under the provisions of those acts which now apply solely to veterans.
There are other problems which are of a technical nature and which could be corrected at very little expense. I know that recently in Vancouver the minister spoke to a meeting of some 400 legionnaires representing, I would guess some 15 branches, during the afternoon. I know he also had different meetings with officials from various Legion
Pension Act
branches who came up and discussed their problems with him. I know the minister was most sympathetic to them and will try to do what he can to bring about at least some of the changes which have been requested.
I might mention that some of these changes have to do with the regulations which limit the equity that a widow may have under the War Veterans Allowance Act on the death of her husband. I realize that this is not under discussion at the present time but it is bound up in this whole matter of veterans pensions. For instance, I know a person who was told she was $500 over the amount allowed. Her husband was a recipient of war veterans allowance. He died and as a single person she has too much money to the extent of $500 to qualify. When you consider that $2,000 is the top limit allowed you can see that it is not too much to take care of those extraordinary costs which are incurred at a time of sickness or to make major repairs to a house, and so on. But she has to get rid of this amount, and it seems to me to be a rather stupid bureaucratic regulation. It could be changed without amendment to the act.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer. Last year this government permitted pensions to be paid to veterans outside of Canada; but under the regulations, after having qualified to receive a pension outside of Canada, if the veteran dies his widow and children, if there are children, must return to Canada and live in this country a year before they can go back to wherever they had established themselves. This seems rather ridiculous to me. It is something that should never have been put in the regulations and it should be changed.
I do not want to take up too much of the time of the committee but I do believe that this government has more veterans than any previous government had, both backbenchers and members of the cabinet. This government set up the standing committee on veterans affairs. At least 90 per cent of the members of that committee are veterans. I do not say this is a good thing. I am one who believes that there should be a larger number of nonveterans on this committee. Some hon. members may think that if we had a committee dealing with medicine we should have only doctors on that committee. There is no reason why all the members of this committee should be veterans. The committee should have representatives from all sides of the house, regardless of whether they are veterans or not.
This committee has done a good job and this government has done a good job in regard to veterans legislation. We must never forget

Pension Act
the debt we owe to the veterans of world wars I and II. It is something that we can never repay, but the requirements of this group of citizens must not only be considered in relation to the requirements of all other groups, but also taking into due account the tremendous service they have given to this country and what we owe these men and women. However, we still must legislate with justice to all. I believe this government has done this.
Generally speaking, we may say that veterans legislation is something on which we do not draw party lines. All members of the veterans affairs committee speak, not as members of different parties but as parliamentarians with the best interest of veterans at heart. But if veterans legislation is to be thrown into the political field then this government and this party can stand on their own feet and show a record that is second to none. This party can show that it has done more for veterans than any other party has ever done; this party can show that it has carried the torch, that we have kept faith. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that it would be very ill advised on the part of the opposition parties to challenge us on this phase of our program.


Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo who spoke for all the Newfoundland members on this side of the house. I should like to congratulate the minister on his appointment and to thank him and his predecessor in the department for the courtesy and promptness with which they have dealt with the problems I have had occasion to send to them from time to time. The importance of the resolution before the committee is, I am sure, appreciated by all hon. members. The debt owed by the nation to its veterans is, I feel quite sure, completely understood and I will not presume to comment further on it or enlarge on this theme.
Beneficial measures designed to help the veterans must, of course, have our approbation. However, I feel that I should mention the forestry unit from Newfoundland which served overseas during world war II. Their desire is to be given the same treatment as is accorded to members of the Canadian forestry corps.
It has been pointed out by members of the forestry unit that they did not wear His Majesty's uniform but they did work side by side with the Canadian forestry corps, and many of them did serve in the home guard in the British Isles. I know that some of those men today are ill and in need, and the only assistance they can get is from welfare
[Mr. Broomed
sources. I do not think these men should be the recipients of charity and I hope that provision can be made to bring the members of the Newfoundland forestry unit under the act and that arrangements can be made to have them participate in veterans benefits.
I should also like to ask for consideration for the merchant marine, the rescue tug service and the fire fighters. The reference made to the status of Newfoundland servicemen by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo is one which really deserves immediate attention. Under the law, Newfoundlanders became Canadians when Newfoundland entered confederation. Not only that, but it was clearly specified that their status was to be as if they had been always Canadians. For instance, if a Newfoundlander were asked to state the country of his birth he would have to say Canada although he was born in Newfoundland before confederation. Although we entered confederation in 1949 we have always been Canadians. That is the law. It does seem strange, therefore, that there is still a difference in the status of Newfoundland veterans vis-a-vis Canadian veterans. It just is not consistent. It is wrong and it is a wrong that should be righted.
There is another point I should like to mention. In marginal cases when decisions are being made as to whether the veteran deserves to receive benefits, the benefit of the doubt seldom is given to the veteran. At least it seems so to me. I think this is also wrong. The very spirit of the administration of veterans affairs should be to give the benefit of the doubt to the veteran. Imponderables which it is impossible to pin down as facts are often associated with veterans requests. In such circumstances, rather than risk an unjust decision which can leave a veteran in need or without medical aid it seems to me that it is the fair thing and the wise thing to "let mercy season justice".


Mr. MacRae:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak very briefly on the resolution. I realize there are many other hon. members who wish to speak and none of us wishes to delay the implementation of this legislation. Because this is the first opportunity I have had to do so, I should like to compliment the Minister of Veterans Affairs on the assumption of his portfolio. His service in the two world wars of this century, in the first one as a very young man and in the last as the commanding officer of a fine regiment, and his deep understanding of the problems of his fellow Canadians have fitted him for this most important of portfolios and we wish him every success.
I should also like to compliment the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans

Pension Act
Affairs upon his appointment. Those of us who have worked with the hon. member for Saskatoon in recent years realize how fair-minded, industrious and conscientious he is and I personally wish him well as I am sure we all do.
It has been said that Canada's veterans' legislation is second to none in the world but then that is only as it should be. Though I may perhaps be disagreeing slightly with one hon. member on my own side of the house, it seems to me that our veterans legislation is a tribute to all those in all parties who have served in previous parliaments because over the years members of all parties have tried to make our veterans legislation the best that it possibly could be, and that is as it should be.
In the last 62 years Canadians have gone forth four times from this country to fight our wars, the Boer war, the two great wars and Korea. Their service and sacrifice have done more than anything else, it seems to me, to raise us to the honoured place that we hold in the world today, and we do hold an honoured place. We owe a great debt to our veterans and to the dependants of our veterans, one which in many cases money can never repay.
I can well remember half a dozen or more years ago attending a Remembrance Day service at the national war memorial here in Ottawa. That year a change was made in the service from what it had been in the years before. A mother was asked to come on November 11 and place a wreath at the memorial on behalf of those mothers who had lost sons in Canada's wars. I believe the idea was that of the Very Reverend Dean Anderson, at that particular time dominion president of the Canadian Legion. I should like to give credit to him for it if indeed it was his idea. On this particular day a mother from Saskatchewan who had lost three sons in world war II, two boys in the air force and one in the army, took part in the service. As she stood there after placing her wreath I do not think there was a dry eye among the thousands who were watching. There is not enough money in the world to pay that mother or any other mother for the lads they gave to fight for this country.
The last revision of the Pension Act was in 1957, a welcome and generous revision, but I feel it is time that the act should be revised again, as is it being done. Civil service salaries have been raised and the pay of the armed forces has been increased. I believe and I am sure we all believe that this measure to increase veterans pensions and the pensions of dependents will be welcomed everywhere. It seems to me that the 90205-6-116
editorial pages of our newspapers mirror the thoughts of Canadians. The front pages are set up mainly to sell newspapers but the editorial pages usually tell us the truth. I should like to refer to an editorial in the Fredericton Gleaner of December 14, 1960, headed "Disabled War Veterans", which reads as follows:
It there is one thing Canada can afford to do it is to reimburse her disabled war veterans for the hell they endured in the two global wars of this century. Debate has started in the commons on government legislation to boost their pensions. We hope it will not be prolonged, that the measure will be passed into law without delay.
Canada's war veterans are entitled to a decent standard of living. They gave their arms, their legs, their eyes and suffered fearful wounds when duty called them to the colours. Now, in many cases, they are unable to earn their livelihood as whole men can. Canada should not hesitate in doing her duty to them.
A moment's reflection is all it takes to realize that, were it not for these valiant soldiers, sailors and airmen, Canadians might not have the privilege of debating their country's problems at all.
One criticism we sometimes hear is that some veterans is getting a pension and does not deserve one. Perhaps that is true. Those of us who were in the services know that there were always fellows around who did not seem to be very much good. They were no good before they went into the services and they were no good as soldiers, sailors or airmen. Having worked with some of them after the war in the Legion and later as a member of this house it is apparent that they are no good now either. Perhaps some of them are getting pensions. That is possibly true. It has always been the policy of the pension commission and the war veterans allowance board over the years to lean over backwards in awarding pensions so that some deserving man will not be left out.
We hear a great deal of criticism about the "benefit of the doubt." My own personal feeling is that if there is any doubt at all the veteran does get the benefit of the doubt. I feel that Mr. Anderson and the pension commission and Colonel Cromb and the war veterans allowance board are bending over backwards to give the veteran a fair break every time.
When we read the Legionary we often see pictures with a caption saying why disability pensions are paid. I should like to tell hon. members very briefly about a case before I finish. It concerns a member of this house. He led his company of the North Nova Scotia Highlanders on D-day across the beaches of Normandy and then through some of the terrible battles that followed. Finally one day in the fields of Normandy a shell landed and shrapnel shattered his arm. His arm was hanging by a piece of muscle and he could not leave it like that. He asked his batman

Pension Act
who was near him to cut it off for him but the man could not. I can see why he could not. So this officer had his batman open his clasp knife and he performed his own amputation above the elbow. Even after that he continued to lead his company in action until he finally collapsed from pain and loss of blood. He lay there for most of the day until he became unconscious. After being found he regained consciousness three days later having been given constant transfusions of blood and plasma. He is one of those who does not feel that this country owes him a living. By the way, I am speaking of the hon. member for Colchester-Hants. I think he is an example to all Canadians. He does not feel that this country owes him a living.
He has said more than once that all any veteran's pension should do is to compensate him for what he has lost. It is not intended to keep him completely, but it is intended to compensate him for what he has lost. I know that the people, not only in my own constituency but in the whole of Canada, will urge our very able Minister of Veterans Affairs and our very able government to be as generous as possible to the veterans and the veterans dependants of this country.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to speak again at the resolution stage as I spoke at some length prior to the Christmas recess when this resolution was first introduced. However, after listening to the hon. member for Vancouver South I could not resist rising for a few minutes to point out to the committee another indication of the contradictions and differences of opinion on the government side. Mind you, I am dealing with the words of the hon. member for Vancouver South as I heard them, and he made some reference to those who are best fitted to represent veterans on the veterans affairs committee, and who are able to understand veterans' problems. The hon. member has a perfect right to express an opinion.
However, I thought I recalled a speech in the last issue of the Legionary made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs sitting opposite which expressed a different opinion. I just want to mention this speech to indicate these contradictions which are constantly occurring among the members of the government and which are cropping out from day to day. I see the minister looking at me-


Gordon Minto Churchill: There are no divisions in your party.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -and I want to quote from his speech. What did the minister say?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are there any divisions in your party?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Divisions here? This is the most united group in the House of Commons because, Mr. Chairman, united we stand and divided we fall.


An hon. Member:: Behind whom do you stand?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Behind our national leader, the hon. member for Assiniboia.
My reason for rising is that I want to quote from this excellent speech the minister made in Winnipeg at the time of the 35th anniversary of the Legion. I understand the dominion executive met there and the minister was guest speaker. I simply want to quote one paragraph with reference to his opinion as to who could best represent veterans. This is the minister's opinion, and I quote it just to indicate that these differences of opinion crop up between those on the government side.
In the days of peace, only those who have experienced the hazards of warfare are qualified to judge the requirements of the survivors. The Legion, with its thousands of active service members, is the body best equipped to determine the degree of assistance that veterans require.
By quoting the minister I am not suggesting that other members are not sympathetic to the cause of veterans and are not qualified to judge the needs of the survivors of war. I quote those words particularly to draw to the attention of the committee again the contradictions that are arising from day to day on the government side of the house.


Ernest James Broome: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Oh, delighted.


Ernest James Broome: Would the hon. member suggest that this means we have a certain freedom of expression on this side, whereas his group is regimented to such a degree that they all think the same and they are not allowed to have any difference of opinion?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In this group, Mr. Chairman, we have complete freedom of expression and action. On that side there is sometimes freedom of expression, but when the vote comes the members vote as they are told.
I only rose because I could not resist doing so after listening to the otherwise excellent speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver South. I know his intentions are good and he means well.
Before I resume my seat, I do want to say that there were a number of questions brought up by members this afternoon, both on the government side and the opposition side, with respect to certain amendments required to the Canadian Pension Act to give justice to certain pensioners. Reference was made to the benefit of the doubt section and to the

regulation which now denies a percentage of the pension to the widow if her husband's pension was under 50 per cent. References were made, too, concerning the needs of our burnt out veterans.
In conclusion, I simply want to say that I trust when the committee is studying the bill, which I hope will be introduced for for first reading tonight-I can see by the expression on the minister's face that he is very optimistic-the committee will have various veterans organizations, including the Legion, the national council of veterans and others before them to offer suggestions with respect to these amendments which are supported by members on all sides. These amendments are required to bring this act up to date to meet present circumstances. I hope the committee will have the power, not only to make recommendations with respect to the exact wording of the bill that will be sent to the committee for examination but on these other questions that have arisen with respect to the Canadian Pension Act.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on this item I should like first to commend the Minister of Veterans Affairs for bringing this resolution before this committee. I should like also to congratulate him on his new appointment as minister of this department. I am certain that with his wise counsel and with his service record, the department will benefit from his leadership and his experience. At this time also I should like to take the opportunity to express the gratitude of the people I represent, the veterans of Swift Current-Maple Creek, to the previous minister, now a senator, for the concern, sympathy and understanding which he gave to the many veterans' problems with which he dealt during the time he held this portfolio. It was during his tenure of office that the standing committee on veterans affairs was established. I am sure those of us who have served on that committee, regardless of party affiliation, will agree that it was to a large extent as a result of his interest in the welfare of veterans that Canada's veterans legislation is considered to be the finest anywhere in the world, as the hon. member for York-Sunbury said.
This does not alter the fact, however, that this legislation must be kept up to date and adjustments made in it from time to time. The resolution before us is the forerunner of the bill to amend the Pension Act, and actually it is broken down into four distinct clauses. The first clause would provide for increased pensions to disabled veterans and their dependants; the second would permit payment of supplementary pensions in certain cases; the third would permit appeals 90205-6-116i
Pension Act
from decisions of the former board of pensions commissioners; and the fourth would provide for certain further changes in connection with the administration of the act.
I trust that the measures to implement the first two clauses of this resolution will cover the ninth recommendation contained in the 1959 brief of the Canadian Legion wherein they recommend that section 13 (1) (a) of the Pension Act be amended so that a pension applicant who served in an actual theatre of war who is found to have a disability resulting from an injury or disease not recorded on medical examination prior to enlistment will be entitled to have such injury or disease presumed to have had its inception subsequent to enlistment.
I believe that recommendation deserves serious consideration by the minister and by his officials. As we all now know, and has been mentioned previously this evening, Mr. Anderson, who is now chairman of the pension commission, was a former official of the Canadian Legion. I hope that he uses his high office in order to influence the minister and the rest of the staff to implement this resolution.
In the time allotted to me I propose to deal mainly with the last two clauses of this resolution which are as follows:
-to permit appeals from decisions of the former board of pension commissioners; and to provide for certain further changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Many of us who are members of some service organization such as the Canadian Legion have had some experience in establishing claims for pension on behalf of our comrades. My recollection is that the more conscientious the individual was during his term of service, the more difficult it was to establish his claim for pension. I do not blame any board or any officials of the department for this difficulty because they have no alternative but to follow the act and the regulations concerning that matter. I could say a great deal about the regulations with regard to any of these acts. I am quite sure that when the act was passed, if the regulations were then before the house, many of these regulations would have been changed because to my mind in many cases the regulations are more powerful than is the act itself.
Many of us know of cases of service personnel who would have to be flat on their back before they would report to their medical officers. As a result no record appears on their documents of any minor ailment they may have had because the doctors themselves did not report to their medical officer. In later years when these service personnel were back in civil life those ailments, through aggravation or other causes, forced them to seek

Pension Act
medical attention. In obtaining medical histories of their patients the civilian doctors concluded that the source of aggravation was traced back to war services. In very few cases from my experience with the board of pension commissioners do they accept the civilian doctor's findings, stating there was no entry on the applicants' service records. The term N.A.D.-no apparent disability- used on discharge from a hospital oftentimes if the truth were known revealed the lack of experience of some doctors in diagnosing the case.
In trying to establish proof of claim at this late date the pension commission has requested veterans to contact their service medical officer who treated them during their term of service. If the treatment was minor and the patient was not a malingerer the medical officer could not be expected to recall any particular patient being treated 15 years or 20 years ago for a minor unrecorded ailment.
With the amendment to permit further appeal from decisions of the board of pension commissioners I am certain that many deserving cases should and will be reviewed, claim will be established and entitlement granted. Many service organizations and members of parliament here in this House of Commons today who have spoken on this resolution obviously feel that the .pension commission have failed to extend the provisions of section 70 of the Canadian Pension Act, commonly known or referred to as the benefit of the doubt clause to applicants for pension. There appears to be ample evidence, as some of the members who have been on this committee have stated, filed with the department that the commission did not use this section in the manner in which many of us believe it was intended to be used.
Before we get off on the wrong track about what this benefit of doubt means may I say this. I have heard some statements here in the house today which do not apply to this section. The benefit of the doubt refers only to the medical records of the service personnel. We are not doubtful about whether the board has done the right thing or about whether they have leaned over backwards. The benefit of the doubt refers to the medical records.
I have always been an advocate of the principle that those who volunteer for service and were disabled by any means while in the service should be eligible for pension. I say that volunteers should be shown the respect that is due to them. It was no fault of theirs that they were not called for service in a theatre of war. They volunteered to go where the Canadian government wanted them to go. As I have said, the very fact

that they volunteered seems to have been forgotten. My suggestion with regard to volunteers possibly would be more properly discussed under the War Veterans Allowance Act, as the minister will tell you, but I would ask the minister at this time to consider at an early date the eligibility of the first war veteran volunteer to qualify for assistance and I recommend that the present requirement of 365 days in the United Kingdom prior to November 12, 1918 be abolished. To my mind there appears to be no just reason to distinguish between the veterans who serve voluntarily in two major wars. In Canada it actually appears to be easier to qualify allied veterans or veterans that were allies of ours during world war I than it is to qualify our own Canadian volunteers.
I now wish to discuss certain personnel of the South African force and this is one point I want to make. In some cases they arrived at the theatre of war but did not disembark prior to the cut-off date. I use the term "certain personnel" because those that are still alive, it would appear from this Pension Act and other acts covering veterans, do not qualify to be classed as veterans or to be entitled to the term "military service". Section 2(o) of the Pension Act outlines military services as service in the navy, army or air force of Canada since the commencement of world war I. With this section as it now reads it can be seen that no South African volunteer has entitlement to pension under this act, nor any service status whatsoever under the Pension Act.
An applicant who falls into this category, I understand-there are only a few of them left-must apply to the British minister of pensions. The British minister will only entertain recognition of those Canadian volunteers who landed in South Africa prior to May 31, 1902. As I said, although there are only a few of them left, Canada has made no provision to assist in any manner those South African volunteers who cannot qualify under British regulations. There is no provision under the War Veterans Allowance Act whereby assistance can be given to an early Canadian volunteer, although the need may be great. I say that somewhere in our statutes such cases should be covered. It cannot mean too much money to the Canadian taxpayers. There numbers must be less than 100.
The final point I wish to raise at this time is in connection with the monetary award that accompanies gallantry awards. Although it may not come under the heading of the Pension Act, it may have to do with the contemplated change in an administration of the act, mentioned in part 4 of the resolution, which I read previously. When we inquired

in the committee stage during the last session the reason recipients of gallantry awards in world war II received cash with their awards and those receiving the same award in world war I did not receive cash we were told that such awards in world war I were under British jurisdiction. The statement was made by the officials of the department during the 1958 session that negotiations were under way for the government of Canada to take over this jurisdiction. When agreement had been reached, it was thought that Canadians of world war I in receipt of gallantry awards would be compensated in the same manner as were those receiving the awards in world war II and since that time. Can the minister say whether those negotiations have been completed with the British ministry of pensions or other British bodies that have control of these matters? I am not quite sure whether it is the pensions ministry. I would ask the government to see that this matter is not forgotten. I would ask the minister, also, to see that the matter of the very few veterans of the South African war is not forgotten.
May I say in conclusion that I am certain every member of this house is aware of the importance of this resolution to Canada's veterans and their dependents. I hope the measure will have a successful passage through this house.


Mr. Tucker:: I welcome this opportunity to comment on the resolution concerning veterans' pensions. I should like to associate myself with the view expressed by the Minister of Veterans Affairs on introducing the resolution when, as recorded on page 735 of Hansard of December 12, 1960, he stated:
It is the desire of the people of Canada that veterans and their dependents shall receive reasonably adequate compensation.
Certainly this is the same sentiment as was expressed in slightly different terms by the subcommittee on veterans affairs set up at the recent Liberal rally, which resolved:
The Liberal party reaffirms its continued concern for Canada's veterans, believing that the country wishes to treat them in a spirit of generous gratitude for their services so readily rendered in past times of national emergency.
In my opinion veterans are patriots, and patriotism is generally defined as love for one's country. A line from one of Horace's poems runs: It is good and glorious to die for one's country. Horace lived before the birth of Christ, but even in that period patriotism was not a new thing. As a matter of fact, some 500 years before the Christian era a noble band of Spartans died a glorious death for the sake of saving their country.
But the underlying sentiment which makes men patriots is the conviction of life itself which is the most precious gift of manhood.
Pension Act
During the first world war, the second world war, or, as a matter of fact in any world war, how many patriots had we; men who left their provinces, their communities, their families, their homes and their friends and went out and fought, not for any personal distinction or any personal gain but for king and country; men who fought for their fellow countrymen so that they might live in peace and harmony without the fear of war hovering over their heads. How many veterans made the supreme sacrifice thinking they were taking part in a war to end wars? So, Mr. Chairman, let us show our gratitude to them. Let us show that they did not fight in vain. Let us show that their efforts on our behalf have been appreciated.
The principle of the resolution under discussion is, therefore, non-controversial. It is the responsibility of this government and of members of parliament irrespective of their party affiliations to see that justice is handed out to our worthy veterans. It is in this spirit that I wish to assure the minister that I shall be brief at this stage of the debate in order to expedite the introduction of the bill itself. When we have the bill in our possession we shall give it very close scrutiny, both in committee and in the standing committee on veterans affairs in order to ensure that the maximum benefit accrues to our worthy veterans.
It is, of course, unfortunate that the government was unable to bring in this legislation last year, thus complying with the plan of the former minister of veterans affairs as expressed in the issue of the Legionary of March of last year. It is unfortunate, too, that the former minister of veterans affairs, the Hon. Alfred Brooks, who no doubt worked so hard on this resolution, will not have the pleasure of guiding it through the house.
It is to be hoped that the revision in the pensions will compensate in a realistic manner for the rapid decline in the real worth of the dollar in recent years, a decline which bears heavily on those who, of necessity, have to live within the confines of an income fixed at a time when the dollar was worth a good deal more than it is today.
We welcome the provision outlined by the minister which attempts to mitigate the injustice done to those Canadian citizens who served this country well while on duty with allied forces but who do not yet receive comparable pension benefits. I share the hope so ably expressed in the speech of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo that under this resolution provision will be made to place Newfoundland veterans on the same footing in connection with the payment of benefit as other Canadians. I endorse every word

Pension Act
which my hon. friend said, and urge that an attempt be made to regularize the status of Newfoundland veterans. I ask the government to take into consideration the service given by the forestry units in world war II, the merchant navy and the rescue tug service. All those who served in these bodies should be brought under the veterans' charter.
The members of the Newfoundland overseas forestry units, having answered the call of duty served side by side with the Canadian forestry corps and performed their duties in a very creditable manner. They were exposed to the same hazards as were any Canadians from any part of Canada stationed in the British isles.
It was my duty to purchase the clothing on behalf of the Newfoundland commission government for the Newfoundland forestry units prior to their departure. As far as I can understand, the foresters have never been recognized as veterans because they did not wear a uniform and were not recruited in the same way as the other fighting forces. Surely the Minister of Veterans Affairs and his colleagues will find some way to overcome this technicality and show Newfoundlanders and all Canadians that this government is not going to treat them differently from other Canadians in any of the provinces.
For several years the Newfoundlanders who served with the forestry unit have been seeking through the Canadian Legion the same recognition as is shown other Canadians who served in similar capacities. It has been stated that the commission government of Newfoundland at the time did not recognize any obligation toward the forestry unit. Surely this does not mean that the obligation did not exist and as we all know two wrongs will never make a right.
I wish to conclude by placing on the record an extract from the speech made by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo as reported at page 6755 of Hansard of July 22, 1960:
I should like to express the hope that the war veterans legislation will be amended at the next session of parliament; not only that the Pension Act will be amended to permit increases in the basic pensions and to confirm and regularize the status of Newfoundland veterans, but that other veterans legislation will be amended so that the Newfoundland forestry units of world war II, the merchant navy and the members of the rescue tug service can all be brought under the veterans charter.
I hope the minister will take into consideration the brief submitted on March 31, 1960 on behalf of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit. I ask the minister not to show any preference to the Newfoundland foresters, but to see to it that the same rule and yardstick are applied to our forces who went out and

did their work as well as they knew how, not to see that they are given any preference but to ensure that they receive the justice so well deserved.


Mr. Beech:: Mr. Chairman, may I take this opportunity-as have hon. members who preceded me in this debate-to formally congratulate the new Minister of Veterans Affairs and wish him every success in that important portfolio. Thus far the hon. gentleman has given every indication of being a worthy successor to his predecessors.
The introduction of this resolution will be received gratefully by the various veterans organizations and by veterans generally. It has been known for some time that the government has been giving serious consideration to implementing the increases given in 1957 with a view to bringing them more in line with the recommendations made by the Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations. It was expected that these increases would have been made last year and I know that it was as great a disappointment to the then minister of veterans affairs and other members of the government, as it was to all veterans, when it was decided that these benefits would have to be postponed.
That is not to say that veterans were neglected in the meantime. In fact the benefits granted by the present government make up an imposing list among which are the following: a very substantial increase in war veterans allowances; eligibility for veterans who served at least 365 days in the United Kingdom during world war I and for the widows of these veterans; reduction of the residence rule for allied veterans from 20 to 10 years; eligibility for the widows of such veterans after they have resided here for 10 years, provided their husbands would also have resided in Canada for 10 years had they lived; raising from $6,000 to $8,000 the interest a recipient may have in the property in which he resides; veterans can now receive the veterans allowance regardless of domicile under certain conditions; the repeal of the section which prohibited the payment of an allowance to an orphan receiving benefits under the Pension Act.
All of these points have been contained in resolutions advocated for many years by various veterans organizations and the amendments introduced by the government have gone a long way toward meeting these points. The abolition of the deadline for the marriage or remarriage of world war I veterans, previously advanced to 1954, enabled many veterans to claim married status.
I hope that any increases approved will include payments to those veterans who come under section 25 of the Pension Act, the

meritorious section. When the new changes recommended in this resolution are added to this list I believe we will have every reason to be happy in supporting the motion. There is, however, one matter that continues to give veterans organizations considerable concern and that is the continued practice on the part of the members of the pension commission of placing their own interpretation on section 70 of the Pension Act which reads as follows:
70. Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which means that it is not necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences and presumptions in favour of the applicant.
This concern has been expressed by various veterans organizations. It was expressed by the Canadian Legion in a resolution in the following words:
-that the government take action to ensure that the benefit of the doubt as set forth in section 70 of the Pension Act is in fact extended to all applicants under that act.
It was expressed by the army, navy and air force veterans of Canada in a resolution in these words:
Whereas the Pension Act states that in any application for pension, the applicant shall be entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the adjudicating body is directed to draw all reasonable inference in favour of the applicant; and
Whereas the pension commission, the pension appeal board and medical authorities acting on their behalf, are not in many cases giving the veteran the benefit of the doubt;
Therefore be it resolved by the army, navy and air force veterans in Canada, in dominion convention assembled, that this obvious violation of the Pension Act be again called to the attention of the various bodies who adjudicate upon pension applications and that they be duly reminded of their statutory duty to give to the applicant the benefit of the doubt according to the clear and specific terms of the section above mentioned; I
I wish to place on the record some excerpts from a decision of an appeal board of the pension commission:
The doctor further stated that he agreed that the arthritic condition produced a technical difficulty in operational procedure. The board has further noted that the expert testimony adduced and contained in medical reports indicates that the pensionable condition may possibly have contributed to this veteran's death.
After a most careful and sympathetic analysis, however, of all the circumstances attendant upon death, this board can only conclude that whereas the pensionable condition may have contributed to this veteran's death the fact remains the immediate cause of death was from focal peritonitis following a gastro-enterostomy and the contributory factors cannot be considered material in this case. The advocate Mr. Harvey submitted that the medical evidence established that the pensionable condition contributed materially to death and further pointed out that although in
Pension Act
his opinion there was no doubt of this, should any doubt exist in the minds of the board it should be resolved in favour of the applicant.
The board, after carefully reviewing the entire evidence, concludes that although the possibility exists that the pensionable condition may have influenced the disease processes leading to death, the probability of such has not been sufficiently established to bring this case within the provisions of section 70.
Here is a case where the board felt there was a doubt but it was not sufficient to bring it within section 70. Many cases similar to this may be found on the files of the pension commission, the Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations that maintain veterans bureaus. For many years this subject has been the subject of resolutions by these organizations based on the knowledge that as the years go by the disabilities suffered during war service, some of which were not apparent, or if they were, were not reported on discharge, would become aggravated to the extent that the ability of the veteran to earn a living was impaired. Furthermore, the difficulty of securing witnesses and evidence to substantiate their claims would increase with the passing of the years. These fears were well founded and parliament finally recognized the need and in its wisdom passed section 70 so as to remove forever the possibility that any veteran should be denied the right to compensation for any disability suffered as a result of service to his country.
The intention of parliament as set out in section 70 is clear enough; the difficulty is with the interpretation and it seems to me that members of the commission believe that the doubt mentioned means the doubt in their own minds; whereas parliament meant the doubt as to the completeness of the evidence produced on behalf of the veteran. I believe that if this matter can be cleared up, along with the addition of the new amendments, we shall be making more complete what is perhaps already the finest veterans legislation in the world.


Mr. Batten:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief remarks at this time. First of all, I should like to congratulate the new Minister of Veterans Affairs. In the few years that I have been in parliament I have come to have a tremendous respect for the members of this particular department. I believe that they are dedicated to their task, and the new minister takes over a department that I am sure is trying to do everything it can for the good of the Canadian veteran.
I should also like to pay tribute to the previous minister who not only as minister of veterans affairs but also as a veteran and a member of veterans committees over the years has done a tremendous job and has carried the torch for the veterans across

Pension Act
Canada. He has now moved on to the other place, and I trust that his good work here will bring to him the satisfaction that sometimes is the basis of many years of good health.
I want to associate myself particularly with the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. This is not the first occasion when he has taken the opportunity to make a strong plea for the Newfoundland veteran who now apparently is not receiving the same consideration as his mainland partner receives. Whatever the legal interpretation of term 38 of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada may be, it is my opinion that this term should not provide food for legal argument, but every effort should be made to find some basis for granting to the Newfoundland veteran the benefits which he so rightly deserves. I would have hoped that in this legislation some consideration would be given to this particular class of veterans. We shall know in a day or so when we receive the bill what its contents are, but if this present amendment does not contain some consideration for this class of veteran I hope that any amendments which are made in the near future will give the consideration which they so justly deserve.
One coming from Newfoundland could hardly make any reference to veterans without referring to the Newfoundland forestry unit. In March of last year a delegation was received by the veterans committee, and I was particularly impressed with the brief which they presented at that time. I know that all members of this committee are keenly interested in the affairs of the Canadian veteran and I would suggest to you, and particularly to those who are members of the veterans committee, that they secure a copy of this brief and give it the thorough reading which I think it warrants.
This Newfoundland unit of foresters was formed on November 18, 1939, just a month or two after the outbreak of the second world war. It is interesting to note that some of the communications between the government of England and the commission of government of Newfoundland encouraged those people to engage themselves as foresters and to join the forestry unit rather than the regular forces. For example, on page 2 of the brief which I hold in my hand there is a reference to the encouragement which was given to those men, and in section 2 (b) we find the following:
By telegram No. 416 dated 9th November 1939 the secretary of state for dominion affairs impressed upon the Newfoundland governor the dire necessity for Newfoundland to send a labour unit immediately to the United Kingdom for the purpose of

cutting pitprops in connection with coal production in the United Kingdom which was, in his words, "vital to the war economy".
(c) The Newfoundland government felt duty bound to ask Newfoundlanders to be guided by what the United Kingdom government felt to be most advantageous for winning the war.
This leads me to believe, Mr. Chairman, that while those Newfoundlanders engaged themselves in the forestry unit, they were, at least by power of suggestion from the home office, doing what they considered to be their part in the war effort. Each individual signed a contract for the duration of the war, except for the first nine months of the war when the special contract was for six months.
It is interesting to note that in the following year, in the month of June, 1940, the contract was altered and by this change in the contract each individual had to undertake that he would not and could not be transferred to any other unit or to any of His Majesty's armed forces, and had to sign for the duration of the emergency. In other words, having been encouraged to enter the forestry unit these men were no longer free to decide whether they would or would not enter the regular forces. In reading the brief I was interested in something I found on page 7. In telegram No. 376 from the home office under date of May 16, 1940, I find the following:
Need of men skilled in forestry is so urgent that we should be grateful if recruiting organizations in Newfoundland could be advised to exercise special caution in accepting any skilled loggers as recruits for Royal Artillery Regiment.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the committee that these men who joined the forestry unit did so because they were encouraged to make their contribution in this direction. I feel there is an element of unfairness when these men do not receive the benefits to which in my view at least they are perfectly entitled. I hope that at some future time when the minister is considering amendments to the legislation he will give all due consideration to the plea which these men have made to the parliament of Canada through the veterans affairs committee.
When the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada were being negotiated I do not think the problem of the Newfoundland foresters was presented in the proper way. I say that for this reason. When the Newfoundland foresters were in the United Kingdom they were under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Turner. During the months preceding March, 1949, when the negotiations were going on between Newfoundland and Canada, Lieutenant Colonel Turner was sent to Ottawa to discuss the affairs of the forestry unit. Unfortunately he died en route to Ottawa. As a result the

actual facts with respect to his unit were not given serious consideration for some time, but I believe that their case has now been sufficiently well presented that parliament should give consideration to the request they have made.
Coming from a province like Newfoundland it is to be expected that I would also be particularly interested in the merchant navy and I am interested in the members of the merchant navy, not because they are a distinct class of veteran but because they are a distinct class of veteran who are not now receiving the benefits which I believe they should receive. Those of us who know the tremendous part that water transportation played in the winning of the second world war must realize that every merchant seaman was in a theatre of war and that many of them lost their lives as other veterans did on the field of battle and elsewhere. I believe that these men played a tremendous part in the victory won by the allied forces. I think they should be considered as full-time veterans and that under the Pension Act they should receive all the benefits that might accrue to a veteran of any other branch of the fighting services. I would also include the members of the rescue tug service and also the members of the fire fighter service.
I think we have come to the time in Canada when we should consider veterans legislation in the light of the contribution made and not in the light of any legal technicalities which may be the result of organizing these forces in a hurry when they were required. I say again that I am very happy to see this legislation come before the house. I know it is going to be given sympathetic consideration by members in all quarters of the house. There are parts of the legislation which will be of particular appeal not only to members of the House of Commons but to the veterans themselves. Again I would hope that on an early occasion in the future the minister will bring into the house an amendment which will give consideration to the problems that have been raised by four Newfoundland members today and I know would have been raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate who is unavoidably absent this evening. I spoke to him about the legislation a few moments ago and he assured me that he was quite in accord with the representations made by the four members from Newfoundland on this side of the house with regard to the problems of Newfoundland veterans.


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks this evening on the resolution now before the house. First, I
Pension Act
should like to congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs on his appointment. We all know that he was very active with respect to veterans affairs while in the opposition as was the former minister of veterans affairs, the Hon. Mr. Brooks, who has gone to the other place. We know he will do an excellent job in the department in carrying on the good work which has been done in the past.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to a former member of the house who sat on my right, the hon. member for Kings, Prince Edward Island, John A. Macdonald. Before he got into politics John A. was the leading spokesman for the veterans of Prince Edward Island. He served on the provincial command of the Canadian Legion and he served on the dominion command representing Prince Edward Island. His loss is indeed a great one to Prince Edward Island, to the veterans affairs committee of the house and to the house itself.
I should like to congratulate the government on the steps which have already been taken with regard to veterans legislation. As we all know, the veterans charter was established after the second world war and it set out the various legislative items having to do with our veterans. As stated by the former minister of veterans affairs, the aim of the government when it took office in 1957 was to take the various pieces of legislation, go through them one by one and make the necessary changes by way of amendment. This has been done since that time.
It was not possible to bring about amendments with regard to disability pensions until this year and I am very glad to see that this matter is now before the house. We know what the record of the government has been. The many changes have been set out by other members who have spoken on the resolution. Changes were made in the War Veterans Allowance Act. In 1958 changes were made in soldiers' insurance and in the Veterans Insurance Act as well as in the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act.
We are glad indeed to have these changes in the Pension Act before us. Various members have spoken about different sections of the act. Some have stated that there are other changes which should be made. I am one of those who believe that the act is not perfect. There are many sections in the act which are open to different interpretations and those who practice law know that is natural. As time goes on and it is shown that changes are needed they will be made.
One was mentioned by the hon. member for Megantic when speaking on the resolution, namely section 13 (2) of the Pension Act. This

Pension Act
is one provision to which various interpretations are given by the Canadian pension commission and I believe that this section above all is one that should be clarified. As 1 have said, the government has taken action by amendments of different kinds to the various types of legislation.
I hope that the next step in this program will be changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act. We know that those who are in receipt of war veterans allowances have need of a proper amount in order to keep themselves as well as those who receive other forms of pension. No doubt the government will take this into consideration and that will be the next step in the program.
While referring to the War Veterans Allowance Act I should like to refer to a matter which has come to my attention, and no doubt to the attention of many members in this house. A veteran who is in receipt of war veterans allowance has his allowance cut when he receives the old age security pension. I believe there should be a change in this provision. There should be no cut when the veteran reaches 70 because he is entitled to his full war veterans allowance and his old age pension, just as are the other people of this country.
There was another matter mentioned by the hon. member for Swift Surrent-Maple Creek when he spoke this afternoon and that was the regulation concerning veterans who served in the first world war. As we all know they must have served 365 days prior to November 12, 1918. I feel that there should be a change in this regulation because the number of first world war veterans is getting less all the time. I believe there should be a reduction in the number of days. In my own constituency I know of a case, and no doubt many other hon. members have similar cases in their constituencies, of a war veteran who really needs help but who is seven days short of having served the required number of days.
There was a matter mentioned by the chairman of our veterans committee. Incidentally he does a wonderful job. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton referred to the possibility of setting up an appeal section in the Canadian pension commission. As I understood him he meant that it would be a section which would deal with appeals from the Canadian pension commission and from the appeal board in the same manner as our appellate court. I believe that this would be a good step in dealing with some of these cases.
Finally, the hon. member for Trinity-Conception spoke this evening and dealt with the new platform of the Liberal party, as a result of this last rally, as it related to the 
veteran. He said this indicated the concern of the Liberal party for the veteran. I should like to say that concern for the veteran is also shown by the government and evidence of that concern is the many changes which have taken place in the three and a half years during which we have been in power.
Finally, I understand that after second reading the bill will be sent to the veterans affairs committee, at which time we will be able to go into the matter fully. We are all looking forward, as members of the committee, to investigating the various matters affecting the veterans of this country. May I again join with those who have commended and supported this resolution which is now before us.


Mr. Ormislon:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to be able to take this opportunity to say a few words on the resolution. First of all, I should like to congratulate the minister upon taking over this portfolio. I am sure we all realize the strenuous efforts which the minister put into his work in his former portfolio, and we now see the results of that work. I believe that in the last few days we have noted the great effort which our present Minister of Veterans Affairs has put forward on behalf of his department. This certainly augurs well for the veterans of Canada, to have such a dedicated minister in charge of the department. If the minister errs at all it is on the side of modesty. He does not seem to care too much for the headlines. Regardless of that fact, Mr. Chairman, the type of legislation which he has sponsored should be well received all over this country.
It is a matter of some regret that the former minister was not able to present this resolution. Colonel Brooks has served Canada well, and he has particularly served the veterans of this country. We all realize how indebted we are to Colonel Brooks, and we appreciate his appointment to the other place. We did feel, however, that perhaps there was some undue pressure brought to bear on him by some of the veterans bodies in this country.
I believe this point was mentioned by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin when he spoke on December 12. I am quite convinced, however, that it is the view of most Canadians that those who were disabled during the war should be compensated to the full degree of their disability and that the dependents of those who died as a result of service should be provided for amply. It has always been the expectation of the people of this country that the veterans legislation should be as generous in its terms as that of any other country. This legislation which will be coming

before the house is an indication of the understanding this government has for veterans in general and I am very happy to be able to support the resolution.


Mr. Rogers:: Mr. Chairman, I, too, first want to take this opportunity of congratulating the minister on his appointment as Minister of Veterans Affairs, and to wish him the same success as his predecessor, Colonel Brooks. The legislation being introduced, while it is not spelled out in the resolution, will certainly be approved by all Canadians and, I would hope, by the Canadian Legion and other veterans associations.
In passing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the Canadian Legion. Over the years, by sound leadership and dedicated service, the Legion has established itself as the mouthpiece of the veteran. One could point to the number of projects that they have sponsored. This evening, in the time at my disposal, I should like to especially commend the outstanding work being done by the service bureau. I have found this bureau particularly helpful since I came to Ottawa as a member of parliament, inasmuch as they have helped me in every way possible in resolving a number of contentious cases.
I think it is interesting to observe that along with the appointment of the new minister there have been other changes. For instance, a new chairman of the war veterans allowance board has been appointed in the person of Colonel Bill Cromb. He is well and favourably known across western Canada for his work with veterans, first as superintendent of welfare with the D.V.A. at Edmonton, subsequently as district administrator at Edmonton and Winnipeg and finally as regional administrator for the western provinces.
Then also, about a year ago there was a change in the chairmanship of the pension commission, in the person of Mr. Anderson. The comparatively new chairman came to the commission with a wealth of experience in veterans affairs inasmuch as he was previously secretary of the Canadian Legion. Moreover, other changes have been made in the pension commission and in the war veterans allowance board by way of superannuation.
What does all this mean? If we are to follow the usual pattern that is exercised in life-and I say this with no reflection on the past administration-I think this means new ideas. I think it means a different approach in the administration of these two acts which I maintain are complementary one to the other.
Mr. Chairman, if you combine this new administration with the proposed amendments,
Pension Act
and the fact that our world war I veterans are on the average about 70 years of age, I think it is reasonable to contemplate that a more liberal interpretation of the Pension Act in certain areas and the War Veterans Allowance Act could be expected.
As one who has been in close contact with veterans for a number of years and who is quite well acquainted with many of their problems, I want to say this. It is one thing to make a serviceman out of a civilian, but it is quite difficult to adjust back into civilian life. Notwithstanding the fact that Canada, as has been stated previously today, has a rehabilitation plan that is second to none in the world, there are a number of servicemen who find it extremely difficult to adjust themselves back into civilian life. This is something that should never be lost sight of by all Canadians. The success of a serviceman being rehabilitated back into civilian life depends upon a number of factors such as, for example, his age; his education on enlistment; his length of service and type of service, combat or otherwise; the environment to which he returns, such as his parents and family; and, most of all, down to the ground, right from the heart interest and understanding by the public at large, particularly the community to which he returns.
While this resolution will be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs where it will be discussed in detail, there are a few observations I should like to make. The first one is with regard to the method by which applications for pensions are received. If I follow the procedure correctly, the pension commission first refers the submission for entitlement to the medical advisory branch. In turn a report is made by a doctor with his opinion. Following this the policy that is laid down is that two or more members of the pension commission must adjudicate on the pension claim.
The question that arises in my mind is this, particularly in view of the department report for the fiscal year 1958-59 indicating that approximately 50 per cent of pension commission hearings were successful on appeal. Does the pension commission depend too much on the opinion expressed by the medical adviser? There may be an answer to this question, but on the face of the matter it would appear to mean that more time and study should be given to boardroom decisions.
In all fairness, I should add that when a case is appealed the commissioners have an opportunity to meet the witnesses and to assess the over-all value of the testimony. Be that as it may, in the few cases that have come to my notice the appeals, by and large,

Pension Act
are successful on the same evidence by which the commission had previously ruled adversely.
My second observation is on the composition of the appeal boards which travel across the country. Originally the idea was that the board would be balanced; that is to say, a board would comprise one doctor, one lawyer and one layman, with the present composition of the present commission it is contended that a board comprised of two doctors with a layman or a lawyer, attaches too much weight to the medical aspects of the case.
My third observation is in connection with that common complaint which has been raised several times today-I refer to the interpretation of section 70-wherein it is contended that the pension commission relies to a great extent on the medical advisers and that, notwithstanding the weight of evidence in favour of the applicant, the benefits of this section cannot be resolved until a doubt has been created in the minds of the commissioners.
As has been stated here previously, I do not think there is much we can do to amend the act. After all, you can make an act and you can make regulations and they are just as good as is the administration. I am not complaining of the administration. I think the position in which the pension commissioners are placed by this section 70 is an extremely difficult one. The question arises whether or not they give the applicant the benefit of the doubt is debatable.
My fourth observation is with regard to pension advocates.


Jacques Flynn: Order. It being ten o'clock shall I arise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Benidickson:: Will the leader of the government indicate the business proposal for tomorrow, the next day and as long forward as he can?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, if my voice will hold out. We will carry on tomorrow with the resolution stage of this bill. If we complete that business, we will take second reading on Thursday. Any time that develops on Thursday, subsequent to the pension bill would then be devoted to the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration which in any case will be the first item of business on Friday. Friday will be given all day to estimates. That is as far as I can go with regard to the business of the house.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, the comments of the house leader almost assume that the resolution stage would take all of tomorrow. I may be wrong in my idea of the rules, but should there not normally be a day between the completion of the resolution stage and the presentation of a bill or before we could go on to the debate on second reading of a bill? In this instance I do not think it matters but am I wrong in my assumptions respecting our rules?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The resolution stage will likely be completed tomorrow and first reading of the bill given. Second reading would then come up for consideration on Thursday.


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

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

Mr. Argue: 1.	Has the Department of Transport (a) entered into any agreements; (b) issued any charters, to persons, organizations, or companies, for the purpose of handling baggage and/or transporting of passengers at Montreal airport, Dorval?
2.	If so: (a) what are the names of the persons, companies or organizations? (b) on what dates were these charters or agreements instituted? (c) what is the content of each agreement or charter?
3.	Have any changes been made in any charter or agreement since it was instituted?
4.	If so, what was the change made, its purpose, and the date?
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of
Transport):
1.	(a) Yes, for transporting passengers; (b) other than entering into the agreement under (a) the department does not issue charters. Charters for public transportation facilities are issued by the Quebec provincial transportation board.
2.	(a) Murray Hill Limousine Service Limited; (b) the limousine concession with Murray Hill dates back to August 1, 1947, but at that time the company's name was Murray Hill Taxis Limited; (c) the agreement contains the clauses and conditions outlining the terms of the agreement, such as the period for which the agreement was granted, the payments to be made under the agreement and other clauses considered in the public interest.
3 and 4. The payment under the original agreement of August 1, 1947, was $7,200 per annum. The rental was increased, effective August 1, 1951, to $9,360 per annum. The rental was again increased, effective August 1, 1952, to $12,000 per annum.
An agreement has been renegotiated and submitted for approval whereby the department is to receive $50,000 per annum effective December 1, 1960, for a period of five years, with the rental to be reviewed again thereafter.
Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Regier: 1.	For how many days was service on the main line of the Canadian National Railways discontinued to Vancouver because of recent floods in British Columbia?
2.	(a) How many men were at least temporarily laid oil by the Canadian National Railways as a result of this break in service? (b) how many of these men have since been re-employed? (c) when does the Canadian National Railways expect to re-employ all who were laid off as a result of this emergency?
3.	Were any of these men offered alternative employment in the task of restoring the disrupted service, if not, for what reason?
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of
Transport):
The management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows:-
1.	Fourteen days. Service was disrupted January 15 and restored January 29.
2.	(a) Two hundred and seventeen; (b) as of January 31 all re-employed; (c) answered by (b).
3.	The employees involved were members of the mechanical and car departments. They were laid off because no trains were operating and no alternate work was available. Work rules of the craft organizations involved excludes the transfer of employees between crafts to exercise seniority or perform work belonging to another craft.



FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE


Mr. Racine: 1.	How many provinces have accepted the federal crop insurance scheme?
2.	If any, which provinces did so?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Agriculture):
1 and 2. The province of Manitoba instituted a crop insurance scheme starting with the 1960 crop year and it is anticipated that the province of Saskatchewan will have a scheme in effect during the current year.

Wednesday, February 8, 1961

(Translation):