1961-05-16

CAPE BRETON


[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 if he can advise the house whether any proposals emerged from the conferences held in Ottawa on Friday last and yesterday which would have the effect of avoiding the closure of three Cape Breton collieries.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I think it might be wise to await the return of the Minister of National Revenue, the minister from Nova Scotia, who is laid up today. I hope he will be available tomorrow and the question will then be taken as notice and answered in detail.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which might also be taken as notice and dealt with by the minister tomorrow. Is it a fact, as reported in the press, that the federal government is preparing to accept the cost of keeping the mines open if the coal company should agree to such a course?




[Stage Direction]
'	BENEFITS FOR MINERS
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the reports of destitution among miners and their families caused by cutbacks in the Nova Scotia mines, has the government given consideration to a recent resolution from the mayor and council of New Waterford, Nova Scotia, as well as from the local of the united mine workers, calling for increased welfare benefits to the miners?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I have had no indication of this, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the government giving consideration to increasing its proportion of welfare benefits that are being paid?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member undoubtedly well knows that under the Unemployment Assistance Act the federal government stands ready to pay half of any subsistence payments in welfare matters.


Hazen Robert Argue: No consideration has been given to increasing the federal government's proportion?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Any time there is any change in this respect, Mr. Speaker, the house will be so informed.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of reported genocidal measures in Angola, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could report on the delay in the establishment of the United Nations five nation committee of inquiry into Angola.
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minisier): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member asked a question on this matter the other day. I referred to the fact, as the hon. member knows, that action was taken by the United Nations some three weeks ago. I shall make inquiries to ascertain the reason for the delay.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister say whether Canada has been approached to act on this committee?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I do not have that information at the moment, but I shall make inquiries and report to the house as soon as possible.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, notice of which has been given. Can the minister inform the house whether clauses which prohibit fraternization or association with Indian or Eskimo people are placed at the insistence of the government in the contracts

Inquiries of the Ministry of employment between employees and companies which hold contracts with the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is no. Perhaps I should leave it at that stage except to indicate that so far as I know there is no restriction imposed at the request of the government on any of the people working in the north.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not feel there is a conflict between such clauses in contracts of employment and the bill of rights?


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps the hon. member is asking for an expression of opinion on the interpretation of statutes, which would be out of place at this time of day.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday as reported at page 4807 of Hansard the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked a question in these words:
-I wonder whether-the government has any definite plans to provide relief to potato growers in the maritime provinces, who have suffered losses owing to rot.
I presume that the circumstance to which the hon. member had reference was the abnormal loss suffered by some potato growers in Prince Edward Island last season due to a fungus infection known as fusarium rot. The province of Prince Edward Island has proposed that the provincial and federal governments should share jointly in providing some measure of compensation to those who suffered abnormal losses. This is at present under consideration.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschalelels (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Pursuant to the introduction of Bill No. C-92, would the minister kindly say whether we can expect at this session the introduction of a bill dealing with amendments to the Criminal Code in respect of small firearms?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will be in a position to introduce amendments relating to this matter at this session. There are discussions and studies under way at the moment concerning the whole question of the control of firearms, but I do not expect they will be completed in time to make possible the introduction of amendments at this session.



INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS TO IMMIGRATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillingate):: I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration this question. In view of the fact that there is almost nothing left on the order paper under government orders, does not the hon. lady think this would be an appropriate time to introduce the revised immigration act promised four years ago?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, when the act is ready for presentation it will be made available to the house.



EXPROPRIATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Is it the government's intention to introduce a bill this session regarding the Expropriation Act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: think that matter will have to await determination on the basis of progress made in dealing with the business of the session.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has he any information additional to that which he gave to the house yesterday with regard to the plight of Canadian missionaries, priests and nuns in Cuba?


John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday I intimated that there might be something to be expected in that connection. Today I am able to advise the house that 63 Canadian Roman Catholic priests and nuns, who have been engaged in educational work and have had to discontinue this work in Cuba, are returning to Canada and will be arriving late this afternoon.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Waller Pitman (Pelerborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour arising from incomplete reports. Can the Minister of Labour assure the house that national employment service officials in Long Branch are fully informing applicants for employment at the Trane company that this company is on strike?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Any workers who are referred are advised verbally that the employment is affected by an industrial dispute, and their referral slips are also stamped to this effect. This is a policy which we adopt, and it is the practice right across Canada in all our offices.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday's orders of the day the hon. member for Nipissing asked if it is customary or necessary to pay the passage of the people recruited abroad. This question was in connection with C.M.H.C. getting town planners after failure to do so through advertising and through the national employment agency in Canada over a period of two years.
The answer to this question is yes; it is customary for an organization seeking specialized help to use as an incentive an offer to pay the passage of an applicant and his family to the place of employment. It is proposed to have the corporation's chief architect and planner travel to Europe to conduct the interviews.


HARBOURS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minisier of Public
Works): In reply to the hon. member for Levis in connection with his request to be notified whether or not a resolution from Riviere du Loup had been received by me, may I say the answer is no; we have had no recent resolution. However, a large and representative delegation came from Riviere du Loup on April 11 last and made strong representations on behalf of the Gros-Cacouna port development.
Inquiries of the Ministry
This is a very large project involving $2 million to $3 million, and at present we are studying the engineering and economic aspects. Until these studies are completed I cannot say what the answer will be.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. In this morning's Gazette it is reported that at a luncheon he said that automation would not cut down the number of employees nor limit their use. Will the Postmaster General explain to the house what is the use of automation, if it does not cut down the number of employees or limit their use?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: The use of automation, Mr. Speaker, is to enable us to handle the ever increasing volume of mail with the same size staff and to increase our efficiency in the handling of it, as is obvious to almost every Canadian except one.


Azellus Denis: I have a supplementary question. Am I to understand that the Postmaster General means there will be no additional employees in the Post Office? Also, does he mean that prior to automation there was no efficiency in the department?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, there has been an ever increasing degree of efficiency in the department since June 26, 1957.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right date is June 21.


William McLean Hamilton: The
remainder of the question might well have been dealt with under our estimates, if the hon. member had only had the imagination to do so at that time.


Azellus Denis: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Skeena.



POSTAL EMPLOYEES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Thomas Richard: I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is the hon. gentleman in a position to announce whether the night shifts at city post offices will be selected in accordance with seniority upon a vote being taken by the employees?

Inquiries of the Ministry


William McLean Hamilton: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, and ask the minister whether he is aware of the fact that the United States of America comprise more than 48 states at the moment, and whether he could undertake to bring the United States flags that are flying around the hill today in line with the present day conditions.
(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Pit Lessard (St. Henry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Has the minister received representations from the authorities of the city of Montreal concerning the use of C.N.R. properties along the harbour of Montreal, for the construction of an east-west elevated roadway?
If so, has a decision been taken?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, when I went to Montreal, about two months ago, I discussed this matter with the municipal authorities of Montreal and we agreed that they would send me a brief and other documents in that connection. I could not say right now if that brief has reached my office but I expect it any day now.


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Speaker, could I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport?
Could the minister check whether he has received a report from the city of Montreal and inform the house later on?


Léon Balcer: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):



LAY-OFFS DURING PAST FORTNIGHT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. If the hon. gentleman is not in a position to answer it this morning, perhaps he will take it as notice. Can the minister say how many


employees of the Canadian National Railways have been laid off during the last two week period?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Léon Balcer: I am not in a position to answer that question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister take it as notice, because I understand there have been a number of people laid off since the settlement of the dispute with the non-operating unions.


Léon Balcer: Similar questions appear on the order paper from time to time, and we endeavour to answer them diligently. We shall do the same in this case if we are asked.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice arising out of a press report that a Calgary firm, Midwest Surveys, has dismissed an employee, Miss Valerie Smith, because of a speech she made in which she praised certain aspects of the present Cuban regime. Could the minister say whether the bill of rights protects employees from being fired merely because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is dealing with the employment of an individual by a private firm, which is not an administrative responsibility of any minister as far as I am aware. The latter part of the hon. member's question relates to the enforcement of justice, which is under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore I do not think the hon. member is entitled to pursue the matter.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, can I take it from your remarks that the bill of rights does not cover such a situation?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to put another question, if I may-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for St. Henry (Mr. Lessard).


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister

say whether the government has given consideration to the introduction of an amendment to the Criminal Code which would make it an offence under the code for an employer to dismiss an employee because of a political opinion?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The
government's position with regard to this matter was amply demonstrated when on July 1 of last year the Prime Minister introduced the Canadian bill of rights which parliament adopted that year.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can I take it from the minister's announcement that there is no intention to provide any protection for a person who has been arbitrarily dismissed, as in this case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The bill of rights is now in force. What the hon. member is really seeking to do is to ask me for a legal opinion as to its effect. Other members of the house know, if he does not, that that is not in order.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. According to this morning's Montreal Gazette the Postmaster General is reported as having said that the Post Office was prepared to offer, free of charge, advice on the setting up and manning of an efficient mail room. Is the Postmaster General in a position to explain this new curb service?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member's question relating again to the speech of the Postmaster General?


Azellus Denis: This is a new policy announced in this morning's newspaper.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest it would be more appropriate to discuss the policies related to the Post Office during consideration of the estimates of the department.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, the estimates have been passed. This is a new policy just decided by the Postmaster General and reported in this morning's Gazette. I will have to wait until next year if I want some information on the estimates.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might just clarify one point about this being a new policy, in the light of your ruling. The hon. member could have discussed it under the estimates at any time during the last four years it has been in operation, had he known about it. It has been widely publicized.
Inquiries of the Ministry WATER RESOURCES



BOW LAKE, ONT.    REPORTED POLLUTION BY RADIOACTIVE WASTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter George Pitman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare received representations from Mr. Hook regarding the radioactive pollution of Bow lake by mining interests, and can the minister assure the house that his department will take steps to end this situation immediately?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I received notice of the hon. member's intention to ask this question only a few moments before entering the house. I understand that a letter from this gentleman was received in the department yesterday. It is at the moment being studied by my department, and I shall be pleased to inform the hon. member what transpires.



PROPOSED U.S. RESTRICTIONS ON TOURIST IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance based on a press report from Washington in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that the United States House of Representatives yesterday passed a bill reducing tourist allowances. I wonder if the minister can say whether Canadian representations on this subject are continuing?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: I have not seen the announcement, but I take it that it indicates that the measure in question has been passed by one house only of the United States congress. The United States government is very well aware of the views of the Canadian government in this regard. I outlined last March the manner in which those views had been communicated to the representatives of the United States administration at the meeting in Washington on March 13 and 14 of the continuing joint committee on trade and economic affairs.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or perhaps in his absence to the acting minister or to the Prime Minister, if he would care to answer it. My question

Inquiries of the Ministry is based upon reports that three west coast pulp and paper firms, namely MacMillan and Bloedel Limited and Powell River Company, B. C. Forest Products and Columbia Cellulose Limited are exporting pulp to Cuba. Can one of the hon. gentlemen indicate whether any representations have been made to the government by either the United States government or the parent company of one of those companies with respect to those particular exports?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the question will be taken as notice.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could put a question- a factual question-to the Minister of Justice, and ask him whether the matter of the publication of the evidence in the fisheries inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act is now before the courts.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, by way of injunction proceedings. There have been a number of injunction applications dealing with this matter and all or most are being appealed. At one stage the supreme court of Ontario gave a strong judgment that these documents are completely private.


Frank Howard: May I ask the
Minister of Justice why he did not inform the house of this yesterday, rather than have to be assisted today by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Mr. Fulion:: Mr. Speaker, to be quite frank, because it slipped my mind. It is only one of the many reasons why the hon. member's motions have been unacceptable.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in a position to answer the question I asked, and which her parliamentary secretary took as notice, on May 4, 1961 respecting any steps the department may have taken to restrict border crossings by race track touts, bookmakers and others?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I answered that question one day last week. If the hon.


member will refer to page 4503 of Hansard of Monday, May 8, he will find the answer which was given to the house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Thank you very much.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Third reading of Bill No. C-89, an act to amend the Criminal Code (race meetings)-The Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker:: Before I put this motion may I say that although the initials "E.F." do not appear opposite this bill or the subsequent bills, I am informed that all bills standing on the order paper have been printed and distributed in both English and French. Is the Minister of Justice moving the motion for the Minister of Agriculture?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: the third reading of Bill No. C-89, to amend the Criminal Code (race meetings).
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


Donald Methuen Fleming: the third reading of Bill No. C-95, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


Mr. Caron:: Have you copies in both English and French?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I am advised that that is so.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



FREIGHT RATES REDUCTION ACT


Léon Balcer: the second reading of Bill No. C-93, to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act.
He said: I have a few brief remarks to make. Quite an extensive study was given to the resolution that preceded this bill, and there is very little additional information I can give that was not given on the resolution.
As the house knows, the Freight Rates Reduction Act was passed in 1959. Its purpose was to alleviate the burden of the 17 per cent general freight rate increase authorized in

November, 1958. The rates to which the act applies are the normal class rates and commodity rates, excepting competitive rates, which were taking the 17 per cent increase on the day the act came into force.
Class rates are the maximum rates that the railways can charge. They apply to about 8,000 articles in the Canadian freight classification. The principal articles shipped at class rates are high class manufactured articles.
Commodity rates are lower than the class rates, and they apply on bulk commodities and other articles shipped in large quantities such as steel, sand and gravel, lumber, pulp-wood, fruits and vegetables, ores, cement, wood pulp, newsprint paper, canned goods, sugar and so forth.
The reduction required by the act does not apply to subnormal rates which the railways have published because of competition, such as competitive rates and agreed charges. Neither does it apply to the statutory Crows-nest pass grain and flour rates, nor to international rates between Canada and the United States, nor to export and import traffic carried at rates in competition with United States ports.
The act made provision for the board of transport commissioners to require reductions to be made in the class and commodity rates, other than competitive rates, that were in effect and taking the 17 per cent increase on the day the act came into force. The reductions were to be effective during a period of not more than one year. Provision was made for payments not exceeding $20 million to reimburse the companies for the resulting reduction in their revenues.
The act came into force on July 8, 1959. The first reduction in the freight rates became effective on August 1, 1959, when the 17 per cent increase was reduced by 7 percentage points; in other words, it became 10 per cent instead of 17 per cent. In the following spring the board ordered a further reduction of two more percentage points, bringing the 17 per cent increase down to 8 per cent. It has remained at that level ever since.
The act was amended last year by extending the one year period of the reductions for another nine months and by increasing the $20 million by another $15 million, making a total of $35 million for the full 21 months.
The purpose of the amendment is to extend the provisions of the act for a further period not exceeding 12 months from April 30 last. The original bill and last year's amending bill were considered at length by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines of the house and also by the standing committee on transport and communications of the Senate. There is no
Freight Rates Reduction Act change in the principle or purpose of the legislation at this time. What is proposed is a continuation of its provisions for a further period of 12 months. After the present discussion I propose to move that the bill be referred to the standing committee which I have mentioned.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was a general discussion on the resolution to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act, and I do not want to traverse the ground covered then. However, there are a number of things that remain to be said in connection with the bill now before the house.
In my view the bill divides itself into two parts. First, it authorizes the board of transport commissioners to make an order continuing the freight rates reduction which was authorized under an earlier act in 1960. Second, it attempts, although I doubt whether it succeeds, to make the rates retroactive. In so far as the shipper is concerned, I do not think there can be any doubt that the reduction is effective. In so far as the railways are concerned, I believe there is some doubt, and I should like the minister to clarify that position when we get to clause 1 of the bill.
My understanding of the situation is that the railways may, if they wish, file a tariff in reduction of rates, but that the board of transport commissioners cannot in any way make that tariff retroactive. That is why I said earlier that so far as the shipper is concerned the moment the railways file a tariff in reduction of rates or in continuation of a rate reduction, that position is covered, but I do not think that applies with respect to the board of transport commissioners. I said that I do not think they can either make a rate retroactive or payments retroactive, and on that point I should like to get some clarification later.
A question was also raised by the Leader of the Opposition in connection with the statement made by the Prime Minister, and there was no explanation given by the minister yesterday when he rose to reply on the resolution. I refer, of course, to the statement that appears in the Winnipeg Free Press of April 25, wherein the Prime Minister said that the subsidy would be retroactive, and I quote from this dispatch from Ottawa:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker said Friday legislation to extend the $20 million a year rollback subsidy on freight rates will be made retroactive to May 1 when it is passed by parliament.
Then there is this significant passage:
He said the government notice given the commons earlier this week would act in the same way as a budget proposal which becomes effective when it is announced, subject to later parliamentary approval.

Freight Rates Reduction Act
Of course that is not the case, and I think the minister owes it to the house to deal with this matter. The notice referred to by the Prime Minister is certainly not in the nature of a budget proposal, nor has it the same effect, nor does it come into effect until both houses of parliament have approved the legislation and it has been proclaimed. Therefore I think the house is entitled to an explanation of that statement.
However, sir, I rose for another purpose this morning, namely to deal with some of the statements which were made yesterday during the course of the debate and particularly with a statement made by the minister which I will put on the record in a moment. During the course of the reply made by the minister the inference was left that while we were in office little or nothing was done in connection with this whole very serious matter of freight rate reduction and the freight rate structure. I quote what the minister said, as found on page 4836 of Hansard:
I should just like to present certain figures at this time, which I am not pulling out of a hat, in respect of those figures quoted this afternoon. I suggest by looking at the varying proportions regarding freight rate increases we will then have a clearer picture in respect of which government is more concerned with the welfare of Canadian citizens as far as freight rates are concerned.
Since 1945 freight rates have increased by 157 per cent. One hundred and forty per cent of this increase occurred during the time my hon. friend was a minister under the Liberal regime.
I pause here to state that while I am unable to verify the increase of 157 per cent I take it that perhaps it is correct, but I do make the statement that if freight rates have risen by that amount in Canada they have risen by a higher amount in the United States and by an equal amount in the United Kingdom. So, having regard to the kind of economy existing in those countries, there is not too much to-I am looking for a better word than "blow" about, because I do not want to inject a note of contention into the debate.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, go ahead.


Lionel Chevrier: From the statement the minister made, and with which I am dealing now, I do not think there is too much for him to become exercised about, because the position is no better here than it is elsewhere. The minister went on to say:
During the Conservative administration-that is during the last four years-the only increase which has been allowed was to the extent of 10 per cent, which was later reduced to 8 per cent. In other words, the total increase of 171 per cent was originally decreased to 10 per cent, and then to 8 per cent. The government has also frozen all increases: this policy is still in effect. I suggest that this government has shown the people of Canada what it thought of the great burden of freight rates in various parts of the country.
fMr. Chevrier.]

This government has looked into the matter seriously and has gone out of its way in an attempt to help the shippers of various regions of Canada, who have had to face these freight rate increases.
I should like to tell the minister that the former administration not only did what he said but went a great deal further. As I said earlier, from this statement of the minister the inference is created that little or nothing was done by the previous administration.


Léon Balcer: Hear, hear.


Lionel Chevrier: I hear cries of "hear, hear" from the other side of the house. I should like to put on the record some of the things that were done. It would take too much time to go into them seriatim, but in the light of what was said yesterday and the fact that this is a debate on freight rates there are some general statements which I think deserve to be put on the record.
First of all, let me say that there were no increases in freight rates in this country for quite a long time. From 1903 until world war I there were no increases whatsoever in freight rates in Canada. The first general increase came in 1917. I need not tell the house what government was in office then. The increase amounted to 15 per cent. The second came one year later in 1918, and amounted to 25 per cent. It was made not by the board of transport commissioners but by a cabinet direction given to the board. An order in council was passed by the government of the day, which was a Conservative administration, directing the board of transport commissioners to increase freight rates to the extent of 25 per cent. In 1920, still under a Conservative administration, there was an increase of 40 per cent in the freight rates of this country following an application made by the railway association of Canada to the board of transport commissioners.
Then there was a change of administration. When the Liberal government took office the 40 per cent increase which had been approved in 1920 was reduced first by a 5 per cent decrease in 1921 and then by a 10 per cent decrease in the same year. This was followed by a further decrease on August 1, 1922 leaving, in respect of the 40 per cent increase, a net increase of 17J per cent in eastern Canada and 12J per cent in western Canada.
Turning now to another aspect of this question I wish to deal with the manner in which freight rates and the freight rate structure were dealt with in former years. I need hardly tell the house that the Crowsnest rates were established in 1897. They were perhaps the lowest grain rates in the world. They were so considered at the time and they have never been touched or tampered with, with

but one exception. There is some reference to those rates in the recommendations contained in the first volume of the report of the MacPherson commission. From the representations that were made to the royal commission by various groups all across Canada it is quite clear that even at this date, 64 years later, there is a jealous regard for those rates. There is, too, a general view, particularly in the prairie provinces, that they should not be touched.
In 1903 the Railway Act was enacted in this country. It established the board of transport commissioners, giving that board powers to deal with applications concerning freight rates. In 1924 there was inaugurated a freight rate investigation to determine whether it was possible to equalize freight rates in Canada. I bring to the attention of the house that in 1924 and even long before that, as I shall be able to show later on, there was an attempt in this country to equalize freight rates; so that when we are told in the house that the MacPherson commission on transportation is going to bring in a recommendation to equalize freight rates we should not become too excited over that because the board of transport commissioners, royal commissions and other investigations have over many years dealt with this very difficult and complex question of the equalization of freight rates.
In 1927 the then administration introduced the Maritime Freight Rates Act giving the benefit of a 20 per cent reduction in freight rates to the select maritime region. That has since been increased to 30 per cent under a Liberal regime.
From 1948 to 1950, over a series of various steps, the mountain differential was entirely removed. Following this, under an order in council known as P.C. 1487 the board of transport commissioners was authorized to make a thorough investigation into the rate structure of railways and railway companies with a view to the establishment of a fair and reasonable rate structure which would, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, be equal in its application to all persons and localities so as to permit the freest possible interchange of commodities between various provinces and the extension of Canadian trade both foreign and domestic, having due regard to the needs of agriculture and other basic commodities.
In 1948 there was established by the former government a royal commission on transportation or, if you prefer to call it such, the Turgeon commission. That commission sat for a period of more than two years and brought in a very exhaustive report, one of the finest ever produced on the subject of freight rates, together with that of the Duff commission.
Freight Rates Reduction Act The two, taken together, are historic documents which will stand out for many years to come, and which I submit have been a tremendous benefit to the railways, to the shippers and to the taxpayers of this country. I am not suggesting that the MacPherson commission will not bring in an equally good report, but the house will have to await the publication of the subsequent two volumes before an opinion can be expressed in that connection.
The Turgeon commission made an exhaustive study. It was made by a person who had devoted a great deal of his life to problems concerning western Canada, and who was praised for the recommendations contained in his report by the present Prime Minister when he sat on this side of the house as a private member. Finally in 1951 the then government accepted the recommendations of the Turgeon commission. All of them which had to do with freight rates, and many others incidental thereto, were brought into effect by way of legislation implementing those recommendations. It was stated at the time on both sides of the house that this was the most important and most forward looking piece of legislation having to do with freight rates ever introduced in the house.
What did this legislation do? First, it provided in accordance with the recommendations of the Turgeon commission for the payment of a subsidy of several million dollars to maintain the trackage through northern Ontario which serves as a link or bridge between certain points in northern Ontario. Second, it provided for a national freight rate policy as enacted in section 336 of the Railway Act. This was an over-all direction to the board of transport commissioners stating that every railway company, in the language of that section:
-shall, so far as is reasonably possible, in respect of all freight traffic of the same description, and carried on or upon the like kind of cars or conveyances, passing over all lines or routes of the company in Canada, charge tolls to all persons at the same rate, whether by weight, mileage or otherwise.
This, of course, is subject to the exceptions mentioned in subsection 4 of section 336. This section was of tremendous benefit to western Canada. It provided for equalization of rates between the east and west, and also paved the way for equalization of certain commodities.
Another feature of this legislation was the one and one third rule which is contained in section 337 of the Railway Act. The legislation also provided for uniform classification of a system of accounts for the railways. The interstate commerce commission had led the way or had used this system for years; and
4880	HOUSE OF
Freight Rates Reduction Act because, as the house knows, railways in Canada-the C.N.R., the C.P.R. and others- moved to points in the United States, it was felt by the royal commission that there should be a uniform method of accounting for these lines. The legislation provided for the filing of a competitive tariff before the board so that the board could go into such and such a rate and ascertain that it was bona fide and compensatory. It also provided for the recapitalization of the C.N.R. and other matters which it would take too long for me to go into at the present time.
Before I go on to another point I should like to acquaint the minister with the attitude taken by the opposition at that time. I do not know whether or not he was in the house then, but I believe he was. The opposition took a very negative attitude toward some of the measures that were brought forward, notwithstanding the fact that the present Prime Minister had declared that this report of the royal commission was an excellent one.
The opposition first of all sought to do away with the board of transport commissioners. When the estimates of the Department of Transport were up for consideration, the opposition moved that the item be reduced to $1. I will not mention the names of those who were prominent in that discussion. That attempt was not successful, of course, but it gave some indication of what was in the minds of the members of the opposition at that time. Not only did they move to reduce to $1 the estimates for the maintenance and operation of the board of transport commissioners, but they condemned the board of transport commissioners, and some of them would have done away with the board. It was said by them that the board was incompetent, that it was responsible for the state of confusion and chaos in which the country found itself, that it was not functioning as it should function, that it was not competent to assume its task. That language can be found at page 3121 of Hansard of June 2, 1950.
May I point out that this government has been in office now for four years. If it had wished to do so, it could have done something about the board of transport commissioners in those four years. The fact that it has maintained the board is evidence that the criticism made by it in the days when it was in opposition was futile and really of no use. In those days the opposition were opposed to the establishment of the royal commission. They fought the royal commission. They said a royal commission to deal with freight rates was useless. They said it was a complete waste of time. Although the provinces wanted a royal commission, the then leader of the opposition did not want one.
[Mr. Chevrier.l


John Whitney Pickersgill: What was the name of the leader of the opposition then?


Lionel Chevrier: Hon. Mr. Drew. He made statements declaring himself to be against a royal commission to deal with this allimportant subject. However, because of the attitude taken by the provinces and by most of the responsible groups in Canada, the Conservative party changed its attitude and at its convention passed a resolution demanding a royal commission, thereby overruling its leader. There was in those days in the opposition, as there is today in the government, evidence of confusion and of party members running in two directions at the same time. We have had examples of that situation, and we certainly have had an example of confusion and chaos in connection with this whole problem.
A great deal has been said about horizontal increases in freight rates and about their unjust, unfair, and inequitable impact upon all parts of Canada. With regard to that statement there can be no objection or no complaint. That is a fact. When freight rates are raised horizontally they are bound to create inequity in certain parts of Canada that are far away from markets. However, that is not a new position. That position has existed in this country for many years. That position was dealt with by the royal commission on transportation headed by Mr. Turgeon.
The Prime Minister has indicated that when the MacPherson royal commission hands down its report, a formula will be found whereby freight rates across Canada can be equalized and therefore the impact of horizontal increases in rates can be minimized or made to disappear entirely, thus by inference leading us to believe that no previous attempt has been made at equalization. I want to correct that suggestion. I should like to put on record what Mr. Justice Turgeon had to say in his royal commission report in 1951. At page 50, in chapter 2, under the heading "Horizontal Increases", we find the following:
The method of applying a uniform percentage increase to all rates is known as the "horizontal percentage increase".
The seven provinces which opposed the 30 per cent and 20 per cent increase applications before the board from 1946 to 1950 and attacked the horizontal increase method continued their attack before this commission.
It can thus be seen that the matter of horizontal increases is not a new one. I continue the quotation:
Many submissions were made criticizing this method and asserting that it works great hardship upon shippers in the provinces subject to long haul on their traffic.
Then the commissioner goes on to give examples of horizontal increases in freight

rates. Then at page 52, under the heading "Treatment of the Subject by the Duncan Commission", I find the following:
The following excerpts from the report of the Duncan commission seem to indicate the importance of this subject.
In the report which was made in September 1926 appear the following statements:
"Incidence of horizontal war increases"
"There is one further very important feature of the railway situation as it affects the maritimes, which calls for special attention. In one sense it is connected with the problems that we have been discussing, but its immediate incidence is not so interconnected with the general problem as to make it impossible to deal with it separately. Indeed the reaction of the burden which it imposes is so great that, in our view, it should be dealt with as a special problem. We refer to the system under which, during the late war, flat percentage increases (known as horizontal increases) were added to railway rates."
I refer to that passage in passing simply in order to show that as far back as 1926 the Duncan commission took cognizance of this matter. The chief commissioner goes on at some length to deal with the manner in which this question is handled in the United States, and I shall not refer to that matter. However, he draws a number of interesting conclusions which I should like to put on the record now. First, he states at page 61 of the report:
Applications for uniform horizontal increases to all freight tolls assume that all freight can, under all conditions, bear an equal burden of increase. This is an incorrect assumption.
2.	Horizontal increases, although preserving rate relationships percentagewise, disturb them in cents per 100 pounds (or other unit) in so far as shippers and consignees are concerned, and this is of much importance to them.
3.	Horizontal increases aggravate the disadvantage already suffered by long haul shippers and consignees.
4.	The remedy does not lie in the prohibition, statutory or other, of horizontal increases, but is in the hands of the railways themselves. The railways should make studies of traffic conditions in all their bearings and should present to the board (in accordance with the foregoing precedents) proposals showing not only their maximum percentage increase requirement, but also, among other particulars, varying percentage increases on different commodities, flat, instead of percentage increases when these are more suitable, and maxima in appropriate cases in cents per 100 pounds or other unit. Special attention should be given to long haul traffic and to rates on basic (or primary) commodities. The railways should be in a position to do this especially in the light of new statistical procedures. But if the railways do not approach the task in this way, it ought to be the duty of the board to see that they do so. Presumably an examination of the "waybill study" undertaken by the board will help to provide it with the requisite "reliable traffic statistics" which it stated were lacking in the 30 per cent applications.
Finally the commissioner concludes by saying that legislative enactments to deal with this are not necessary. At this stage I should like to show what was done by the
Freight Rates Reduction Act board of transport commissioners following that recommendation and following the legislation which was introduced in the house by the former administration to equalize freight rates across this country.
I mentioned earlier that under order in council P.C. 1487 the government had directed the board of transport commissioners to conduct an investigation into the whole subject of equalization. The first thing the board of transport commissioners did to comply with that recommendation was to ask the railways to make an analysis of the waybill, that is, a waybill study. As the house knows, there are some 65,000 or more different freight rates in Canada. Before it was possible for anybody, let alone the board of transport commissioners, to study this problem it was necessary to make a study and an analysis of the waybill. This the board of transport commissioners did, and they made an interim report on the equalization of freight rates which is dated Ottawa, March 25, 1955.
This report refers to the order in council which established the board to deal with the matter. It refers to section 336, which established the national freight policy in Canada. I should like to read this short paragraph from page 4 of the report:
The board completed the first phase of the equalization of freight rates on March 1, 1955, by establishing on that date a new freight classification and a new scheme of "class" rates applied in connection with that classification, and the present therefore appears to be an appropriate time at which to make an interim report in the matter of equalization generally.
Then it goes on to deal in detail with what had been done. I think it can be summed up by this sentence at page 17:
-it has been possible within two years to evolve finally a class rate scale which was thought worthy of being put into effect and subjected to the test of experience.
There then came a further report which is dated September 23, 1957 and which is signed by Clarence D. Shepard, the chief commissioner. I should have said that the earlier report dated March 25, 1955 was under the signature of the then chief commissioner, Mr. Justice Kearney. Page 1 of the report of 1957 states:
-the first phase of equalization throughout Canada, namely, of class rates accompanied by a new freight classification, had been accomplished and made effective on March 1, 1955.
The report states at page 4:
The equalized class rates have now been in effect for two and one half years and have cured the complaints that existed for so many years concerning the higher class rates in western Canada compared with eastern Canada.
Then it says that the second phase of equalization is to deal with commodity rates, which it divides into four classifications. The

Freight Rates Reduction Act report goes on to deal with those. There came a third report dated December 22, 1958, this one again signed by Clarence D. Shepard, the chief commissioner. I should like to put on Hansard the second introductory paragraph of this report:
Order in council P.C. 1487 of April 7, 1948 required a general investigation of the freight rate structure of Canada, and directed that this investigation be made "with a view to the establishment of a fair and reasonable rates structure which will, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, be equal in its application to all persons and localities, etc." Section 366 of the Railway Act is broader in its application and sets forth the national freight rate policy that, subject to certain exceptions, "every railway company shall, so far as is reasonably possible, in respect of all freight traffic of the same description, and carried on or upon the like kind of cars or conveyances, passing over all lines or routes of the company in Canada, charge tolls to all persons at the same rate, whether by weight, mileage or otherwise".
The board has been proceeding with "equalization" as defined by section 336, i.e., that subject to all reasonable considerations and the exceptions set forth in the section, the rate on a given article for the same distance and for the same weight must be the same in any part of Canada west of the maritime provinces, despite any differences in circumstances and conditions.
Then it lists the various -board judgments dealing with equalization and it gives a long list of articles upon which freight rates in Canada have been equalized. This report concludes by saying that in as far as it has been possible so to do, these rates have been equalized.
My purpose in putting these matters on the record is to indicate, first, that this was not a new subject; it dates back many, many years; that equalization has been going on in this country over a period of years; that equalization was recommended by the Turgeon commission and was put into effect by three interim reports of the board of transport commissioners thereby lightening, but not making disappear entirely the effect of horizontal freight rate increases.
I hope the present royal commission on transportation will be able to come up with a formula which will make horizontal freight rate increases disappear entirely and equalize freight rates to the fullest extent across this country. That would be a desirable objective. Whether it can be reached or not I am unable to say, but I do know that under the previous administration the board of transport commissioners gave this subject careful consideration, and anybody either in this house or outside who tries to say that the previous administration did not face up to this problem is making an inaccurate and false statement. I repeat that the recommendations are there; they are indicative of what was done by the royal commission. The legislation

also is there to indicate what was the attitude of the government. At that time there were various bills introduced in the house -I have forgotten how many, but certainly there were a number of them-dealing with each of the aspects upon which recommendations were made by the Turgeon commission. Will the present administration do the same thing? I invite them to do so when they have decided upon which parts of the report they intend to implement.
I leave the subject there, satisfied that I have replied effectively to any statement or charge, made directly or by inference, that little or nothing was done by those who were in office for 22 years. The record is there to bear me out. I think the previous administration did a great deal, both during the 22 years when the last Liberal government was in office and under earlier Liberal governments, to deal with this question, which is a complex one, a complicated one, and one which cannot be dealt with overnight. Having said that, I can only reiterate that we on this side of the house will give our full support to this measure, and hope it will be possible for the minister to clear up any doubts I have in mind about the retroactivity of this bill when we come to discuss it clause by clause.


Mr. Woolliams:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I do not have the exact quotations here but it seems to me he said at one time that the Crowsnest freight rates were shackling the railways. I should like to know whether or not the hon. gentleman is in favour of maintaining for western Canada the Crowsnest freight rates on grain.


Lionel Chevrier: That question is easy to answer, and if the hon. member would look at Hansard for the period during which I was minister of transport he will see that I repeatedly said they should not be touched. Furthermore, in the terms of reference to the Turgeon royal commission there was a provision excluding consideration of the Crowsnest rates, thereby indicating the intention of the government at the time that the royal commission on transportation should study the whole question of freight rates, freight structure and other transportation matters but not the Crowsnest rates.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would answer one supplementary question. 1 may have misunderstood him, but I understood the hon. member to say on one occasion that the Crowsnest pass freight rates were shackling the railways. That was at the time when the Prime Minister declared that the rates were a magna carta for western Canada. Did the hon. gentleman suggest in

this house at any time that the Crowsnest pass rates were shackling the railways and should be changed?


Lionel Chevrier: I thought I had answered that question by referring just now to statements I had made when I was sitting on the other side of the house. I have been in the house for 23 years and I do not remember all the statements I have made, but I cannot recall having made a statement of the nature quoted by the hon. gentleman or any statement like it having to do with the Crowsnest rates, and this is in line with the attitude I have taken all along. If, perchance, the hon. member is able to show that I have made such a statement I shall be the first to rise in the house and correct it. However, I should be tremendously surprised if any such statement was made either by me or by any member of the Liberal administration.


Hazen Robert Argue: The question which the hon. member for Bow River put to the hon. member for Laurier is indeed an interesting one. Perhaps clearer than anything else in the discussion of freight rates one thing stands out, and that is the policy of every political party in Canada, as enunciated from time to time, that the Crowsnest rates must remain unchanged and must not be tampered with. Any government or any political party which embarked on a course of tampering with the Crowsnest rates so as to raise the rates on western grain would not have a chance to elect a single member from any one of the three prairie provinces. So if any political party in Canada wishes to commit suicide in the three prairie provinces, this is the course open to it and this is the way to bring it about.
As a matter of fact the people on the prairies are so much opposed to tampering with the Crowsnest rates that they would view very carefully any contention that those rates should be used in such a way as to get something for the railways by way of a compensatory grant. The railways require assistance. The employees who work for the railways should not be forced, as they have been in the past, to accept wages lower than those paid to workers in comparable industries. But the Crowsnest pass rates must remain as they are now and no method should be used by any government, either directly or indirectly, to undermine the effect of those rates.
There has been a great deal of speculation lately as to whether the country may be confronted with a fall election, and an atmosphere of this kind leads members in various part of the house to make speeches which are tailored to meet such a situation. I think this
Freight Rates Reduction Act present bill is tailored to that possibility. I do not say this bill means we are to have an election in the fall, but the government is taking no chances; the government is doing everything it can to make a fall election possible if it decides at some later date that an election at that time would be in its own political interest.
The long and carefully prepared speech which was read by the hon. member for Laurier certainly suggests to me that the Liberal party and its great research bureau are very conscious that an election may be coming before long, and in order to provide some alternative argument to this legislation or to the royal commission report which has been placed before the country the hon. member for Laurier has made a spirited and detailed defence of the Liberal party, not only of today but throughout its whole history. He has endeavoured to show that it is the Conservative party which has been the party of high freight rates and that it has been the Liberal party which has valiantly come to the rescue of the freight users of this country by taking far-reaching steps to equalize freight rates and relieve the burden caused by horizontal increases.
The Turgeon commission report was presented on February 9, 1951. From the end of the war until that time, according to the information I hold in my hand, and I believe it is correct, there were two horizontal increases in freight rates. On April 8, 1958 there was a 21 per cent increase; on June 16, 1950 there was a 20 per cent increase.
Then we received the report to which the hon. member for Laurier has referred. We have it. The government did a few things about it. Some measures were introduced, and after we had the report, on February 11, 1952 there was a 17 per cent increase in freight rates. On January 1, 1953 there was another 9 per cent increase; on March 16, 1953 a 7 per cent increase; on July 3, 1956 a 7 per cent interim increase; in December, 1956 the 7 per cent interim increase was increased to 11 per cent. We had a couple of increases before the report; we had four complete increases in a total of five stages after the report.
I am very much opposed to freight rate increases. I am disappointed that the government did not roll the last increase right back to the position before the increase, but we were getting dizzy with increased freight rates under the former administration. Although the royal commission report was pitchforked in among the increases, nevertheless the increases continued at a very alarming and rather monotonous rate.

Freight Rates Reduction Act
Well, the Liberal government had royal commissions and the Conservative government has had royal commissions. We have one now. The Turgeon royal commission made one report. It did not help very much. The MacPherson royal commission is going to make three reports, and I do not know whether the three reports of the MacPherson commission are going to be any more substantial in their effects than the one report of the Turgeon commission. We have the initial report of the MacPherson commission and, according to the government, all its railway freight policies were being tailored to the moment when the MacPherson commission would make its report. That is, both as to railway wage rates and as to freight rate policy, the government would get the report, it would make up its mind, it would study the report and it would act.
It received the report. Apparently it studied it. Instead of action there is further procrastination, there is further postponing. The government is doing nothing today to deal with the report or with the freight rate situation that it did not do a year ago or a couple of years ago. The government has no policy with regard to freight rates. It has a policy with regard to royal commissions. It has appointed as many as possible on as many subjects as possible. Get all the royal commission reports and in the main shelve them. Let them gather dust and procrastinate and postpone in the hope that the royal commission reports will be something of an answer for an electorate that is requiring action.
In his statement this morning the minister made it clear that this bill freezes only certain freight rates. It freezes the general class and commodity rates, but it does not freeze the competitive rates or the agreed charges. In other words it puts a ceiling on certain rates, and underneath the ceiling the rates can be adjusted upward right to the ceiling. So that while this measure does put some control on the revenues that may be obtained by the railway companies, it would be false to assume that it freezes railway revenue or even freight rates. It does not do this; it freezes only certain rates, and we certainly are in favour of any measure that prevents further horizontal increases.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this particular bill deals only with a certain restricted area of railway operations, and the railway companies are still free under the law, as they have been in the past, to undertake actions that have a very important effect on the freight users of this country.
The MacPherson royal commission report makes some submissions and recommendations with respect to passenger train service

on branch lines, to subsidies and to the Crows-nest rates. Nothing will be done with the Crowsnest rates. That is clear. But from all the information I can get the indications are that the discontinuance of passenger service will undoubtedly go forward, and the pressure that the railways have placed on the board of transport commissioners to allow them to abandon branch lines will be continued. I ask the minister whether he can give the house and the country any assurance whatsoever that there will be a freeze, or even a slow-down, in the rate at which the railway companies will seek to bring about an abandonment of railway passenger service or an abandonment of railway branch lines.
I come from a part of the country, and I suppose this is equally true of a majority of hon. members, where branch lines are exceedingly important. Over the years the people of Canada have felt that railway service was not something that could be confined or the jurisdiction over railway service was something that could not be confined, to private companies, but that the public interest demanded public control and a public policy for freight users in the country. The citizens of our nation who use branch line services are very much disturbed over the royal commission report which, under certain circumstances, would give the green light to a wholesale abandonment of branch lines in the country.
I say that the government is dealing with only part of the transportation problem; it is dealing with only one of the criticisms when it takes steps to prevent further increases in class and commodity rates. It is doing nothing constructive of which I am aware. I ask the minister to tell me what the government is doing, if it is doing something, to prevent the railways in our country getting from the board of transport commissioners the right to abandon all branch railway lines throughout the country.
I for one am going to resist, and resist for all I am worth, the wholesale abandonment of branch railway lines in Canada. The MacPherson report says that the railways could save $13 million annually by a wholesale abandonment of branch lines. I do not think the saving of $13 million by the railway companies warrants any kind of policy of wholesale abandonment of railway lines. Today the railways have a policy of wholesale abandonment of railway services. Usually the first thing they do is discontinue passenger train service. Then they put on mixed trains. A couple of years later they remove the passenger coach, and then they reduce the frequency of train service. Later they try to close the station and allow the agent to look

for other work. Then they amalgamate various sections of the railway for maintenance purposes.
This, Mr. Chairman, is almost a wholesale folding up and abandonment of railway services in our country. I say this has already gone so far that the government should develop at least an interim policy that would prevent its continuation until such time as an over-all, clear-cut railway policy is developed.
I have said that I am going to resist the discontinuance of branch line services in our country in any wholesale manner. I live in a community that has a branch line service. Ours is almost a branch off a branch, but although the service is only twice weekly it is important to that community. We do not want to see our costs of farming and of doing business skyrocket because of the tearing up of the railway track, thus condemning this small community, which is representative of hundreds of similar communities across the country, to economic death, the end of the community as it now is and a tremendous increase in the cost of doing business in the community.
The abandonment of railway lines is taking place. It is something that is with us. But if there is to be abandonment-and it may take place even though some of us oppose and resist it-I suggest that where it does take place the federal government should be prepared to put federal money and perhaps railway money into the building of paved highways over the right of way or along the right of way so that a community which loses its railway service will at least have an adequate highway system to replace the railway service.
As hon. members from western Canada know, many communities all over western Canada that have a very minimum of railway service also have very little by way of adequate highways serving them, and I say it would be a disgrace to our nation to tear up railway lines and leave these communities with inadequate highway facilities. I say it would be unjust, and it is not in keeping with a progressive nation that is looking forward to better and better services and a higher and higher standard of living.
The measure before the house is just a case of politically marking time as far as the government is concerned. It is a clear indication that the government has no policy, that the government has postponed and procrastinated. We can only hope that some day soon the government will develop an overall railway and transportation policy, that under this policy the freight service users of the country will be protected; that transportation facilities of all kinds will be integrated
Freight Rates Reduction Act in a fair and equitable manner and, most important of all, that the freight service users and the communities that depend on the railways will be given adequate consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak very briefly on this matter, because after the lengthy and comprehensive expose by my colleague the hon. member for Laurier there is very little left to say that would not be repetitive. However, one or two points were raised by the hon. member who has just taken his seat on which I should like to make a few observations.
The hon. member pointed out quite correctly, as the Minister of Transport did yesterday at the resolution stage-I have not done the arithmetic myself but I assume it is correct-that over the period after the war when a Liberal government was in office there had been horizontal increases in freight rates amounting to 140 per cent. I am not contesting that figure.


Léon Balcer: One hundred and forty seven per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman said that up to the present it was 157 per cent, of which 17 per cent was under the present government. I have his words right here, and I checked them just before rising to speak. He said that 140 per cent was under the previous government. I am not contesting these figures at all.


Léon Balcer: Something around 15 times.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. It would be an increase of 140 per cent, which is not exactly 15 times. I think it is probably 14 times, but again I am not seeking to get into an arithmetical contest with the Minister of Transport. What I was going to observe was this. Suppose we take 157 per cent, which is the figure right up to the present, including the 17 per cent about which this bill is concerned. I recall very well that in the year 1939 I bought a Chevrolet sedan for which I paid $1,100. I think anyone who goes into the market today to buy that kind of motorcar made by the same company will pay three times that much, or a 300 per cent increase.


Mr. Thrasher:: You are wrong.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member can show me a comparable Chevrolet sedan that can be bought new-


Richard Devere Thrasher: I will show you a better one for $2,800.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member will not get a better one, because a better one is not made. I have had some experience in the matter, and the motorcars that have been

Freight Rates Reduction Act made since the war are not as good in quality as the ones that were made before the war. In any event, the point is that whether you pay $2,800 or $3,000 the disparity is far greater than the disparity in freight rates. That is the whole point. It is about twice as much no matter on what scale you take it.
It seems to me that it is really quite irresponsible for us on either side of the house to suggest, in view of the increase in costs of every kind that has taken place since 1939, although practically all of it has been since 1945 because of price control during the war, that the railways could conceivably, with the greatest possible efficiency, provide service without an increase in the cost of that service and an increase from some quarter in the compensation for it.
It seems to me that anyone who talks as though that kind of miracle could have been performed is not really talking realistically about this subject or making much of a contribution to the solution of a problem which I would say is one of the three or four most difficult problems that we have to solve in this country. It does seem to me that on the whole it would be a good thing for us in parliament to try to contribute to the solution of that problem, and surely the first point in its solution is to try to get the facts straight.
The Minister of Transport suggested in the course of his remarks yesterday that the present government had done very well because while there had been a 140 per cent increase under the former administration, there had only been a 17 per cent increase under the present administration.


Léon Balcer: Eight per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Seventeen per cent in the rates.


Léon Balcer: Brought back to 8 per cent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not trying to distort the facts, but perhaps I could be allowed to put them in my own words. A 17 per cent increase was granted by the board of transport commissioners, and the government decided in 1959 and again in 1960 and is now asking parliament again to reduce that increase by a grant out of the treasury. That is what we are talking about. That is the purpose of this legislation. The increase was made, but the government decided that instead of the whole 17 per cent being paid by the shippers, or whoever does pay when it is charged in freight bills, approximately half of that increase should be paid by the taxpayers out of the treasury.
That is the point. But the government did not decide that it should not be paid. The government did not decide the railways were not entitled to it. The government decided that for the time being, whether or not the

railways were entitled to it, they should receive it. That was the decision announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he was acting prime minister in 1958. My hon. friend from Laurier placed that statement on Hansard yesterday.
If the railways are to provide services and if they are to pay, as we think they should, wages that are comparable with the wages paid to other workers in Canada for comparable work-and I do not see how, especially on a railway owned by the taxpayers, we could expect anything else-if those two conditions are to be met, these costs have to be paid by somebody. They have to be apportioned in some fashion, and the apportionment of them is really about all that parliament can do very much about. The question of how they are to be apportioned is admittedly a very complicated one.
Parliament decided years ago, after world war I, that the Crowsnest rates on grain were not to be changed; and no government and no political party, as the hon. member for Assiniboia quite properly said, has ever deviated from that position. It is true that in the report of the MacPherson commission it is recommended that the railways should receive, out of the treasury of Canada, some compensation for the maintenance of those rates. That will be, when the time comes, if it comes, if the government brings forward legislation, a very debatable question, but it is not under debate at the present time. The hon. member for Assiniboia, and my friend the hon. member for Laurier, and the Prime Minister at various times in the life of this parliament have made very clear the position on this question of all three parties represented in this house, and as far as I am aware there is no division at all on it.
After the Duncan commission made its report in 1927, if my memory is right, the government of that day saw fit to introduce the Maritime Freight Rates Act. That act had the effect of reducing, by means of compensation from the treasury to the railways the effect on shippers in the maritime provinces of certain freight rates. That legislation was extended to Newfoundland at the time Newfoundland became a part of Canada, in 1949.
In the year 1957 my hon. friend Mr. Harris brought a budget into this house, and in the course of that budget announced that the benefits to the shippers in the maritime provinces under the Maritime Freight Rates Act would be increased from 20 per cent to 30 per cent. That represented an increase of 50 per cent. It so happens that that was just the last of many steps taken by the Liberal government over the years following 1918 to mitigate the effect of the standard rates on certain sections of the community.

My friend the hon. member for Laurier did not mention that particular one because at the time of its introduction he was serving our country in another capacity.
That is really what the approach of the Liberal government has been, to mitigate for certain sections of the country the effect of the standard rates. Among the sections of the country that have benefited were the grain growers, the Atlantic provinces, the east-west traffic in respect of the bridge to which the hon. member for Laurier referred, and British Columbia because of the abolition of the mountain differential. By the various steps toward equalization that were taken by the board of transport commissioners as a result of the action taken in this parliament at the request of my friend the hon. member for Laurier in 1951, very considerable ameliorations have made more equitable to the Canadian people generally the weight of these charges.
Nobody can remove these charges without affecting revenues. Nobody can reduce them very materially, it seems to me, although automation may have some effect, as other kinds of efficiencies may also have, without reducing the services. I think it is foolish to pretend there is some magic way by which these can be changed. I know there are certain people who feel that if the whole system of control established by Sir Wilfrid Laurier when the board of railway commissioners was first established early in this century were abandoned; if free competition were permitted and the railways were allowed to set any kind of rates they liked, they might be able to be more efficient and cut their costs. Although I have a bias in favour of freedom, frankly I have a little scepticism about this particular argument. Nevertheless it is an argument that is made seriously by serious people.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John Whitney Pickersgill: At one o'clock, sir, I was pointing out that it seemed to me that all of us, in considering this problem of freight rates-although the bill deals with only one very small aspect of the subject-must keep one basic fact in mind. Unless we are going to say that the railways must go bankrupt, or unless we are going to say that they are not to pay wages comparable with the wages for comparable activities, unless we are going to make that kind of decision somebody has got to pay the cost of maintaining these
Freight Rates Reduction Act services. The only problem that we are faced with is how these costs are to be divided. Of course I suppose that a really full-fledged socialist would say, "We will give the railway services free"; that is to say, that they would all be paid for out of the treasury, because that is the only way in which they can be given free.


An hon. Member:: It still is not free.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suppose these great
champions of free enterprise like the Prime Minister would say, "We will take all the controls off the railway and let them charge anything they like for any service, and any service that does not pay will have to be abolished".


An hon. Member:: Where does he say that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say that the Prime Minister said it. I said I supposed that these free enterprisers, whose ranks the Prime Minister has lately joined, would say that we should take all the controls of every kind off the railways, let them charge anything they like and if any service does not pay, we should abolish it. But nobody in this parliament, not even the Prime Minister or the hon. member for Skeena-and they perhaps represent the two extremes in this house-really means either of these things.


Mr. Peters:: What do you mean?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely what I intend to explain. I mean first of all, as I said before luncheon, that a certain measure of railway service, ever since confederation and prior to confederation-as one of the terms of confederation the Intercolonial railway was built-has been regarded as in the national interest; and that railway service must be paid for somehow by someone. There are two questions this parliament can settle and only two, it seems to me. The first is how much of that railway service really is in the national interest. The second is how that part of it which is in the national interest is to be paid for.
We in the Liberal party, when we were in office and since then, have never taken the view, any more than did the Turgeon commission, that horizontal increases or any other kind of increases in freight rates may not from time to time be necessary in order to pay for these services. We have never taken the view that there will not be certain instances in which some of the services should be paid for out of the treasury. In fact, as my hon. friend from Laurier pointed out earlier, it was the Liberal party that was responsible for the Maritime Freight Rates

Freight Rates Reduction Act Act, and it was the Liberal party that was responsible for the bridge in northern Ontario.
That was a decision that in the national interest the treasury should pay for these things instead of their being paid for by shippers or by whoever benefited directly from the service. We have decided twice already in this parliament, and we are now being asked to decide again as a stopgap, that half of a 17 per cent increase which the board of transport commissioners decided the railways were entitled to and the government agreed they were entitled to in 1958, or about half of it should be paid out of the treasury, and the other half should be paid by the shippers until such time as a long term solution is found.
We did not quarrel with that decision in 1959; we did not quarrel with it in 1960; and my hon. friend from Laurier indicated before luncheon, we do not quarrel with it now in itself. What we quarrel with is the fact that the government, instead of being straightforward about this matter; instead of saying that until the MacPherson commission had plenty of time to reach its conclusions that in the meantime they were going on with this stopgap; over and over again the government have held out false hopes about this matter and promises that were not fulfilled. For example, we have the Prime Minister in 1957 saying this. It is true he had no responsibility then, but in 1957, under what I called the other day that noontide of promises in that month of May four years ago, the Prime Minister had a few things to say about freight rates. This is a Canadian Press report in the Montreal Gazette of May 20 from Drumheller, Alberta, May 18:
At Drumheller he said there should be equalization of rail rates in Canada "within reasonable limits"-
I do not know what that means.
-to give a shot in the arm to agriculture and industry on the prairies... On freight rates he said that a rate pattern discriminatory to the west has been made worse by recent increases. This had struck "an almost paralysing blow" to industrial development in the west.
That is what the Prime Minister said. Then the Globe and Mail reported this:
He said a Conservative government would equalize freight rates as far as possible to help both agriculture and industry on the prairies compete with the rest of Canada.


Mr. Fisher:: What is the source?


John Whitney Pickersgill: What has happened? A 17 per cent increase has been reduced to 8 per cent with the help of the treasury. I do not think anyone thought the equalization that the Prime Minister was promising in Drumheller would be another horizontal increase.


This was in 1957. But the Prime Minister in 1958, when he had had some months of office, if not responsibility, had this to say in another part of the country. This is from the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of March 3, 1958, a report of a speech made at Saint John, New Brunswick on March 1, 1958: Addressing a public meeting at the Saint John high school, Prime Minister Diefenbaker gave a hint of a new promise for the maritime provinces.
In that noontide of promises of 1957, they were not hints of promises; they were outright promises. In 1958, except for one famous promise that we all remember, that no one would suffer, they were hints of promises:
-Prime Minister Diefenbaker gave a hint of a new promise for the maritime provinces. He said his government was considering additional freight rate assistance for the area to spur industrial development.
Then it says:
Mr. Diefenbaker's reference to consideration of new freight rate aid for the maritimes involved the Maritime Freight Rates Act, a 1927 statute under which rates on goods moving between the maritimes and central Canada were set at a below average level.
He said the government is studying the possibility of broadening the basis of aid and changing the present formula to remove discriminations.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, could I ask what document the hon. member is quoting from?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quoting from a compendium of the statements and promises of the Prime Minister, all of which are taken from the press of Canada. There are two volumes of them, which I have in my hands. One was prepared in 1957 from the promises made in that year; the other was prepared in 1958 from the promises made in that year; and I notice these documents are never quoted from the other side of the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the hon. member has ever taken the trouble to weigh those two volumes to see what is the weight of the promises. I understand they weigh around five pounds.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They have been weighed in the balance and most of them have been found wanting; I can say that.


Mr. Ricard:: It is a good thing you have them, otherwise you would not be able to speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could finish replying to one question before I undertake to reply to another. As I said to the hon. gentleman, they have been weighed in the balance and most of them have been found wanting,

as those two promises were. I refer to the promise to do something about maritime freight rates. Something was done about them; that is quite true. As the hon. member for Port Arthur pointed out yesterday, freight rates were frozen before the 1958 election, but after the 1958 election the increase was allowed. Then this legislation which we are now being asked to renew was brought in to diminish that increase, but only to diminish it. That is all that has happened to implement either of those promises.
It is true that the MacPherson commission was appointed, and I am not going to say that ten years after the Turgeon commission, with all the changes that have taken place since, another dispassionate look at our transportation problems was not justified. I would not say that at all. I think probably it was. However, I do say that this commission should have been allowed to carry on its work until it had completed it, without being made a political tool, as it was made a political tool, last November when the government was embarrassed about the railway labour dispute and the whole work of the commission was interfered with and perverted-


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is your evidence for saying that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: -by the efforts of the Prime Minister to use it as an excuse to compel the men to go back to work without any increase in pay for months.


Some hon. Members:: That is nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what happened and, as my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out yesterday, the promise was made that this commission would report on March 31; that it would provide a solution of the whole problem, and that this solution would be brought before this house in the form of legislation before May 15.
I am not going to repeat those promises because the Leader of the Opposition put them on the record yesterday; they are there, and everybody knows them. The Prime Minister put them on the record in the first place, of course, when it suited his political purpose. As I say, none of those things has been performed and all we have before us is the same problem which we had last December and an interim report of the royal commission upon which the government does not dare express its views, apparently in May anyway-maybe it will in June-and this stopgap of 1959.
I say that this is no way to treat this serious problem. While we recognize that we do not want to see, any more than anyone else, the whole 17 per cent increase imposed upon 90205-6-309
Freight Rates Reduction Act the shippers and we will therefore support this stopgap as a stopgap, we say the government is derelict in its duty in not dealing with the real problem.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak on this subject today. However, Your Honour will recall that this morning when the hon. member for Laurier was speaking in this house on the question of the equalization of freight rates for Canada, and in particular on the bill which is now before the house, I asked him whether he had ever said anything in reference to the Crowsnest pass freight rates and whether he had been reported as saying- because I recall the report-that the Crowsnest pass freight rates really were shackling the railways.
In order to make our position clear I think I should set out what I feel our position is as far as the Crowsnest pass freight rates are concerned. In doing so may I add these few introductory remarks. Over the years the fact is that we have enjoyed in western Canada, in the agricultural areas, the Crowsnest pass freight rates. They have assisted the farmers in getting their grain off the farms, into the markets and to Fort William at a reasonable freight rate.
That is why the Prime Minister has said on several, occasions during my short time as a member of parliament that the Crowsnest pass freight rates are really the economic magna carta for western Canada and in particular for the western farmers. In particular, when speaking on May 13, 1959, when the royal commission was set up to inquire into problems relating to the railways, the Prime Minister made very clear the stand of this government and the Conservative party as far as the Crowsnest pass freight rates were concerned. On Wednesday, May 13, 1959, as reported at page 3607 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said this:
When the Minister of Public Works as acting prime minister announced the government's intention to arrange for this review he assured the western farmers that such review would not mean that they would have to pay more freight on the shipment of grain for export. I wish to take this occasion to confirm this, in regard particularly to the action that may be taken as a result of the work of the royal commission. To make it clear beyond question, the Crowsnest pass rates are part of a bargain that was made between the railways and the government on the one hand and the settlers who went west on the other hand. We intend, in so far as this government is concerned, to see to it that that contract shaU not be broken.
In brief, it seems that there the Prime Minister set out clearly once again that as far as the royal commission was concerned there would be no interference with the

Freight Rates Reduction Act Crowsnest pass freight rates. The Prime Minister also said on November 30, 1960, as reported at page 358 of Hansard-
There is also the indirect subsidy, claimed as such, of the Crowsnest pass rates which, in so far as this government is concerned, must not be changed, for the legislation of 1897 was a Magna Carta, as it were, for the western provinces before they became provinces.
In other words, we made it clear where this government and this party stand as far as the Crowsnest pass rates are concerned in relation to the shipment of western grain.
Returning to my introductory remarks, I asked the former minister of transport, the hon. member for Laurier, whether he had ever said anything to leave the impression that those rates should be looked into or that those rates should be changed. I want now to read from page 3751 of Hansard for May 18, 1959. Hon. members who wish to refer to this volume will see that there was some discussion between the Prime Minister and the hon. member on this subject. The present Secretary of State for External Affairs had directed the following question to the hon. member for Laurier:
May I ask the hon. member for Laurier to explain in more detail what he means by this suggestion? What does he thing should have been written into the terms of the commission in this respect?
I suggest that this question was asked in order to determine where the hon. member for Laurier stood as far as this subject was concerned. Now let us see what the answer was, I am reading from page 3751 of Hansard for May 18, 1959:
Then there is the other matter to which the Prime Minister himself referred when he made the announcement of the royal commission. I should like to quote his words. If I interpret them wrongly I am sure he will correct me. At page 3607 of Hansard of May 13 the Prime Minister said-
Then the hon. member for Laurier went on to quote what the Prime Minister had said on that occasion, and if hon. members check the words used by the hon. member for Laurier they will find that he quoted the Prime Minister exactly. He set out the Prime Minister's stand as far as the Crowsnest pass rates are concerned in relation to the western farmers. But I am going to repeat the Prime Minister's statement. This is the quotation:
When the Minister of Public Works as acting prime minister announced the government's intention to arrange for this review he assured the western farmers that such review would not mean that they would have to pay more freight on the shipment of grain for export. I wish to take this occasion to confirm this, in regard particularly to the action that may be taken as a result of the work of the royal commission. To make it clear beyond question, the Crowsnest pass rates are part of a bargain which was made between the railways and the government on the one hand and the settlers who went west on the other hand.
[Mr. Woolliams.l
We intend, in so far as this government is concerned, to see to it that that contract shall not be broken.
Then the hon. member for Laurier went on to say this:
In that statement the Prime Minister for obvious reasons has started the royal commission off with-
At this point the Deputy Chairman interrupted by pointing out to the hon. member for Laurier that his time had expired. Some members invited the hon. gentleman to continue. The Deputy Chairman asked whether there was unanimous consent that such a course should be taken, and various hon. members indicated agreement.
Now we come to the statement which I wish to put on record and about which I intend to ask some questions in order to find out where the hon. member for Laurier stands, and to find out whether he was speaking for the Liberal party or for himself with respect to the Crowsnest pass rates in relation to western Canada. This is what the hon. gentleman had to say:
I had reached the last point I intended to make, and I am grateful to the Prime Minister and hon. members of the committee for allowing me to continue. When I was interrupted I was saying that I thought this commission was being started off with one foot carrying a ball and chain, because unless I interpret this (the Prime Minister's) statement wrongly it indicates that they cannot consider the Crowsnest pass rates because these rates are part of a bargain which was made between the railways and the government on the one hand and the setters in the west on the other.
Let us look further at what the hon. member said. Let us analyse it for a minute. His words were:
When I was interrupted I was saying that I thought this commission was being started off with one foot carrying a ball and chain-
I have not the clipping here, but if my memory serves me right the Calgary Albertan, which is a Liberal newspaper- whether it was quoting the hon. gentleman correctly or misquoting him I do not know; it is for the house to judge-reported that the hon. member had stated the railways were shackled as far as the Crowsnest pass rates are concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. member cite any passage in Hansard where I have made that statement?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member will bear with me, I am sure; that is why I am being very careful to say it is for the members of this house to judge for themselves, as well as for those outside the house who are concerned with it. I intend to ask the hon. member a few questions, and then the house and the people of western Canada can decide where the hon. member stands on this subject. He

says the Liberal party has always stood for the equalization of freight rates and that the Liberal party has always supported the Crowsnest pass freight rates-


An hon. Member:: You won't be here.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Time will judge. Time has judged before, it judges today and it will judge tomorrow. I intend to read again what the hon. member said:
When I was interrupted I was saying that I thought the commission was being started off with one foot carrying a ball and chain-
Well, a ball and chain is a shackle, a heavy shackle.


Hazen Robert Argue: Maybe there was one on each foot.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, maybe he wanted one on each foot to shackle western Canada as far as these rates are concerned. The hon. member continued:
-because unless I interpret this statement wrongly it indicates that they cannot consider the Crowsnest pass rates because these rates are part of a bargain that was made between the railways and the government on the one hand and the settlers in the west on the other.
This statement suggests to me that the hon. gentleman is criticizing the Prime Minister and criticizing the government because when they set up the royal commission the Crowsnest pass rates were omitted from the terms of reference.
Let us think of this as a question. Why did the hon. member want those freight rates considered by the royal commission? I have always respected the hon. member for Laurier and listened with pleasure to what he has had to say, because he has that touch of culture which makes him an excellent orator. But when he set out the facts with reference to this subject and criticized the Prime Minister for not including the Crowsnest rates in the reference to the royal commission, did he do so because he wanted those rates, to put it bluntly, looked into by the commission? Was he not suggesting that they should be the subject of inquiry and, if they were felt to be unfair and discriminatory in the opinion of the Liberals, that they should be changed? On that I rest my case.


Lionel Chevrier: Not a very good case.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It may not be, but I shall leave that to the jury.
I think I should read on. The hon. member said:
I doubt if that is correct from an historical standpoint, but I have not risen for that purpose.
The hon. member made it clear that this was not the purpose for which he got up to speak. He continued:
90205-6-309i
Freight Rates Reduction Act
So far as the government is concerned, the declaration that this contract would not be broken seems to be tantamount to excluding the Crowsnest pass rates from the scope of the inquiry of the royal commission. If I am wrong I stand to be corrected.
What the Prime Minister had stated with regard to the subject, and the quotation which the hon. member for Laurier read from Hansard of May 13, 1959 was very clear. The Prime Minister made it plain when he dealt with the terms of reference of this commission that it was not to look into the Crowsnest freight rates because they were a solemn contract between the western sector, the western farmers, and the railways. It is also made clear that in consideration for that deal the railways got plenty. The Canadian Pacific Railway received land, and from that land they got petroleum, oil and natural gas; extremely valuable rights in the western provinces. It is true that since that date the C.P.R. has formed separate companies and turned those resources over to those companies; consequently they do not now show in the profits of the railway. Nevertheless, in considering this bill everyone from western Canada, irrespective of politics, knows, just as the hon. member for Assiniboia agreed with me this morning in reference to this subject, that as part of the deal the C.P.R. got that land and they got rich resources of petroleum, natural gas and other considerations.
There is the other aspect of the situation that some members seem to miss. A commodity such as grain is hauled to country elevators in bulk. From those country elevators the grain is loaded in cars in bulk. Anyone who has lived on the prairies from the time he was a boy has seen the trains, first steam and now diesels, taking the grain across the prairies. Those trains were half a mile or more long, and the cars were full of grain. I suggest that the manner in which this grain is transported makes that commodity easier for the railroads to handle than any other commodity in Canada. Surely this fact was behind the thinking of this government and of the Prime Minister, and that is why the solemn contract which was completed should stand on the statute books and the Crowsnest pass rates should not be interfered with. Surely this is why the subject was left out of the terms of reference of the royal commission.
Who was the chairman of that royal commission? It was Mr. M. A. MacPherson of Regina, a former attorney general of Saskatchewan. If anyone knows anything about the railways as far as freight rates are concerned it is this gentleman. Irrespective of politics, he knows the subject well, because he has acted at various times as counsel for

Freight Rates Reduction Act the province of Saskatchewan, and has set forth the very same arguments I am putting forward this afternoon. This man was named the head of the commission, and this is why the subject of the Crowsnest pass rates was excluded, although evidence was allowed in. It was excluded in the report of the royal commission.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why, certainly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the hon. gentleman explain to the house how, if the subject was excluded from the royal commission, Mr. MacPherson was able to make recommendations about it, as he has done?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am very happy that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has asked me the question. I do not know whether he has finished his law course, but he knows that once a royal commission is set up the chairman of that royal commission controls the evidence and what he puts in his judgment is within his jurisdiction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate may laugh, but let him show us in this House of Commons where it says in the terms of reference that the MacPherson commission should admit evidence and make no decision as far as that subject is concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The government say they should not.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad to have these questions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the hon. member explain how a royal commission can make recommendations on a matter which is not within its terms of reference?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, I am not going to get into a legal battle with the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has started his law course; I do not know when the Leader of the Opposition will start his, but he knows as well as I do that any commission is controlled by its terms of reference. Let us get back to the subject matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let us not lose sight of the fact that the hon. member for Laurier criticized the terms of reference because they did not allow the royal commission to look into the Crowsnest pass rates. If he wanted them looked into, Mr. Speaker, it is quite likely that he wanted them changed. As long

as the Liberal party is running for office in western Canada this little ghost will come out of the cupboard and warn the people on election day where the Liberal party stands in western Canada as far as freight rates are concerned.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly. I have had questions from the front row. Since I am far at the back I like to hear these questions; I want to know how the front row think.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to know whether the hon. gentleman is in favour of the majority report which says that there should be a subsidy to compensate for the Crowsnest rates, or does he agree with the commissioner who says that the Crowsnest rates carry themselves and the railways have no claim whatsoever for any compensation?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is a very good question, and if I were to answer it I might be here all afternoon. One thing I will say. This is something for the government to decide. I would say to the hon. member for Assiniboia if they decide the question as the government has decided that the Crowsnest pass rates shall not be changed they will get my support, and I will always have confidence in our leader, the Prime Minister of this country.
I should now like to say something with reference to the shipping of another commodity. In my earlier remarks I dealt with the question of the transportation of grain and why it is so easy to transport it from the country elevators to terminals in Vancouver, Fort William or Port Arthur or wherever it is going. It seems to me that if the principle that is applied to the shipment of grain were applied to the shipment of coal from western Canada, then coal could move from some of the mines of western Canada and compete with coal going into eastern Canada from Pennsylvania on the same terms and conditions as we compete with reference to grain.
It is unfortunate that up to now, with one or two exceptions which I shall deal with later, coal has been shipped in individual carload lots. There was an exception to that. I see the former minister of trade and commerce in his place. I know he recalls the deal in 1958 under which coal from Canmore and the Crowsnest pass was shipped to Japan. At that time we sold some 600,000-odd tons of coal under one contract. On that occasion the coal did move from those areas in trainload lots. At that time, of course, the cost of transportation was cut. May I suggest that the subject be looked into carefully.

I have dealt with agriculture, which is a major industry in my constituency. Coal mining in my constituency has suffered because of competition from petroleum and natural gas. Consequently the coal miners have been laid off in the last 10 years. If coal could be transported in a cheaper way, then it would revitalize the industry, because the industry would be able to compete with coal coming to eastern Canada from other ports and U.S.A.
I have been most happy to put on the record the reasons I asked the hon. member for Laurier questions with reference to the Crowsnest pass rates.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Do I understand that the hon. member for Laurier rises under standing order 37?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to mention to him and to the hon. member who just resumed his seat that standing order 37 does not permit the hon. member for Laurier to reply to the questions which were put to him. The only thing he can do is correct any misinterpretation or misunderstanding which may have been put on his remarks by the hon. member for Bow River. I thought I might warn the hon. member for Bow River at the same time, because he might insist on having an answer to his questions which he cannot get under the standing orders.


Lionel Chevrier: That is all I am seeking to do, Mr. Speaker. I am seeking to reply in accordance with the standing order to which you have referred.
I think the hon. member for Bow River who has just taken his seat has used his imagination far more than he should have done. If he had read the whole of the statement I made when the discussion took place earlier he would have had no reason to intervene nor ask the questions which he did. He started off by saying that I had made a statement to the effect that the Crowsnest rates were really shackling the railways. He was not able to find any place in Hansard where a statement to that effect had been made by me. What he did was to read into Hansard certain statements from which he drew that inference, but he did not give himself the trouble, as he should have, as every hon. member of this house should in such circumstances, to complete the statement I made on that occasion. If he had done so he would not have said what he did earlier. I now want to put on the record the whole of this statement and I ask the house, the country generally and western Canada in particular to
Freight Rates Reduction Act be the jury in this case. As found at the bottom of page 3751 of Hansard for May 18, 1959-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They may find against you.


Lionel Chevrier: They will find that the hon. member did not read all of my statement from Hansard. He just read the convenient parts and forgot other parts that are pertinent.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member spoke on that occasion he ran out of time. If I had put all his statement on Hansard I too would have run out of time, and I would not have completed my statement of facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You ran out on the quotation instead.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I read standing order 37 for the guidance of hon. members:
No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, but then he is not to introduce any new matter, and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation.


Lionel Chevrier: I should now like to put on the record this pertinent part of my remarks which the hon. member for Bow River conveniently overlooked:
The point I wish to make is this. When the Prime Minister made the announcement of the royal commission I said that when some years ago I occupied the position which my hon. friend the Minister of Transport now occupies, the situation in so far as the Crowsnest rates were concerned was quite clearly established by parliament and we had no intention of changing those rates in any way whatsoever.
Is that clear? These are statements made by me in 1959. I continue:
But the point I wish to make now is this. Why should it not be within the scope and purpose of the royal commission to inquire into whether those rates are compensatory? Surely there is nothing which would effect in any way the rights of people in western Canada if that were done. And if perchance it were found that the rates are not compensatory to the railways, then the royal commission might want to make a recommendation to parliament for the payment of a subsidy on behalf of the western farmer, who benefits from the movement of grain because of the Crowsnest rates, in the same manner and to the same extent that there has been a Maritime Freight Rates Act, as there has been a bridge subsidy, and as there has been assistance given from time to time to certain areas for the movement of commodities.
Then the Prime Minister interrupted to ask this question:
May 1 ask the hon. gentleman this question? He has quoted what I said and I stand on those words, but I would ask him what are his suggestions. How would the western farmer be compensated? He has studied this very carefully. The Turgeon commission dealt with this matter rather

Freight Rates Reduction Act subjectively. The hon. member, having been a minister, and having given a great deal of study to this, possibly would suggest what he has in mind.
Then I replied:
Before I answer-


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is now going beyond what you outlined as the implications of standing order 37. He may speak in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, but he is not to introduce any new matter, and that is precisely what he is doing now. He is going on with a long explanation trying to defend his position when the jury has already found him guilty.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before hearing the evidence. What a jury.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the very intelligent and clever interference by the house leader. I am replying to the entirely false allegation made against me, and I want to complete my remarks by putting the rest of my statement on the record.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has indicated that he wants to reply, but that is not what the standing order permits. It only permits an explanation. I do not think it is necessary for the hon. member to put on Hansard long extracts from former debates to explain how the hon. member for Bow River may have misquoted or misinterpreted his speech. Otherwise the hon. member is really being allowed to speak twice and to introduce new matter bringing about a debate, which is not the purpose of the standing order.


Lionel Chevrier: I was attempting to correct the erroneous impression created and the incorrect statement made by the hon. member for Bow River and I had almost completed the statement when I was interrupted by my hon. friend. I continue:


Lionel Chevrier: Before I answer the Prime Minister's question will he allow me to ask him one question? Am X correct in the assumption X have made that the royal commission on transportation is not to give consideration to the Crowsnest rates?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not challenged the hon. member's interpretation.


Lionel Chevrier: Then I take it I was correct in my assumption. That being so, it seems to me that I made it quite clear that if the commission were given the power to study this matter they might well make a recommendation that a subsidy should be paid which would give assistance to the railways in the amount required to compensate for the right which the western farmer enjoys in so far as those rates are concerned. If that were a recommendation of the royal commission and the government decided to implement it, I am sure that parliament would give it the consideration which is required in these matters and which it would deserve under all conditions.

As the house knows, the MacPherson royal commission on transportation has made its report and has recommended exactly what was suggested by the hon. member for Laurier in that statement. Having said that, I say to the hon. member for Bow River that he is hoist on his own petard.


Mr. R. H. Small (Danforih):: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was introduced and I read it I found that it had to do with an increase in the board of directors of Canadian National Railways, which brought back to my mind a former board of directors and the bringing of a motion in the house with respect to the then president of Canadian National Railways. The hon. member for Northwest Toronto at that time, later the member for Broadview, had some pertinent things to say about the president of Canadian National Railways, and I presume the introduction of this motion to increase the board of directors provides an opportunity to say something about this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member speak a little louder?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might indicate to the hon. member that the house is now concerned with Bill No. C-93, an act to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act.


Robert Hardy Small: That is the reason I brought up this matter. I was at a loss to know whether it had to do with the board of directors, having regard to the way the debate was proceeding; because the sum and substance of the debate seemed to be the increase in the board of directors. That is all I could get out of it, and as it seemed there was no attempt to bring the debate into line I thought I would continue along that line.
However, we are now talking about freight rates, and I listened to hon. members this morning referring to the Crowsnest pass rates and pointing out that none of the parties would be opposed to them. That is beside the point, because I have never heard of any party opposing them. They were established in the latter part of the nineteenth century to take care of the situation in the west. It was very necessary for the west to have these rates. We are now concerned with present conditions as to freight rates, and the matter of the directors who are going to sit on the board in the future has been interwoven in the debate. Members have injected any subject they wanted to discuss into the debate as if we were discussing a resolution preceding a bill.
I want to say that I brought up this question before. I was surprised to hear from the hon. member for Assiniboia and also the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on

the matter of the Crowsnest pass rates. I thought they had discussed this subject once before, and I thought any interference with the Crowsnest pass rates was anathema to them. They said that we dare not touch those rates because they were a form of protection given to the farmers out west who were bringing their grain to market. This is something new coming from that motley crew of free traders over there.
However, since they are questioning these Crowsnest pass rates, perhaps it would be wise for us to examine the various things that have been brought forward with regard to the movement of our wheat. It was natural that when costs went up freight rates were increased. In the case of the Crowsnest pass rates, there was more or less a covenant that those rates would remain the same. I have no opposition to that. As I have said before, I have no particular objection to what I call these built-in preferences for the benefit of agriculture in the west, but now these free traders ask, where is the money coming from? If you are going to give subsidies, where is the money coming from?
I never heard such a nonsensical question before. It is quite obvious where the money is coming from. It comes from the people who pay taxes, the working people. This is the place from which all the money comes. No matter how you present the case to the people, the fact still remains that it is the people who pay taxes who supply the money that the government uses. We have to see that the money is wisely spent, wisely allotted. If the government is going to make more money available for freight costs out west, let us say frankly that it is going to be done by means of a subsidy or whatever the method may be. Let us say so, and let us be honest about it.
Let me make an interjection at this point, and I hope I will be allowed the same latitude as others were permitted on the subject of the board of directors. I have listened to the debate here, and I go along with the hon. member for Port Arthur and also the hon. member for Greenwood-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must warn the hon. member that these comments were made in another debate, the debate on the resolution preceding the measure to increase the numbers of directors of the Canadian National. This debate of yesterday is another matter.


Robert Hardy Small: I have read both debates of yesterday and I cannot distinguish between the two of them. There seems to have been a very wide latitude permitted and obviously the subjects were not separated, so far as
Freight Rates Reduction Act I can see. I thought perhaps I would be giving an omnibus and see if in that way I could get it all in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member should realize that in a few minutes, if this debate is concluded, he will have an opportunity to make these remarks; because I understand the next item will be the measure in which he is interested, and his remarks would then be relevant.


Robert Hardy Small: I thought I might get the debate ended by interjecting in this way.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have no intention of speaking for as long as I did yesterday on the resolution stage of the bill. However, I want to touch on something that has been mentioned by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Hon. members may recall that quite a number of times in the last couple of years I have brought up a particular issue which I feel now, in the light of the battle cry that has gone resounding out across the country for the next general election, the battle cry of free enterprise, is particularly relevant.
I want to ask this minister, as I have asked other ministers, to explain how a group of free enterprisers can boldly go pushing out these subsidies to support things. When are we going to see revealed in all its glory the beautiful rhythm of this free enterprise effort? When is it going to be demonstrated that this government really means that it stands for free enterprise?


Mr. Graffiey:: What about the Regina manifesto?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have had an interjection from my favourite interjector down there. Do I remember the Regina manifesto? This question has been thrown at me quite a number of times. I should like to point out to the hon. gentleman that the C.C.F. changed its approach in view of changing circumstances, and I assume this is what the Conservative government has done. After all, a Conservative government did start the C.B.C. It was the former Conservative prime minister, Mr. Meighen, who was the architect in the building of the Canadian National Railways. But I thought we had a new issue laid right on the line by the Prime Minister not long ago, that the issue in the next election is to be between free enterprise and socialism.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That has been changed
twice since.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I can just see coming up again that dead hand of socialism; the cry to keep out the hand of socialism, the pinkos. Yesterday we heard this announcement from the minister about the shipbuilding industry. Did
4836	HOUSE OF
Freight Rates Reduction Act all hon. members look at the lead editorial in the Globe and Mail today? I hope they did. The Globe and Mail welcomed the Prime Minister's statement that the issue was to be between socialism and free enterprise. I am beginning to doubt even the Globe and Mail's approach, because they welcomed this $50 million subsidy to the shipping industry; at least I calculate it will be about that amount. Here we have another subsidy.
I should like the minister to tell us how this really fits into the free enterprise theory of the Conservative party; or has the Conservative party changed in the last 10 years, just as the C.C.F. party changed the Regina manifesto of the 30's to the Winnipeg declaration. The reason I ask this question is that in the friendly relations one has around the house, the talk behind the curtains and in the lobbies, one recognizes that there are a great many free enterprisers in the Conservative party. I see some of them in the house now. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome), the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) and the hon. member for York North (Mr. Cathers) would be among these free enterprisers. There is this group of people within the Conservative party who, as I know them, seem to stand for free enterprise. I know they welcome the Prime Minister's declaration. Yet again and again we keep getting this type of legislation which is nothing more than, perhaps not outright, crass socialism, but at least creeping socialism.
I should like to point out to the minister that the MacPherson commission took this view of the feeling in Canada today, and in the preface to the report said:
We sense in our hearings across the country an impatience and dissatisfaction with attempts to deal with the problem of transportation on a piecemeal or short run basis.
I think the commission really has got something. We have a call for a national transportation policy from the minister. In the light of the free enterprise ideal of the Prime Minister we must assume that this national transportation policy is going to be one of outright and open competition. We should like to know when we are going to see the C.B.C. being sold to private interests. When is the Canadian National going to be broken up and sold to private companies? What are we going to do with Polymer, Eldorado, Northern Transportation? Is this your election issue? This is what we would like to know, and we think the debate on second reading of this bill is another opportunity to call for information.
Now, the last point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, relates to the question of agreed charges. The minister knows that agreed


charges do not come within the framework of this bill. The minister also knows that every year the number of agreed charges increases. The revenue from agreed charges has been increasing and, in fact, there has been a marked increase in the two years since this bill went into effect. The assumption one has to make, therefore, since this subsidy is not going to affect agreed charges, is that agreed charges are spreading more widely and the subsidies should be making an increasing contribution to that portion of freight that does not fall within the agreed charges or other competitive rates. From this point of view one would assume that the subsidy required might be less, because if agreed charges are proliferating-and if hon. members check in the C.P.R. annual report they will see that the increase has been marked in that railway; and we know it has been marked in the C.N.R.-then there might be a possibility of reducing this subsidy; and I am trying to look at this matter from the point of view of someone with Conservative principles.
I should like the minister to be prepared, during the committee stage when we are going through the bill, to explain to us what effect the proliferation of agreed charges has had upon the fund and whether it is spreading out wider or more deeply in those freight areas where the agreed charges are taking the business away. I realize that is a rather clumsy explanation but I think the minister can see the point I am making. If agreed charges are increasing and are providing more and more revenue for the railway, then there is less and less need for this subsidy. We should like to know what the relationship has been in the two years' experience.
Perhaps the last thing I should say on this matter, Mr. Speaker, is this. I thought the review given by the hon. member for Laurier was a worth-while one to have on the record. However, I should like to suggest that to anyone who reads Hansard and follows it, it is a record as seen through Liberal party eyes. This is fine, but once you accept that qualification, you put some different interpretations upon the freight rate increases that took place and you put some different interpretations upon the actions of the board of transport commissioners. I thought it was a good review of the record from the Liberal point of view.
I should like to add that I myself can see little difference in attitude toward the freight rate question on the part of this government and on the part of the previous Liberal government. I am back at the only thing with which I started and it is this. We seem to have this new statement of principle on the part of the Prime Minister that he and the

Conservative party stand for free enterprise. I would therefore assume that this gives us a completely different approach. That is why I am back again wondering about those members in the house who support and stand with the Prime Minister for free enterprise, and wondering how they explain their vote and support for this particular measure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question before he takes his seat. Does the hon. gentleman not realize that he is totally out of date? Does he not realize that the Prime Minister last week, scrapped that issue and gave us another, namely, "Banish fear; substitute faith"?


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, representing as I do a British Columbia constituency, I am very much pleased with this subsidy, even though the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) said I am an out and out free enterpriser. This subsidy is not incompatible with free enterprise. This subsidy is based on giving to the western seaboard and the eastern seaboard equal advantages which are at present enjoyed by the central provinces because of the variety of services which are offered to them and the fact that they have competitive means of shipping apart from rail transportation.
I should like to refer to the submission made by the province of British Columbia to the royal commission on transportation in order to give to the house an idea as to how this matter affects British Columbia. On page 24 of the submission to which I referred, under the heading "British Columbia's Dependence on Rail", we find the following:
Shipments from British Columbia being bulky, heavy, and travelling long distances, are Ideally suited to rail and are in many cases tied to railways as there is no reasonably competitive form of transportation for these types of commodities.
Roads are difficult and costly to build through the province, and so trucks going to eastern Canada travel via the U.S.A. routes, paying license fees in each state. As there are no reciprocal licence arrangements between the province and the several states or provinces, truck operation over long hauls is very costly and impractical for the types of commodities which British Columbia has to offer.
As there is usually no alternative form of transportation, reasonable rail freight rates-reasonable in the light of costs of carriage-are absolutely essential for the economic health of British Columbia. The fact is that the province depends almost entirely on railway transportation for its welfare and the economic growth of the Province is in danger of becoming stunted by reason of high freight charges.
In a table on the following page is shown the distribution of traffic between transportation agencies with regard to incoming and outgoing shipments in the year 1957. It shows for rail shipments incoming, a figure of almost 13 million tons; for shipments outgoing, almost 11 million tons. As to other 90205-6-310
Freight Rates Reduction Act forms of transportation, you find for water a figure of 760,000 for incoming shipments and of 194,000 tons for outgoing shipments. With regard to highway shipment, you find a figure of 176,000 tons for incoming shipments and of 64,000 tons for outgoing shipments. Rail traffic therefore represents from about 90 per cent to 95 per cent of all traffic incoming and outgoing in British Columbia. Therefore the purpose of the bill is to prevent those areas which are entirely dependent upon rail-those captive areas-from taking the great percentage of any freight rate increases which the railroads need to have and must have. In order to prevent this from happening-a happening which would throttle the economic growth of the maritimes and of the west coast-I contend this subsidy is necessary and essential.
I should like to refer for a few minutes to another subsidy with which we do not agree. I refer to the so-called bridge subsidy. The bridge subsidy was recommended by the Turgeon commission on the basis of what they called an economic desert north of lake Superior. It was a subsidy to facilitate the movement of goods from eastern Canada to western Canada against the railhead north of lake Superior which, in the opinion of the commission was largely an unproductive area as far as freight is concerned.
In this same submission of the province of British Columbia there is a comparison between the number of tons of freight generated per mile of traffic in the bridge area between Sudbury and Port Arthur. It showed the number of tons per mile as 2,425. The Turgeon commission said that this area would not generate the traffic which could be generated in the prairie provinces. When you compare this figure of 2,425 tons with that in the province of Manitoba, all lines, and that in the province of Saskatchewan, you find that the number of tons per mile in the province of Manitoba is 1,698 and in the province of Saskatchewan the number of tons per mile is 1,121. This so-called unproductive area is therefore a great deal more productive of freight than are the prairie provinces per mile of track.
The location of this bridge north of lake Superior gives an economic advantage to shippers in eastern Canada who already have alternative forms of transportation not available to the west coast. This puts us at a disadvantage in shipping eastward across the bridge. In the opinion of the province of British Columbia the bridge subsidy unfairly discriminates against that province.
Mr. Speaker, I have one other point and I will have finished. In regard to the general subsidies recommended by the MacPherson

Freight Rates Reduction Act commission, and so on, in the Montreal Gazette of Tuesday, April 18, in the business section there appeared an article written by Mr. John Meyer. He pointed out that these subsidies would not be of the magnitude envisaged in the report because for one thing a subsidy to the C.N.R. would simply reduce the deficit, and on the other hand a subsidy to the C.P.R., because the C.P.R. is already in a 50 per cent tax bracket, would mean that half the subsidy would be returned in the form of corporation taxes.
Hon. members from the prairie provinces have gone into the question of the Crowsnest pass rates. However, I should like to point out that the dissenting opinion in the first volume of the report of the MacPherson commission pointed out that there were many ways in which costs had been loaded against the grain shipper of the west and these rates were much closer to being compensatory than is generally believed. I would refer hon. members to that dissenting opinion in the report if they wish to obtain a much fairer idea as to the true effect of the Crowsnest pass rates.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak only for a very short time. My words arise out of the statement made in this discussion by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) in which he threw some doubt on the policy of our party in regard to the Crowsnest pass rates.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) dealt with the references which were made to him based unfairly upon selected portions of a speech he had made. I need not go into that matter because it has been disposed of.
I would like to make it quite clear that this party remains firm in the position it has always adopted in regard to these rates and we would support no policy or no recommendation of any kind which would interfere with the rights of the producers established by the compact which led to those rates. That is a solemn compact and will not be interfered with so far as we are able to prevent that interference.
Our words on this matter, which I repeat this afternoon, have the advantage of being substantiated by the record of our party over the years. The words attributed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in this matter cannot be substantiated in the same way.
I recall, for instance, that the Crowsnest pass rates were abolished by the Conservative party in world war I and were restored by Mr. Mackenzie King when he formed the Liberal government. Therefore our record is clear in regard to the maintenance of these 

rights established for the producer under a solemn compact, and no effort on the part of any hon. member to throw any doubt on that record will be successful.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member say whether or not his party agrees with the stand taken by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) that if an investigation of the Crowsnest pass freight rates were undertaken and it were discovered that there was some difference between the cost of operating under these rates and the yield from the rates themselves, his party would be in favour of a subsidy earmarked to cover that difference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is another point and I am quite happy to deal with it. The point I have been making is that the rights of the producers under these rates will not be interfered with so far as we are concerned.
My hon. friend said, what would we do if the government brought forward a subsidy to compensate the railways for those rates.


Henry Frank Jones: I did not say that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member said that if a royal commission makes a recommendation for a subsidy of this kind-


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, just in order that we may proceed with the explanation I should like to refresh the Leader of the Opposition's memory on the question I actually asked. It was: what position would his party take if an investigation disclosed a difference between the operating costs in connection with the transport of grain under the Crowsnest pass rates and the yield from those freight rates themselves.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for clarifying the question. However, I would point out to him that in fact such an investigation has been made. It was made by a royal commission set up by this government with terms of reference laid down by this government. It was found appropriate and reasonable by the commission to make that investigation under these terms of reference. My hon. friend from Bow River criticized the hon. member for Laurier for dealing with this question when he made his statement.
This recommendation has been made. It is a recommendation by the majoriy of the commission. There was a dissenting voice to the effect that in fact no such subsidy should be given the railways. It is a responsibility of the government to decide whether or not it is going to implement this recommendation made by a commission set up by the government.

The Prime Minister has already stated that at least some of these recommendations will be dealt with by the government and brought before parliament. We will be very interested to see which of these recommendations are so brought. If this particular one is treated in that way and appears before us as a government proposal for action, we will be glad to make known our position as a party when it appears.


Henry Frank Jones: You apparently do not take the same position as that taken by the hon. member for Laurier.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member for Laurier has never taken a position that contradicts what I have just said.


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to comment for a moment or two on some remarks made by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). The hon. member for Port Arthur seemed to think he was going to embarrass us in this party by referring to the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had said we were in favour of private enterprise. So we are, but we are also in favour of common sense.
A great leader of our party used a phrase of which I like to remind people again and again. I am referring to Mr. Meighen. He spoke about the "immortal grounds of common sense". I like to think that I belong to a party that tries to look at things in a common sense way. If we look at our society in a common sense way we know it is not pure private enterprise, free enterprise or public ownership; we have a mixture of these things in our economy.
I am quite ready to proclaim, on behalf of our party we have gone into certain aspects of public ownership because we thought it was practical, good business and common sense. I refer particularly to the hydroelectric in Ontario, which I suppose it is fair to say was instituted very largely by a Conservative government. It got under a full head of steam in the days of Sir James Whitney. I may also refer to the C.N.R. and Right Hon. Arthur Meighen in the days of the first world war. He had a great deal to do with the setting up of that railway.
We remember what happened. We remember there had been a rather extreme orgy of railroad building in Canada in the early years of the century. Both parties had a good deal to do with that, so honours are equal there. We were a bit too enthusiastic. In the days of the first war the situation grew acute, and I suppose Mr. Meighen was responsible more than anybody else for setting up the C.N.R. roughly in its present form. So when the hon. member for Port Arthur twits us and wants 90205-6-310i
Freight Rates Reduction Act to know what we stand for, I will say to him that we stand for common sense, and when we run into a situation of this kind when by reason of what has happened in the past- and the judgment of both parties enters into this-we have set up an organization-I refer to the Canadian National Railways-which has been loaded up, as we all know, by a lot of unprofitable lines and become a kind of basket into which everything was dumped. When such an operation encounters difficulties and is in need of assistance I make no apology for belonging to a party which comes along in a practical way and gives it assistance. It does not worry me if somebody says it is a form of grant and that we are subsidizing the railways. This is the situation we face, and I hope we shall always continue to face such situations in what I regard as a nondoctrinaire, practical, honest, straightforward way.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could I ask the hon. member a question? I think we would all like to be apostles of common sense, but does he not see that when a party and its leader espouse such a clear-cut issue as free enterprise versus socialism it does raise questions with regard to the payment of this and other subsidies.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Anyone who wishes to argue that question may do so. The Prime Minister is the leader of a party which as I said a minute ago is bringing in this subsidy, and if the hon. member wants to argue that this is entirely inconsistent, he may, of course, do so. But we live in a practical world. I like to think that we belong to a party which is pledged to the preservation of private enterprise. However, this does not mean you have to tie yourself to a doctrinaire position and refuse to recognize practical considerations when they arise. I suspect that the hon. member for Port Arthur possesses a good deal of that frame of mind. I do not think he is doctrinaire.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I may ask the hon. gentleman one further question. Would it be fair to describe his position as this-that the Conservative party is moving left, the C.C.F. is moving right, and soon the twain shall meet, leaving the Liberal party as the party of common sense?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall not match myself with the leader of the Liberal party in hair splitting of that kind. I am content with our position. I think we know where we are. I believe we stand on the ground of common sense and I am content to stop there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?

Canadian National Railways Act


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion (Mr. Balcer) agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS ACT


Léon Balcer: the second reading of Bill No. C-94 to amend the Canadian National Railways Act.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister going to make a statement in connection with this measure?


Léon Balcer: As I stated during the debate on the resolution stage, this bill is simply to provide for an increase in the number of directors of the Canadian National Railways from seven to 12. A full discussion took place on the resolution stage, and as the legislation makes only this one amendment I do not feel there is any need for me to make a further statement at this time. The bill is very simple. It is practically word for word the same as the resolution. That is all I have to say at the moment.


Lionel Chevrier: We had a
discussion on this bill last evening and I think the position taken by those on this side of the house was made clear. However, we did have at least one extraordinary speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) and I should like to refer to some of the things which were said on that occasion before turning to another matter.
The hon. member for Vancouver South was highly excited last evening and I suppose one could excuse him for some of the things which were said. For instance, as reported at page 4848 of Hansard of May 15, he continued by saying this:
We were also treated to a dissertation by the hon. member for Laurier on how the Canadian National Railways was set up. It would be a free enterprise company which would operate outside of the control of the department. The minister would report to parliament on behalf of the company but would have nothing to say about its operations.
The hon. member continued to that effect. Well, one has only to read the statement which I made to become convinced that I made no such dissertation. I made a passing reference in one sentence to the position of the C.N.R. and that will be found at page 4843 of Hansard of the same date. This is what I said:
The minister likes to say in the House of Commons that he does not direct the affairs of the
[Mr. Deputy Speaker.)
Canadian National Railways but that it administers its own affairs, and that he represents it and reports on its behalf in the house.
That is a position which I think all hon. members will accept. It was not a dissertation. It was just a simple sentence in passing.
Then the hon. member for Vancouver South said:
We were told in the committee, coming back to the setting up of this company, that it was not for politicians or members of parliament to put their noses into the business of this company: that this was part of the function of the management and we were simply there to receive the report of the management on the way the railway had been operated.
I challenge that statement. I have no recollection of any member being told anything of the kind in that language during the proceedings of that committee. But what I have always been told, and what I have always respected when I sat on the other side of the house and, what I hope, the present minister would respect, is that there shall be no political interference with the management of the C.N.R. If that is what the hon. member for Vancouver South is seeking, namely, to have members of parliament interfere politically with the affairs of the Canadian National Railways, I say to him and to others of a like mind that that would be a sad day. The establishment-the board of directors and the administrative section of the C.N.R.-is there to administer the railways. There were days in Canadian history when there was political interference with the affairs of the railway. Those were sad days and I hope they will never occur again. When we were in office we repeatedly took the position in connection with the C.N.R. that the affairs of the railway were to be managed by the company and that there should be no political interference. Certainly, I have not heard it said that things should be otherwise, except in this statement of the hon. member last evening.
Then at page 4849, referring to myself, he said:
He talks about curtailing expenses on the part of the public; he says that the public are against curtailing C.N.R. expenses and by inference that means that the public desires that there should be a deficit on the part of the C.N.R. This is what it means. He means that the C.N.R. is not to be made a profitable, efficient operation.
Never, in any of my remarks have I either directly or indirectly inferred that that should be the case. If the hon. member will look at page 4844 of Hansard he will see that I said:
The deficits of Canadian National Railways this year is probably one of the highest in its history. The estimate given for 1961 is not too encouraging. What it will be I am unable to say but it will

certainly be substantial, and if the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation or part thereof are not implemented then, of course, the deficit will reach astronomical figures.
I made one other reference to the Canadian National Railways in that respect. A little earlier I said:
There has also been a fairly substantial reorganization of the various districts of Canadian National Railways recently. I am told this is in an effort to curtail expenditure, a move, incidentally, which is extremely unpopular with the men and with the public.
Then I said:
Notwithstanding that reorganization, it is still found necessary by the government to increase the board of directors.
Where is there any reference directly or indirectly in this statement, or any place else in what I said last night, that I favoured a higher deficit for the Canadian National?
Then, the hon. member got terribly exercised over the statement I made concerning regional representation. "Take the men where they are", he said. "Get good men, no matter where they come from". Look at the annual reports of the Canadian National Railways and see what the government has done. It has made regional appointments. All one has to do is to look at the annual reports of the Canadian National Railways to see that that policy which was established by the earlier administration was followed in 1957. There were seven directors in that year, two from Ontario, two from Quebec, two from the west and one from the Atlantic provinces. In 1958 two new appointments were made on the basis of the same regional representation. In 1959 again we had the same group of directors, two from Ontario, two from Quebec, one from the maritime provinces-


An hon. Member:: And none from the west.


Lionel Chevrier: Two from Ontario, two from Quebec, two from the west and one from the Atlantic provinces. Then, we have the 1960 report which will be under study when the committee on railways, air lines and shipping is set up. I have the names before me. There are two from the west, two from Ontario, two from Quebec and one from the Atlantic provinces. It is the same regional representation. What is the matter with regional representation? Is it not what the present government has done with reference to the royal commission on transportation? The commissioners were taken from regional parts of Canada. It seems to me that there is nothing abnormal or nothing that is against common sense in having it done in such a way. But my hon. friend rises and becomes highly exercised because I suggest regional representation. That principle has been followed by the present government and I am sure that when they
16, 1961	4901
Canadian National Railways Act come to appoint the additional directors- which I hope they will not do-they will not appoint them all from one section of the country but they will give regional representation because it seems to me that is the object of a crown corporation. The purpose is to see that representatives of the various regions are on the board so that they can make known to the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways or of any crown corporation the interests of the various parts of Canada. Certainly this is true with respect to many other crown corporations which I have mentioned.
In conclusion, I need only state that it seems to me regrettable the government should seek to increase the number of directors of the Canadian National Railways at this time when there is no indication that it will mean more business, when there is a decrease in the number of employees of the railways, when there is a reorganization which is most unpopular and particularly when there is a tremendous amount of unemployment. Under all these circumstances it seems to me that this is not the time to increase the directorship of this company.


Robert Hardy Small: Mr. Speaker, I hope I am on the right spot now. After listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier I can probably get on to the subject which is the matter of increasing the board of directors from seven to 12; in other words, adding five extra directors. This brings back to my mind a time when there was a motion before the house having to do with lending the president of the Canadian National Railways to the government of Mexico for six months with the purpose in mind of rehabilitating the railway of that country. I recall that the then member for Toronto Northwest (Tom Church), who afterwards became the member for Broadview, was heartily in favour of it. In fact, he was going to support the motion. The president at that time was Sir Henry Thornton, for whom he did not have a very high regard. It was suggested that the motion would apply first for only six months, but he suggested that it be 365 days for next year and for five years hence and put the motion through as a local improvement.
The legislation before us has to do with increasing the membership of the board. The hon. member for Laurier says that he does not see any reason why the membership should be increased because we have a great deal of unemployment. I would say there are good reasons for increasing the membership of the board. We should have more people on the board, but they should not be there from the regional point of view; they should not

Canadian National Railways Act be on the board for the reason suggested by the hon. member for Port Arthur, namely that it would add prestige. We should get men of business renown who would help to increase the business of the railway. The hon. member for Greenwood made the same statement and I think it is quite reasonable.
The board of directors should consist of practical men who know how to run the railways and would run them as the president did in the days when Tommy Church was the member for Broadview. The president at that time was a railway man and had great experience in the first war. He made a fairly good job of running the railroad. In fact, he was very popular with the railroad men because he made a real good job of public relations. He was highly admired by the men. The same cannot be said of the president of the Canadian National Railways at the present time.
I have said in the past in this house that I am not an idolater of the president of the Canadian National Railways, nor am I enamoured of the work he has done as president of that organization. I have repeatedly said that to my way of thinking he is not the proper man in the right place, and this is the time to discuss it. I have repeatedly made remarks along this line and I have found out one thing. It seems to me there is a coterie of members in this house who seem to regard him very highly. If you make any remarks about him with which they do not agree they assume right away that it is almost treasonable. They start to go after you. This is the way I see it. If you gore or goad one of their sacred oxen they immediately put you down as looking for the job. One thing is certain. I am not looking for the job. I have no inclination that way. I have no intention of seeking it. I do not suppose anyone in this house would care for the job under the conditions under which it is operated at the present time.
However, now that we are taking steps to increase the board of directors I presume it is being done for the purpose of improving the board. When I first read the bill I thought that here was an operation like that which Tommy Church tried to carry out in order to get rid of the president at that time. I thought that this would be a good opportunity to dispose of the president of Canadian National Railways, not becaus'e we want to do him any particular harm but because he has appeared before committees of this house and not only has defied them but has told them that if they were not satisfied with his services they should get rid of him because he did not want to be there and we should oblige him.

There are enough people throughout the country who are not satisfied with his services, particularly those who are working for Canadian National Railways. I have had many of them write to me and call me on the telephone and having sorted out the ones you would not pay attention to from those putting forward genuine criticisms and offering suggestions for improvement but who do not want to have their names mentioned I would say this is the time to discuss the matter of what you are going to do with the board and whom you are going to appoint. I would say at the salary-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must warn the hon. member that I think he is discussing a matter which is not within the scope of the present debate. I do not see how he can relate the choice of directors or the services of the president of Canadian National Railways to the bill which has only one effect, to increase from seven to 12 the number of directors.
I might also indicate to the hon. member that yesterday the house passed a motion setting up a committee to review the accounts and operations of Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines, and I think that would be a much more appropriate place to discuss matters like the ones into which the hon. member is now venturing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I say a word on the point of order Your Honour has raised because it seems to me you have raised a fundamental point with respect to the rights of members. Mr. Gordon is not just the president of the railway. He is or was-it seems a little hard to find out which-a director, and surely we are not going to say we ought to have 12 pigs in a poke instead of seven pigs in a poke, which would seem to be the effect of the suggestion made by Your Honour. Surely it is competent to the hon. member for Danforth, who is always anxious to obey the rules of the house, to be able to say if he wishes to do so that he would like to see 12 directors if they are this kind of director but he would not like to see 12 if they are that kind of director. It seems to me that is the essence of the matter.
I said last night on the resolution stage and I repeat now that I am against the bill because I suspect that the government is going to appoint a lot of Tory ward heelers, but surely the hon. member should have the same freedom to speak that I had and that is what I am trying to seek for him.


Robert Hardy Small: With respect to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I really thought I was discussing the directors who were going to be appointed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If it is the wish of the house that the hon. member discuss this point I have no objection, but I will tell the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that he has not convinced me that an increase in the number of directors from seven to 12 brings in the problem of personalities. It is simply a problem of number.


Robert Hardy Small: Mr. Speaker, I would say that from the point of view of economics and saving money the advice of the house in regard to the selection of directors is very appropriate. When you are sizing up the directors you are going to appoint you have to bear in mind that some of them are in receipt of exceptionally high salaries and by removing the one who is receiving the highest salary of all you could then appoint others at lower salaries and make a great saving there while at the same time there would be a vast improvement. You could appoint the kind of directors who would be more acceptable to the people of Canada to run the railway.
The matter of free enterprise has been discussed. The only free enterprise I can see is that when a train comes into the Ottawa and Toronto stations the passengers are dumped off with the freight and the only freedom the passengers have is the freedom to walk a long distance while the freight is carried away by truck. Perhaps I might put the matter this way. A farmer was taking a load of manure to his friend's place about ten miles up the road and a hobo stopped him and asked him for a lift. The hobo went to get in with the farmer but the farmer told him to get on the back on top of the load of manure. As the farmer was going up the road a friend stopped him and said, "What have you got there"? He said "I have a load of manure and a hobo". A little farther along he was asked the same question. He was asked the same question four or five times and he replied, "I have a load of manure and a hobo". Finally another friend of his came along and was about to ask the same question when the hobo said to the farmer, "The next time when you are asked what you have would you mind giving me the preference"? All I am asking is that the passengers at least get the preference when they arrive at the station. This is the kind of deal the president has been giving the passengers in the past and it does not go over very well.
I can also remember when the railway was first started. I believe D. B. Hanna was the president at the time. I can remember a speaker waxing eloquent on the platform
16, 1961	4903
Canadian National Railways Act about how this great Canadian National Railways had been brought into existence by taking the Intercolonial, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Canadian Northern and other bankrupt railways and bringing them together into one great railway system. He said, "Think of it, it is yours, it is mine, it is ours. We can ride on it". One fellow in the audience was not taken in so easily and he said, "Do you mean to say we own that railway"? The speaker said, "Of course, we do". The second fellow said, "We do not have to pay any fare on it"? The speaker said, "Oh, no, I never said that". The second fellow said, "Then what difference does it make who owns it if we have to pay to ride on it"?
If we are getting to the point where we are going to provide cheap transportation for everyone it does not matter who owns the railway but we have to have competent men as directors to do this job. I am supporting this motion if the government is getting rid of its high price help. I get a great kick out of listening to members of the opposition, these paragons of political virtue. They think that no one else can administer this country as they have, but the Conservatives have always given good service and this will be another instance if we have new members on the board of directors. We can advise these new directors what is needed. It is about time we had a change. At the same time we will economize by removing the top man and letting him go to that job he was offered which pays $125,000 a year. He will get an increase in pay and we will have a much needed improvement. We can get the job done for less money and at the same time a better job will be done.
(Translation):


Mr. Bourgel:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak at any length on this legislation because I promised the minister I would be brief. Besides, I wonder why this piece of legislation is being submitted. I have been sitting here for 21 years, and frankly, I have never seen such an insignificant and useless bill.
When I got here last evening, I read the remarks made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) when he introduced this legislation, and I noted that he did no more than outline the historical background of the C.N.R. board of directors, and to say how many members there were on the board of directors of other railway companies. I tried to find a single argument that might cause the members of this house to support this legislation, but found nothing that might

Canadian National Railways Act justify an increase from seven to 12 in the number of board directors, except perhaps that such a change might provide, as the minister said, a better geographical representation in the C.N.R. management.
In my opinion, the remarks of the minister indicate that neither he nor the former minister of transport are convinced of the necessity and the usefulness of that change.
It is not my intention to repeat the arguments put forward yesterday and this afternoon by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), because he clearly set out our party's stand. As the minister knows, however, this railway matter is of particular interest to me because there are several hundred people in my riding who are employees of the C.N.R.
I had an opportunity, during the budget debate in January, to make certain suggestions which I feel would have produced more significant results both for the railway company and for its employees. The minister knows from experience that the mere fact of increasing from seven to 12 the membership of the board of directors of this crown company will in no way reduce the deficit, or the number of lay-offs.
I am still wondering why a measure such as this is being introduced at the end of the session, when we have so many serious problems to deal with. I wonder whether the Conservative government still has friends with nothing to do and whether appointments must be made in order to satisfy those friends. Well, under the circumstances I do not think that the house should be called upon to adopt such a bill. In my opinion, one way of providing this company with the assistance it needs would be to endow the C.N.R. research division with the required sum of money so that a solution may be found to the problems now facing it.
The minister should now know, after discussing the point with the company's high officials that automation and the new technological developments have created problems that must be urgently met if we want the C.N.R., which is now in a bad situation, to continue its operations. The necessary answers to those problems must be found.
There is another matter which looks as important to me. I do not know whether the minister ever had the opportunity of meeting railway employees, but certainly he must have realized that the morale of the C.N.R.'s 70,000 to 75,000 employees is at a very low ebb.

Mr. Chairman, those workers, who have been with the railway for 10, 15, 20 or 25 years or even more, have been living in uncertainty in recent years. They are worried about the future.
I hope the minister will confer with the C.N.R. authorities and discuss the matter with them.
I do not want to speak at length on this matter today, because I know that the minister has to leave soon. I hope, however, to take up this subject again when his estimates are before the house.
Once again, for the reasons set forth by the hon. member for Laurier, and for the few reasons I have mentioned myself, I suggest that this bill is altogether useless. The $35,000, $40,000 or $50,000 that we shall spend on salaries for these new directors could certainly have been put to better use.
I see the minister is shaking his head. Yet he knows very well that the issues now confronting the C.N.R. will not be settled by the appointment of those five new directors.
When making his statement, the minister did not justify this legislation on any valid ground.
Mr. Chairman, this is a far cry from the promises made by members now sitting on government benches. I remember, for instance, that before 1957, the former minister of transport always rose in immediate protest whenever there had been any dismissals.
Well, Mr. Chairman, for the last three years, the minister, when asked what he intends to do about those dismissals, always answers: This is not my business, but the responsibility of the railway management.
Mr. Chairman, the only legislation devised to help our national railways at this time, is this appointment of five new directors.
You may be assured that I am not prepared to endorse this legislation; to me it is completely futile. It can only increase government expenditures without bringing in anything in return.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, I shall vote against the bill.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of rising to discuss this bill. But I was astounded, and even shocked, by the words of the hon. member for Levis when he described this bill as futile.


Maurice Bourget: So it is.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The government's reason for introducing this bill is that it carries out a

recommendation by a committee of the house of members from all political parties, one of whom, notably, was the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson). The hon. member for Levis is therefore being inconsiderate of his colleague for Kenora-Rainy River, who recommended amending the act by enlarging the company's board of directors.
The hon. member for Levis said that the employees' morale was low. Mr. Gordon may be able, but if employee morale is low at this time, it is because Mr. Gordon shows no understanding for his employees.
There is a curtain of steel between Mr. Gordon and the employees of the Canadian National Railways.
As far as I am concerned, I approve the bill, hoping that enlarging the board of directors will help shelving Mr. Gordon and give new hope to the railway employees.
The hon. member for Laurier said yesterday:
The deficit of Canadian National Railways this year is probably one of the highest in its history.
And he continued along the same lines.
In fact, the C.N.R. is feeling increasing competition, mainly from highway transport operators.
I have here a statement from the present president of the C.N.R.
C.N.R. president Donald Gordon expects that his company may lose some $9 million in the first years of competition from the St. Lawrence seaway.
Mr. Gordon has stated before the House of Commons railway committee that the company expects a portion of its traffic estimated at $18 million to be directly exposed to competition from the seaway, and another portion estimated at $12 million to be also be affected.
According to Mr. Gordon, the C.N.R.'s deficit is due to the competition from the seaway.
Those are the remarks I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to use much of the time of this house, but because of the present position of the C.N.R. and the government's decision to introduce legislation to increase the number of its directors from seven to 12, I must say a few words.
This increase in the number of board members, believe me, Mr. Chairman, will not remedy the ills of the C.N.R.
In my opinion, it is of minor importance that we should have seven, 12 or 20 directors. The important thing is to see that the management is improved.
Canadian National Railways Act
I am one of those who thinks that railway management, not only the C.N.R. but also the C.P.R., has been pitiful for many years.
First of all, they allowed a very important field of operations to fall into the hands of other organizations without thinking of developing it themselves.
I recall that in 1936, talking to one of the C.P.R.'s vice chairmen, I pointed out that his company was losing its secondary line services to bus companies, and its freight traffic to highway transport companies because his company had not seen fit to develop those services itself.
Do you know what the company's vice chairman replied to me, in 1936? He said:
(Text):
It is only a passing fancy.
(Translation):
Well, this "passing fancy" is the cause of the present loss of revenues of our railways.
Therefore, no matter how many or few directors we have on the C.N.R., this legislation will not bring any significant change.
We know that when it comes to choosing directors, a private company like the C.P.R., for instance, will pick men who are financially interested, who are interested in getting dividends.
It may go and get the president or general manager of General Motors or Ford Motors, which make a very wide use of railways and other means of transportation for their cars; and other big manufacturers who may also be interested. But in the case of the C.N.R., those directors merely become civil servants like the others; they are getting no particular benefits, except seeing their names prominently displayed in government reports.
Well, I do not think this is enough. First of all, the C.N.R. services have to be improved.
In December, I travelled to Boston, and I must tell you I have never seen such poor service as the one between Montreal and Boston via the C.N.R. Frankly, it was disgusting, and I understand why people prefer a longer trip via some other line rather than go there via the C.N.R.
Let us therefore start by improving what we already have. As I said just now the number of directors is not so important. I do think, as the hon. member for Levis said a moment ago, that this legislation is more intended to create soft berths for party supporters as was done, incidentally, for the

Canadian National Railways Act defeated candidate in Russell who was given a very important position just to keep him out of the way at the next general election.
If this is how it is proposed to improve the C.N.R., it is a mistake. The number of directors is not important, I repeat, but, as the hon. member for Levis said, if that money were offered to the research department of the C.N.R. to determine the cause of the evil, C.N.R. officials could take the necessary steps to improve the situation, and that would be practical and serious. It would be much wiser than to increase the number of board directors from seven to 12, which I consider useless, because they are merely civil servants having no authority to work, with parliament always keeping an eye on them, something they do not like at all.
If they could get something out of it, like directors of the C.P.R., who are shareholders and who receive dividends, we could then hope that 10, 12 or even 20 directors would improve the situation.
But what good will result from adding new directors who have no particular interest in the company? I think this would entail a useless expense which will bring no profit, but rather an additional deficit, to the C.N.R., and that will not help the railway workers either.
These last few years, the company appointed many superintendents and, at the same time, has cut down substantially on the number of its employees. This service should be reorganized, for not only is the public questioning the efficiency of the C.N.R. management but employees too no longer have confidence in the management. You might claim that some of the directors were appointed under a Liberal government. That is not the point. When there is something bad somewhere, I am not afraid to say so and even to admit as much. I say there is something wrong in that field, and it is not by increasing the number of directors that we are going to set things straight. It is a matter of finding the appropriate means of improving the whole system of transport in all its forms. I for one would say that the best way would be to provide the research department with more money, so that it can seek a way out of the present difficulties, and not to appoint 12 directors as suggested by the minister.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver South.


An hon. Member:: Again?


Ernest James Broome: Yes, again. Mr. Speaker, before I answer some of the statements made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) I should like to say this to the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) who stated so emphatically that he tried to find one argument for increasing the number of directors but could not find one valid one. If he would compare the operating statements of the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. over the past few years, he might find a few arguments. He might find an argument in the fact that the C.N.R. deficits over 1960 and 1959 were $110 million which were paid for by the taxpayers whereas in the same two years the C.P.R. contributed $53 million in the form of corporation tax payments. If you have a business operation and are not too successful and if you have very successful competitors, the wise businessman takes a look at the practice of his competitors and is not afraid to copy any of the practices which he feels may be of advantage to him.
Turning to the hon. member for Laurier, may I say that there are several matters I wish to discuss with him. I should like to quote from page 4844 of Hansard with regard to what he had to say about representation geographically on the board of directors. This is the way in which he starts out:
There is, of course, another very serious matter to which consideration must be given and that is territorial representation. That question is inevitably going to arise if the directorship is increased. This question is going to arise if the number of directors is such that there is likely to be more than one representative for each province, and that is, of course, what is going to happen here. Twelve directors will mean that there will be more than one director for each province. When there is one director from each province it seems to me that unquestionably there is a solemn duty to represent the interest of that province without, of course, neglecting the national interest. If there are two from a province you may well find that sectional divisions will arise.
Then the hon. member goes on to say this:
Then there is the question of the representation of the province of Quebec if there are 12 directors. With 12 directors it will be expected that the province of Quebec will be accorded equitable representation having regard to its population. If it does not get such representation I need hardly tell the minister that he will hear about it in due course because he has repeatedly stated that the C.N.R. was not fair and just to his province. I am not going to put on the record the statement he has made. I have used it before and I do not think this is the opportune time to repeat it.
Then the hon. member goes on to say in the next paragraph:
It seems to me that the directors ought to be appointed from the point of view of their competence rather than from the point of view of geographical and political interests.
You get these statements coming from both sides of the mouth of the hon. member for

Laurier. If he wishes to quote his espousal of the interests of the provinces, he has one paragraph. If he wishes to say what a broadminded gentleman he is, looking only for the best men to do the best job, he has another paragraph. All through this speech we can find this double talk. The hon. member can see that this is so, if he looks at the record.
The hon. member accused me of wanting narrow, regional representation, whereas my plea was for broad, regional representation very much along the lines that we have at the present time. However, I think we should have a larger representation from Ontario and Quebec simply because those directors could get together more often and more easily, and this board of directors must be a functioning and working board.
Then the hon. member for Laurier suggested that I was advocating political interference. He quoted from page 4848 of Hansard to substantiate that charge. This is just as much misrepresentation on his part as he accused me of last night.
We were told in the committee, coming back to the setting up of this company, that it was not for politicians or members of parliament to put their noses into the business of this company, that this was part of the function of the management and we were simply there to receive the report of the management on the way the railway had been operated.
The hon. member for Laurier says this means I want political interference. For the hon. member's information, it means that I want the sessional committee to have the power to get straight answers to questions put by members of the committee, rather than having the president of the company hiding behind the fact that this information is not in the public interest, or it is before a royal commission, or any of the numberless excuses we were given in place of the information we sought.
This paragraph has to do with the securing of information from the railroad when its representatives are appearing before the committee. The hon. member was not of too much assistance in trying to dig out this information.
When I say we were also treated to a dissertation by the hon. member for Laurier on how the Canadian National Railways was set up, this is in essence true but it is not true in context. What I meant and what I should have said was that this lecture was given to us in committee by Mr. Gordon more or less on the prompting of the hon. member for Laurier.
The hon. member recalled to Mr. Gordon how the C.N.R. had been set up and how it
16, 1961
Canadian National Railways Act was not responsible to parliament but reported to parliament through the minister. Mr. Gordon very kindly put on the record all the statements of Mr. King and others at the time the C.N.R. was set up. I am speaking strictly from memory, but I am quite sure that essentially I am correct in what I am saying about the happenings in that committee meeting.
The hon. member for Laurier, as reported at page 4843 of Hansard, stated categorically:
We on this side of the house will oppose this legislation.
I venture to guess, Mr. Speaker, that there has been no Liberal caucus on this legislation and that the hon. member for Laurier is talking for the hon. member for Laurier and not for all his colleagues on that side of this house. I can assure the hon. member that I know many of his colleagues who hold the same views on this question as hon. members on this side of the house. At least one of them is on record three or four times as saying that this is a good move.
When the hon. member said I misrepresented what he said last night and referred to it again today, he quoted the following paragraph from page 4844 of Hansard.
The deficit of Canadian National Railways this year is probably one of the highest in its history. The estimate given for 1961 is not too encouraging.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1 quoted that paragraph from the beginning down to the end.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware of the fact that the hon. member did so. I was going to quote just as far as I had it marked here.


Lionel Chevrier: I understood the hon. member to say I did not quote it.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that; I said the hon. member quoted this passage.


Lionel Chevrier: I beg the hon. member's pardon.


Ernest James Broome: The hon. member for Laurier quoted this paragraph first. Then he quoted the paragraph which is immediately above it. The paragraph immediately above is the one I was referring to and it starts this way:
There has also been a fairly substantial reorganization of the various districts of Canadian National Railways recently. I am told this is in an effort to curtail expenditure, a move, incidentally, which is extremely unpopular with the men and with the public.
It was from this statement, which says that any efforts to curtail expenditure are unpopular with the public, that I drew the
4908	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways Act inference that the hon. member wanted larger and larger expenditures and therefore larger and larger deficits. What he said is quite clear; he said this is unpopular with the public, meaning the public of Canada. I do not understand how the hon. member for Laurier can say that I misrepresented what he said, because it is clear, although in the typical fashion of the hon. member for Laurier he leaves himself a bolt-hole in the next paragraph, in the same manner as he did with regard to the other question.
I should like to put on record a few comparisons. The hon. member for Laurier says there is no point in making comparisons with the C.P.R. because the C.N.R. is a crown company. The fact that they are both railroads and are both engaged in almost identical operations does not seem to have any bearing on the matter. The hon. member felt that the C.N.R., because its number of employees had been reduced, did not need additional directors in order to increase efficiency or improve over-all management. In fact, the inference was-although this was not said-that because the number of employees had been reduced, therefore the number of directors might well be reduced.
There is a chart in the annual report of the C.N.R. which gives the figure of employees of all services. One has to interpolate on this chart, Mr. Speaker, because these figures are not exact. However, the number of employees in all services of the C.N.R. is 97,000; for the C.P.R. the figure is 74,000. The mileage operated by the C.N.R. is 26,000, and for the C.P.R. it is 17,000. The number of directors for the C.N.R. is seven, and for the C.P.R. it is 24. But the C.N.R. has a very fine record in regard to the number of vice presidents. They certainly come up well there, because they have 17 vice presidents as compared with 12 on the C.P.R.
The total number of officers in the C.N.R. is very fine too. They may not have many directors, but they have 28 officers on the C.N.R. as compared with 19 on the C.P.R. I also wish to put on record the deficit position of the C.N.R. and the surplus position of the C.P.R.
All these things would, I think, lead any reasonable person to assume that there is something wrong with the operation of the C.N.R. I should like to make one suggestion to the minister, and it is not referred to in this bill I would ask the minister to ensure that, by regulation or however it may be done, the executive committee of the C.N.R. become a functioning committee and a real executive committee.
I say this because at the present time the executive committee of the C.N.R. consists of


two directors and the president. They meet monthly, as I understand it, in order to ratify the acts of the president. However, it is not necessary that the same two directors be picked by the president each month to ratify his actions. The president may pick any director any month. The executive committee is not set up as a working committee of the board of directors, or so I have been given to understand following questions asked in the sessional committee. The president appoints the executive committee, and that is the point I was trying to make when I said the C.N.R., set up to have all the advantages of free enterprise, operates with none of the disadvantages. It is impossible to call the head of the railroad to account for the operation of the affairs of the railroad. That accounting is made to a hand picked group appointed by the president himself to ratify his actions, and this is the so-called executive committee.
If we refer to the C.P.R.-and I think it might be well to follow the lines of a successful operation-we find that the executive committee consists of seven directors who are named in the annual statement. It is they who ratify the acts and the decisions of the officers of the company. This makes sense. The other system under which the C.N.R. is operating certainly does not make sense. I do not know whether this should be written into the bill or how it would be undertaken, but I certainly believe that something should be done to set up a proper, functioning executive committee of the board of directors.
I think I have now made the contribution which I set out to make to this debate. I believe this is a good measure, and I am sure that hon. gentleman on the other side also believe it is a good measure. In my opinion it will do much to restore the confidence of the public and the confidence of many individual members of parliament in the operations of the C.N.R.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had not intended to take part in this debate, but some of the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver South need to be dealt with, and dealt with in serious fashion. The hon. member has advanced one reason why we should be in favour of this bill, and I think that reason should be given somewhat more emphasis than he placed upon it. He said we should appoint five more directors to the board of the C.N.R. in order to end the deficit. That is what he said. Look at the C.P.R., he said. They have 24 directors and they pay income tax; the C.N.R. has only seven and it has a deficit. So we should take a lesson from the C.P.R., and by increasing the number of directors there will no longer be a deficit.

I suggest there are more fundamental reasons why the C.N.R. has a deficit. I consider the fact that this argument, though so infantile, is the only argument which has been advanced so far in favour of this bill, shows what a threadbare thing this measure
is.	It is for that reason we are opposed to
it.	The hon. gentleman got excited about the suggestion by the hon. member for Laurier that if there were 12 directors the .government would still have to pay attention to territorial representation. I was amused last night when no sooner had the hon. gentleman sat down than his colleague from Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner) and then, as soon as he could speak afterwards, his colleague from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) rose to say how important it was to have a director from Alberta. So that even though the high minded member from Vancouver South said British Columbia does not need a director he finds his colleagues from Alberta rising at once to say that if there are to be any more directors we should have one from Alberta.


An hon. Member:: That would be a good thing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It may or may not be.
I would imagine that the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) would support his colleagues from Alberta and would not support the hon. gentleman from Vancouver South. The fact of the matter is that those of us such as my hon. friend from Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) who have had some experience with government know very well that when you establish a board of this kind, particularly to administer an operation which is carried on in every province, if you have 12 directors and do not have a director from every province you are in deep political trouble. Indeed, hon. members opposite campaigned very vigorously not so long ago against us because, they said, we did not have a minister from Prince Edward Island. They were going to change all that. Do hon. gentlemen opposite suppose, considering how much the C.N.R. means to Prince Edward Island, that this government would dare to ignore Prince Edward Island when they have 12 directors to appoint? As a matter of fact I should not be a bit surprised if the defeated candidate in King's after May 29 should become one of those 12 directors.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is probably a better reason for bringing in this bill, from the
16, 1961
Canadian National Railways Act point of view of hon. gentlemen opposite, than any reason they have advanced up to now. It may be that notwithstanding the self-denying ordinance of the hon. member for Vancouver South the defeated candidate in Esquimalt-Saanich will qualify as a director from British Columbia and it may be that the defeated candidate in Leeds will be a director-


Ernest James Broome: On a point of order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is deliberately misrepresenting what I have said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not a point of order.


Ernest James Broome: He is saying I have said things I have not said and I want to have the opportunity of pointing out-
The Depuly Speaker: The hon. member may rise after the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has resumed his seat to correct any misrepresentation about which he complains.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not want to misinterpret the hon. member and I think it would be more fair to him, if I have said anything which misrepresents him, to allow him to correct it at once.


Ernest James Broome: The hon. gentleman said the hon. member for Vancouver South said that British Columbia does not need a director on the C.N.R. I did not say one was needed or not needed. I never even mentioned it. Second, he said that I said that adding five directors to the C.N.R. would automatically lead to the cancellation of the deficit. This is sheer childish nonsense and it was not said by me either directly or in any manner.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Lionel Chevrier: No. My hon. friend allowed him to reply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member is right. He did not say there should not be a director from British Columbia. What he did say was that no attention should be paid to geography that we should appoint the best men wherever they are available. That is what he said, but it is not what his colleagues from Alberta said. As far as the other matter is concerned, I think the record will speak for itself.
I am advised that it is five o'clock. I shall have something more to say.


The Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to say that it being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Before you leave the chair, may I announce for the convenience of the

Private Bills
house, and to accommodate a number of members on both sides who have various engagements tonight, that at 7.30 we shall carry on with the resolution stage of the War Veterans Allowance Act. Consideration of this bill will be resumed tomorrow.


Lionel Chevrier: Do I understand the leader of the house to say that tomorrow we shall continue with this bill in lieu of estimates?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. We shall complete the bill and then deal with estimates if that is satisfactory.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We only sit until one o'clock tomorrow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: 1 imagine that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has not much more to say on the bill. Afterwards the minister would reply and we would complete the bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Then we would go into committee. Is it the intention to deal with this bill in committee of the whole? As far as we are concerned, there is no objection to the procedure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is convenient for the minister. If it is convenient for the other side of the house, that would be the arrangement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not very convenient for me to have my speech cut in two in this fashion. If hon. gentlemen find it more convenient I have no doubt I will be able to pick up the thread later on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate moves the adjournment of the debate?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is correct.
On motion of Mr. Pickersgill, the debate was adjourned.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-12, respecting Co-operative Life Insurance Company-Mr. Pascoe (for Mr. Ormiston)-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Voting.
Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Winch:: I have not a copy of the bill.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I was interested to note today something to which I think we should give consideration. I raise it now but I am not sure whether I should raise it as a point of order or in speaking on the bill itself. You will notice, Mr. Chairman, that this is a Senate bill. I have checked the
committee hearings of the Senate and I have found that there is no report of the committee meetings of the Senate.
When a bill originates in the Senate the normal procedure is for them to give their whole consideration to it. People are brought before the committee of the Senate and questions are asked. A great deal of information is made available. That information should be made available to us.
In checking over the records of our own banking and commerce committee, which dealt with this bill, I find that no record was made of discussion of the bill in that committee. Therefore, this committee has not the advantage of the information that is normally given to hon. members and hence we have no way of knowing the reasons why objections were made to this bill. I raise this question particularly because our order paper indicates that the bill was amended in committee. We have no report of the discussion that took place on the amendment or what led up to the amendment. I will be surprised if there was any discussion of the amendment itself.
It seems to me that when a bill originates in the other place we should have the advantage of securing the evidence made available to the Senate itself. When a bill is introduced in the House of Commons and is sent to the banking and commerce committee the normal procedure is to have a record made of the minutes and proceedings, and those who are not members of that committee have the minutes and proceedings made available to them. In this instance there were two opportunities for this to have happened. First, when the bill went before the committee of the other place, and second when it went to our committee. No record of the proceedings of either place is available. This is something that should not be allowed to happen. I would suggest that this bill stand until records are available of the discussion and why the amendment was made. There is another reason why this bill should stand at the present time. I presume the sponsor is the only one who would be in a position to give us the information we may want, but he is not in the house at the present time. This would be an added reason why the bill should not be proceeded with now.
I strongly urge the committee to give consideration to this matter of not keeping records. It has happened in the past. This is my first experience of a bill going through committees of both houses and no record being kept of the information made available to hon. members who are not members of
[Mr. Churchill.l

those committees. This lack of information makes it difficult for us to come to a decision on the bill or on the amendment to the bill.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps before you make a ruling on the argument of the hon. member for Timiskaming I may be permitted to briefly outline the background of the bill. I am surprised to find the C.C.F. group opposing a co-operative bill at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, I must-


William Arnold Peters: I have not opposed the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, the hon. member-


Henry Frank Jones: The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre is speaking to the point of order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then, on a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Morton):: Order. Is the hon. member speaking to the point of order, or is he rising on another point of order?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am rising on a question of privilege affecting all the members of this group. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre has said that members of the C.C.F. group are opposing this bill. The statement is false and inaccurate and I ask him to withdraw it.


James Ernest Pascoe: I was dealing with the suggestion that the bill be put over for one day. It is a simple bill that could go through quite easily if I were allowed to give some of the background.


Hazen Robert Argue: It will be just as good if it is called next day.


Mr. Smith (Simcoe North):: Under certain circumstances I might agree with what the hon. member for Timiskaming has said and, indeed, in committees, particularly committees dealing with pipe lines and other corporations which come to parliament and make promises I have raised the same point; but the point dealt with in this bill is so narrow and so technical I do not think there is any valid point of order or valid reason for delaying its passage.


Mr. Regier:: What is your point of order?


Heber Edgar Smith: I am on it. It is
not a valid reason for delaying the bill to say there is no transcript of the proceedings.
Private Bills


Erhart Regier: The hon. member is making a speech.


Heber Edgar Smith: No, I am dealing with the point of order. The point of order was that there ought to be a transcript of the evidence in committee. I am suggesting the reason why a transcript of the evidence in committee would not put us any farther ahead. The explanatory note of the bill is so complete and the point is so narrow there is nothing to be gained by putting it over or having a transcript.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Chairman, Bill No. S-12 provides for an amendment to the act of incorporation of the Co-operative Life Insurance Company with head office in Regina, Saskatchewan.
Perhaps I can give the committee a brief history of its passage through the other place. First reading was given in the other place on February 9 and second reading on February 15. It was considered by the banking and commerce committee of the other place and reported without amendment on March 22, 1961. It passed third reading the next day. There are only two proposed changes and these are being made for the purpose of assuring policyholder members throughout Canada that control of the company will not be centralized in Saskatchewan and in particular at head office.
It might be of some interest and in order to give a brief outline of the history of the company. The Co-Operative Life Insurance Company was originally incorporated in 1945 as a co-operative company under the co-operative section of the Saskatchewan insurance act and almost immediately thereafter commenced to sell life insurance. In 1946 a petition was submitted to the government in Ottawa to obtain a dominion charter. The Co-Operative Life has operated since 1947-


William Arnold Peters: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I inquire from what document the hon. member is quoting?


James Ernest Pascoe: It is a letter from the attorney representing the Co-Operative Life Insurance Company.


Hazen Robert Argue: What is his name?


James Ernest Pascoe: November 1, 1957.


Hazen Robert Argue: Who is he?


James Ernest Pascoe: The late R. H. Milliken. The Co-Operative Life has operated since 1947 under its present dominion charter and has agents writing insurance in all Canadian provinces with the exception of Quebec. In effect, under clause 1 precautions are written into the act to prevent employees of the company from exercising proxies of other policyholders and thus to prevent the control

Private Bills
of the company from falling into the hands of head office personnel. I think this is very clearly set out in the new section 4 (1) under clause 1 of the bill. Clause 2 of the bill would add a new section 4A to the above-mentioned statute. Its purpose is to prevent the control of the company from being concentrated in any one designated region. This will bring control of the operations of the company in line with a procedure that is followed by most of the co-operatives in western Canada, namely, the procedure of delegate voting. Delegates will be elected annually from each of the six electoral districts set up as follows: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the Atlantic provinces including Newfoundland.
Bill No. S-12 was considered at a meeting of the standing committee of banking and commerce of the house on April 19. At that committee meeting the superintendent of insurance indicated that he was not opposed to the proposed changes. As you will note from today's Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day, the house's standing committee on banking and commerce made one slight amendment and that is noted on page 11 of Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day by the words "as amended''. Perhaps I might be allowed to outline this brief amendment. The new section 4A, clause 2 of the bill, reads as follows:
(1)	Each director shall be elected from a designated region in Canada and, to remain qualified, shall during office be ordinarily resident in such region: Provided-
Here is the amendment:
-that at least one director shall be elected from each designated region and-
Then the clause continues as follows:
-that a director shall not be disqualified under this section while he is removed from such region in the service of the company.
I think that explains the bill fully, Mr. Chairman.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member a question. Would he inform the committee whether he is a member of this company?


James Ernest Pascoe: No, I am not.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then I want to raise violent objection-


An hon. Member:: Why?


Hazen Robert Argue: -to the accusation of the hon. member that those of us in this group were trying to block this measure because on inquiry I find that a number of members of the C.C.F. group in the House of Commons are policyholders and members of this cooperative. I am a policyholder myself. I hold a policy with this company and it costs me

a little money. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is a member of the company as is the hon. member for Timiskaming. So I would imagine it would hardly make any sense for a man who has not supported this company by becoming a policyholder to accuse those of us who are policyholders and members of the company of trying to obstruct a measure in which we have a very definite and substantial interest.
We have shown that we are genuine supporters of the co-operative movement and of this life insurance company by doing the very practical thing of taking out a policy or a number of policies. I think this is one of the best companies in the life insurance business. I would say it is the best but I do not want to get into a long argument.


Mr. O'Hurley:: Don't spoil it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am sure the company would accept applications from Conservative members also. They are not particularly fussy about those they accept as policyholders.


Mr. Rapp:: There are some Conservatives who are members of the company.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am glad to hear the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort, who wants to be the member for Humboldt-Tisdale-Melfort, say that. I am going to have something to say about that matter too when it comes up, and I want to assure him I have other amendments to suggest that might very properly be incorporated in the title of the constituency to make it more representative of the area that the hon. member represents. Since he has made this very important interjection, I would be very interested in knowing whether he is a member of this company.


Reynold Rapp: I am.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am glad to hear that. He has also said that a number of his colleagues are members of this company. We would like to have that information too. I think it would be very interesting for the committee to know to what extent Conservative members of the House of Commons are members of this company.


Henry Frank Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are discussing a bill respecting the Co-Operative Life Insurance Company.


William Arnold Peters: Are you a member too?


Henry Frank Jones: I should like to be allowed to speak. I have risen on a point of order and I should like to have the opportunity to make my remarks. In dealing with a matter like this, I do not think it is necessary to have violent and wild interjections by members from their seats. On the point of order, I think the hon. member for Assiniboia has

strayed far from the purpose of the bill. As set forth in the explanatory notes, the proposed changes are designed to prevent employees of the company from exercising the proxies of other members and thus to prevent the control of the company from falling into the hands of head office personnel. That is a simple point and one that I think is easily understood. It is one that I hope all hon. members will be able to support, but surely, Mr. Chairman, in discussing this matter we can remain close to the actual bill itself.


Harold Edward Winch: Could I ask the hon. member a question? Will he agree to the same amendment being made to the acts of all life insurance companies in Canada?


Murray Douglas Morton: I thank the hon. member for raising the point of order as I was beginning to feel that we were getting away from the bill at hand and into the question of who are members of this cooperative. I was also watching section 66 (1) very closely with respect to interest in the association. I would suggest that if the hon. member continues he direct himself to points in the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since you have raised the question, Mr. Chairman, whether we have some financial interest in this particular measure your comments on that point will be most interesting and informative. I want to tell the hon. member for Saskatoon that, contrary to his suggestion, I think I was very much in order because I was demonstrating in a very practical way, I believe-


Henry Frank Jones: That has already been ruled on by the Chair.


Hazen Robert Argue: -why members of this group are very much in favour of the bill and how ludicrous it is for the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre to suggest that we might be opposing this co-operative of which we are members and of which he is such a lukewarm admirer that he has not even taken the trouble to become a member. I am rather amazed that a man who professes to be a supporter of the co-operative movement would make this confession in the house.


Murray Douglas Morton: I would suggest to both sides that we return to a discussion of the points in the bill. I think the hon. member for Assiniboia has sufficiently explained his point.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to get a clarification of a point which you raised, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe I have seen a bill of this nature before the house. I cannot remember having had this point arise before. The members of this group have said that they are keenly interested in the principle
Private Bills
of this measure. The hon. member for Assiniboia, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Timis-kaming have indicated that they hold policies in this company. This is an act which relates to a co-operative life insurance company.
I am going to ask you now, sir, to come to a decision on a certain point. I think you will agree that these hon. members have a right to speak on the measure but, in view of what you have just said, I am asking you to come to a decision on whether or not they have a right to vote on this particular bill. I should like to have your decision on that now.


Murray Douglas Morton: I would refer the hon. member to standing order No. 11 which reads:
No member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any member so interested will be disallowed.
There is no question of a vote at the moment, so I do not think I am called upon to make that decision. There is nothing in this standing order which prevents the hon. members from expressing their point of view during the debate.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but this is a very important matter which you, yourself, raised. Does the fact that a member of the House of Commons owns a life insurance policy in a co-operative life insurance company make him a shareholder in that company and, therefore, ineligible to vote? I am going to go beyond that because I happen to hold a policy in the North American Life Assurance Company, which is a federated life company, and does that mean I cannot vote in matters affecting federation life? I am sorry, sir, that you are really on the spot now, but this is a matter of principle and has to be answered.


Hazen Robert Argue: Before you make your ruling sir-


Henry Frank Jones: May I speak to the point of order-


Murray Douglas Morton: May
I have one at a time?


Hazen Robert Argue: Before you make your ruling Mr. Chairman, may I point out that I feel it would be very much in order for the hon. member for Vancouver East to vote on a bill related to North American Life Assurance Company because all that company will do is take his money. Those of us who are fortunate enough to belong to this company may some day receive some patronage dividends. We might, therefore, have a tiny financial interest in the bill.

Private Bills
I would point out to you on the point of order that the measure before us relates to employees of the company and proxy voting.
I do not believe it has anything to do with financial returns to policyholders.


Henry Frank Jones: I do not want to delay the passage of this measure at all, but in so far as the point of order is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe you are called upon to make a decision. The particular bill that is before us does not affect any pecuniary interest of members. I, myself, am a member of this co-operative life insurance company, and have been for many years, just as many Conservative members are.
I might say that I do regret, however, the attempt of the C.C.F. to drag politics into the co-operative movement. One of the principles of the co-operative movement is that there should be no politics in it and that has been a basic principle of the co-operative movement since the days of the Rochdale pioneers. I should like to remind the C.C.F. members of that principle in order that they may stop dragging politics into this movement and let us get on with the discussion of the bill.


Murray Douglas Morton: The
point of order has been dealt with sufficiently. There is no vote before the Chair so anything I might say on the question at this moment would be obiter. I would ask the committee to get back to a discussion of clause 1 of the bill.


Erhart Regier: I want to register a complaint. I spent all afternoon attempting to find out what arguments had been advanced in the banking and commerce committee. 1, personally, placed about 18 phone calls and my secretary placed at least another 18 phone calls. I was, at long last, advised that there had been no verbatim record of the proceedings of that meeting which was held, I believe, on April 19 when the banking and commerce committee had this bill under consideration.
I phoned my national leader's office.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not me.


Erhart Regier: I did not phone him, but I phoned his executive. They looked up the records. After all, my office might have failed, so I phoned up the office of the hon. member for Vancouver East; then the hon. member for Timiskaming; then, the hon. member for Timmins and the offices of other members. I had heard that there had been some controversy in the meeting of the banking and commerce committee. I have been unable to read about that controversy. I feel this is a very sad reflection.

We have before us an amending bill, and I approve of the amendment. However, I should like to know what the contributions of the members of this house were. I should like to know what their thinking was in relation to these amendments. I was unable to discover this. Only a few minutes before five o'clock, I was advised that there had been no record made of what was said in the committee meeting. I should like to register my protest. I do not know whether or not the head of the committee is here at the moment because I cannot see that far.


Heber Edgar Smith: That's easily understood.


Erhart Regier: You may agree and may not understand. I hope the hon. member who made that interjection will never have any of the physical difficulties that I have, and that he will always be able to see beyond the Tory party. I hope he will always be able to see all sections of this chamber. However, he decided to have for himself some fun, and he had it.
Mr. Pallet!: He was referring to political myopia, not otherwise.


Erhart Regier: The head of the committee is absent as far as I know. The sponsor of the bill is absent as far as I know. I should like to reprimand the company for asking to sponsor their bill a man who is absent at the time the bill is up for consideration in this committee. I regret very much that I am uninformed at this time as to what the objections were or as to what the considerations were at the time the committee met. I believe that the House of Commons is ill informed on this bill. I therefore move;
That the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Heber Edgar Smith: I rise on a question of privilege-


Erhart Regier: The motion is not debatable.


Heber Edgar Smith: I am rising on a matter of privilege.


Erhart Regier: This motion is not debatable and there is no question of privilege.


Murray Douglas Morton: The motion is not in writing.


Heber Edgar Smith: On a question of privilege, may I say this. I had no intention of alluding to the physical condition or infirmity of the hon. member speaking. I understood that the hon. member for As-siniboia had been present during all the committee hearings on this bill and therefore felt that the group in that particular corner of the chamber ought to have known what the

bill was about. However, I certainly would not make any allusion to the physical condition or infirmity of the hon. member speaking.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask a question, Mr. Chairman, but it is not on the bill itself. Will you be kind enough to advise the committee on the point you raised a little while ago? Will you be kind enough to inform the committee whether it is your decision, as indicated by what you said a little while ago, that a person who is a member of the House of Commons speaking here this afternoon cannot vote on this bill because he is a policyholder of the Co-operative Life Insurance Company? You made a definite statement a little while ago, Mr. Chairman. I should like you to make clear whether you feel that anyone who is a policyholder of this company does not have the right to vote on this bill in committee. I hope you will explain that statement and your reasons therefor.


Mr.   Morion@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I have before me a motion that the committee rise and ask leave to sit again.


Harold Edward Winch: I thought you said, Mr. Chairman, that you did not have it in writing.


Murray Douglas Morton: I now
have it in writing.
Motion (Mr. Regier) negatived: Yeas, 6; nays, 33.


Harold Edward Winch: Now that we are considering in committee an act respecting an insurance company, may I now repeat my question to you, in view of what you said about half an hour ago. What is your decision as to the right of a person who holds a policy in the Co-operative Life Insurance Company and who is a member of the House of Commons, to have a vote in committee on this bill? This is rather an important matter. It is one which can have very serious implications and repercussions. Every year we have before us a number of bills relating to insurance companies, many of which, unlike the North American Life or the Confederation Life, are mutual companies. In view of what you said a few moments ago-and I hope you have given some thought to the matter-will you now tell us your decision?


Murray Douglas Morton: I must rule that the hon. member's point is not in order at the present time because no vote is being taken. Until a vote has been taken and an hon. member's position is questioned, I feel it would be a purely arbitrary expression of opinion from the Chair. I therefore rule that matter is not before the Chair at the moment. I would ask that we get back to consideration of clause 1 of the bill.
Private Bills


Harold Edward Winch: Then I challenge your decision.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, no.


Harold Edward Winch: Do you mean you have to wait until a member votes and then decide whether or not it is in order?
The Aciing Chairman (Mr. Morion): I will refer the hon. member to Beauchesne's parliamentary rules and forms, fourth edition, citation 66 (2) which reads as follows:
(2)	A member's right to vote on a question in which he is personally interested is one of those matters that must be decided by the house and not by the Speaker.
That being so, I will leave the matter at that.


Hazen Robert Argue: How do you proceed?
The Aciing Chairman (Mr. Morion): If any
hon. member's right to vote is questioned, it is a matter for decision.


Mr. Brunsden:: There are many ways of wasting time in the House of Commons.


Hazen Robert Argue: You should know; you are the best waster of time I know of.


Edwin William Brunsden: Thank you.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are always interrupting, always on your feet.


Edwin William Brunsden: There are many ways of wasting time in the House of Commons. To me this discussion is another time waster. We have here a bill which has come to us from the Senate and which asks for a minor change, in my opinion, in the Co-operative Life Insurance Company legislation. Most of us have insurance. Some of us are insured in line life companies as I am and as you, Mr. Chairman, probably are. Some of us are also insured in a co-operative life organization. I resent the suggestion that a person who has a policy under the Co-operative Life Insurance Company plan is denied the right to vote or to have a voice with respect to the policy of the company. It seems to me that we are completely outside of our orbit. We are not discussing the principle of the bill. We are discussing many things other than that. I suggest that this bill No. S-12 should forthwith go to the house and be passed.
The Aciing Chairman (Mr. Morion): Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Erhart Regier: No, Mr. Chairman.
The Aciing Chairman (Mr. Morion): Does the hon. member wish to speak on clause 1?


Erhart Regier: Yes, on clause 1. I am pleased that this Co-operative Life Insurance Company is asking that the right of proxy vote

Private Bills
be discontinued. I heartily endorse this request of theirs. A limited number of months ago I attended a meeting of a co-operative.
I happened to be a director and there was a nomination against me. There were about 100 people in attendance at the meeting and each person had only one vote. However, at the head table there was a vice president and another director. Between the two of them they had roughly 2,000 proxy votes.
I sent a note up to the head table at the board of directors meeting. I must point out that this is an organization almost equal in size to the organization we are now discussing. It has millions of dollars in assets. My note was, "Ought I to decline?" I received a note back, "Very definitely, no".
I knew that the men at the head table holding these proxy votes had all the power in their hands and were able to decide the issue. Very fortunately the board of directors was expanded in order to meet the complaint, and I remained on that board.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question. In his capacity as a member of the board of directors did he receive compensation?


Erhart Regier: I have yet to receive a nickel of compensation from this organization. Be that as it may, I only meant to tell the story as an example of the evils of proxy voting. Here was a board of directors who had this power in their hands. Only two directors asked me to remain on the board of directors. They had in their hands 20 times as many votes as there were people in the whole audience at the annual meeting.
I want at this time to express my pleasure that the Co-operative Life Insurance Company is abolishing this nonsense and this illegitimate business of proxy voting. I feel that if individual corporations abolish the practice of proxy voting it will be healthier for the economy of our country in years to come.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Residence qualification of directors.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say just a few words on this clause and the amending section 4A. We are interested in the report of the committee in relation to clause 2 of this bill, the third line of amending section 4A (1).
The committee agreed to add the words "that at least one director shall be elected from each designated region" immediately after the word "Provided". This is the amendment the committee of the house suggested, and I think it is a very good one.

I think it is a very good policy to have the board of directors elected on a regional basis. Also, section 4A gives consideration to the fact that if directors are appointed from the east or other sections of Canada, though they live in the province of Regina where the head office of the company is located, they will still carry the residence of the province they come from and will continue to represent that province.
I think this is a worth while amendment. It is one that I was interested in, frankly, in the presentations made in the committee, because it would not only affect this company but also other companies that may have an interest in a regional clause similar to that in this particular bill.
Clause 2 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morton):: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting of the house.



AURORA PIPE LINE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 2, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-2, to incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company- Mr. Woolliams-Mr. Morton in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, speaking again on this bill I find myself in a position where I feel that certain facts should be impressed upon hon. members of this committee. I also feel that all hon. members are entitled to make known their thinking before they express their vote "Aye" or "Nay".
I do not believe that individual hon. members have the right to unduly prolong a decision, but I do believe that when there is a matter of principle at stake, as there is in this bill


Edwin William Brunsden: Tell us the principle.


Ernest James Broome: I will come to the principle I am discussing. I will answer the hon. member for Medicine Hat, although the question he asks has been answered on half a dozen different occasions in this committee and on a number of private bills which I have put before this house. The hon. member for Medicine Hat has sat there and listened to the discussions and he should be familiar with the principle by now. The principle is, how shall the resources of this country be developed? This principle is of interest to every hon. member of this committee.


Mr. Marlin (Timmins):: Or should be.


Ernest James Broome: In direct answer to the question put by the hon. member for Medicine Hat I would refer him to a quotation I gave on May 12, 1961 which is reported at page 4745 of Hansard. In that quotation I gave the recommendations of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects as found on page 393.1 shall quote them again particularly for the benefit of the hon. member for Medicine Hat:
We believe Canadians should have more tangible assurance than they now have that the people who are responsible for the management of such foreign-owned concerns will, whenever reasonably possible, make decisions that are in the best interests of Canada; that such concerns in effect become more "Canadian" in outlook. We do not suggest by this the development of a narrow nationalistic outlook; nor that the concerns in question should be restricted in their access to their parent companies and to all the benefits and advantages they obtain as a result. The following specific suggestions respecting desirable objectives for the operations of such foreign-owned concerns would not have these effects; we believe they would be of benefit to all concerned.
(1)	Wherever possible, such concerns should employ Canadians in senior management and technical positions, should retain Canadian engineering and other professional and service personnel and should do their purchasing of supplies, materials and equipment in this country;
(2)	They should publish their financial statements and make full disclosure of the results of their Canadian operations;
(3)	They should include on their boards of directors a number of independent Canadians and they should sell an appreciable interest in their equity stock to Canadians.
In many respects, the company-and I am not referring, now, to Aurora Pipe Lines but to Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas, which is the parent company-does live up to these recommendations, but in one essential, and possibly two, it does not.
I refer to the report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines at page 45 where the witness Mr. Burgis was questioned by the hon. member for Calgary South in regard to the financial structure of the company and the degree of Canadian participation. In answer to the question Mr. Burgis replied as follows:
Yes, we take the point of view that this is a relatively small line and it would be quite usual for an oil company to build it as part of the normal operations. In terms of public financing-
This is the point:
Back in 1957 our directors did offer public participation in the ownership of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas when there was no public clamour for ownership.
I want to emphasize that phrase "when there was no public clamour for ownership."
I did myself address certain questions to the sponsors of the bill and I must in all fairness say that the sponsors have secured all
Private Bills
the information I asked for. If I did not ask all the questions I wanted to ask, that was my fault and not theirs. But I shall refer to an answer which amplifies this statement made by Mr. Burgis. I shall read from Hansard for March 28 at page 3428. This is a letter to the hon. member for Bow River and it reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Woolliams:
With respect to the question raised by Mr. Broome in the debate on March 14 last regarding possible plans to increase the percentage of Canadian participation in the ownership of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited I would advise that the management of the company anticipate a continuing growth in Canadian participation. At the present moment the company does not have any need for additional equity capital to finance its operations and accordingly cannot make any definite prediction as to the timing or possibility of a further issue of treasury shares which could be offered to the Canadian public. However, we believe the past actions of the company in making a distribution of a portion of its capital stock back in 1957 before there was any strong public clamour for such action-
There is that phrase again.
-is the best possible kind of indication of the company's attitude and thinking on this subject.
This indicates the blindness of Mr. Burgis as to what this is all about, because the offer back in 1957 was not made to the Canadian public. It was, in fact, an offering to the shareholders of Continental Oil and to the shareholders of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas. As a matter of fact, in 1957 only 1.7 per cent of the total stock of Hudson's Bay Gas was offered to the Canadian public-offered because that part of the Canadian public happened to have rights in one or other of the Canadian companies. I suggest that the senior personnel of the company who would have a fairly large interest in the company might well represent most of this 1.7 per cent of the stock, or some 278,000 shares.


Edwin William Brunsden: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Ernest James Broome: I am afraid my time is limited-


Edwin William Brunsden: It is only a short one.


Ernest James Broome: No, I will not. I have not much time. Mr. Chairman, would you kindly tell the hon. member for Medicine Hat that I have the floor, and ask him to sit down.
Today, 2.96 per cent of the shares of this company are owned in Canada, because Canadians have purchased shares which were originally sold to Americans. This certainly confounds those people who say Canadians are not willing to invest in the resources of this country. The importance of this company should be realized. It is one of the 15 oil companies which make up the Toronto stock exchange western oils index; in other words

War Veterans Allowance Act it is one of the most important 15 companies in this field in Canada. Yet Canadian participation is only 2.96 per cent, which is what the company offered before there was any great public clamour for shares in this company. This is where Mr. Burgis is completely blind in his interpretation, because 2.96 per cent, and originally 1.7 per cent, does not represent Canadian participation in this company; it does not represent anything which was referred to by the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, or which has been referred to by hon. members who sit on the treasury benches, or which was referred to on May 12 when I put on record in the course of another discussion an address by Mr. Fowler, president of the pulp and paper association; it does not conform to anything which has been found to be proper, it does not conform in fact, to what the United States government itself has used as a criterion of what constitutes a United States company.
I say this because some time ago during the discussion of another bill I referred in this house to the Ilsley commission with respect to war claims where a pattern was followed that had been set up between the United States and Yugoslavia. The government of the latter country nationalized United States firms, and in regard to compensation, the United States set up-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 7.30 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 15, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Churchill-Mr. Flynn in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952, to increase the monthly rates of allowances and permissible income ceilings; to allow for further exemptions in property and income; to modify certain conditions of service eligibility; to allow for administrative and organizational changes within the board and to provide for certain further changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, just before the house rose last night I was making a few remarks with regard to this resolution.

Since I had only about five minutes available there was no chance to deal elaborately with the resolution; consequently I may find it necessary to recapitulate some of the things I said last evening. In the first place I will have to suggest a correction in Hansard at page 4868. In concluding my remarks I am reported to have said:
I do not know of any piece of legislation apart from the Disabled Persons Act which is more acceptable to veterans across Canada.
What I meant to say was, "apart from the Pension Act for disabled pensioners".
The Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act, with which we are now dealing, are the two basic acts which have been placed on the statute books for the assistance of veterans who have fought in Canada's wars.
Of the two acts some people feel that the War Veterans Allowance Act is the better. Others rely on the Pensions Act. I make no choice between the two; I think they are both very valuable. Over the years both have been amended from time to time to bring them up to date in relation to the experience gained in dealing with veterans of the wars.
Our first pension legislation goes back to the time of the Fenian raids and to 1885, after the Northwest Rebellion; but it was not until the conclusion of world war I, in fact not until 1930, that legislation was placed on the statute books dealing with the veteran who was not disabled by wounds. Over the years, from the conclusion of world war I until 1930, veterans organizations across the country, members of parliament of that day and other interested persons kept drawing public attention to the need of the unwounded veteran. Resolutions of committees were put forward, debates were held in the House of Commons and finally in 1930 the government of the day introduced a resolution, followed by a bill which, after consideration by a committee of the House of Commons and with amendments proposed thereto, came back, was passed and became the War Veterans Allowance Act.
It is rather interesting to look back at the debates of 1930 to see the reasons for introducing this type of resolution. If hon. members will examine Hansard for March 4, 1930, when the resolution was discussed, they will see that it was introduced by the Hon. J. H. King, who was minister of pensions and national health. In those days he was responsible for veterans' problems. The resolution that he brought before the house read as follows:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting allowances to war veterans, to provide assistance for certain veterans who are not in receipt of pensions, or who, if in receipt of pensions, are only partially pensionable, or who

are unemployable, and to provide for the administration, amounts, terms and conditions of such allowances, and for the payment of such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the proposed legislation.
After a lengthy debate on the resolution stage and again on second reading the act was put on the statute books but from time to time it has had to be amended and now in 1961, 31 years later, we are suggesting still further amendments to this very valuable act. The basis on which the Hon. J. H. King placed his argument ran somewhat as follows, and I will quote some of his remarks just to give the committee an idea of what was in the minds of the government and members of parliament at that time. Mr. King said, as found at page 248 of Hansard of March 4, 1930:
Mr. Speaker, this will constitute an endeavour on the part of the government to meet an outstanding need in the lives of our veterans, which need has been recognized for some years but not provided for up to the present. I might direct the attention of the committee to the fact that in 1928 the committee on pensions and soldier problems included the following in their return to this house.
These were the committee's suggestions:
Your committee finds that one of the most serious situations confronting the department and the country generally is that relating to the employment and care of ex-members of the forces suffering from disability, broken down or burned out. A number of suggestions have been made to your committee for dealing with such cases. The committee recommends information be gathered which will be of assistance in framing the government's policy. The committee consider this the most serious problem which has arisen in connection with our ex-soldiers.
Then the Hon. J. H. King continued:
Our present pension legislation is specifically designed to compensate veterans whose disabilities are traceable to war service, but it has become increasingly apparent that some provision inevitably must be made to provide for the aged and unemployable veteran whose condition may not be directly traceable, under our present legislation, to war service.
Then he concluded his remarks with this passage:
The legislation which will follow this resolution is the most far-reaching of all veteran legislation so far introduced, in that, for the first time, it recognizes and makes provision for the man who was discharged fit, who is now unemployable, but who has not been found, under our present legislation, to be entitled to pension. In making provision for the non-pensionable man, Canada will be a pioneer in enacting legislation of this character. It will be seen that we propose to pay an allowance to men with front line service, or to pensioners, or former pensioners, no matter where their service, at a stated age, provided they are in necessitous circumstances. It is provided also to pay this allowance to men in this class, irrespective of their age, if they are found to be in necessitous circumstances and permanently unemployable. Reservations have been made as in
War Veterans Allowance Act
the old age pension legislation, restricting the amount receivable from this legislation and other sources combined.
It is not necessary for me to repeat what has been so frequently stated in this house, namely, that many men who rendered splendid service at the front are in need, and have been found nonpensionable. It is equally unnecessary for me to state that the effects of front line service have had a telling effect on the constitution and work expectancy of our veterans, so that many have aged before their time. This legislation provides for an allowance to these men. There is no doubt that in some cases the legislation will benefit men whose physical conditions are not due to their war service, but if we are to err we prefer to do so on the side of generosity toward those who served Canada so generously in their better days.
That, Mr. Chairman, represents the opinion of members of the House of Commons of the year 1930 because others who participated in the debate agreed with the summary presented by the minister at that time and added observations of their own. The experience of the country was that adequate arrangements had not been made through the Pension Act for veterans who had suffered from long service and who had no particular marks or physical disability to show for that service. Yet as the years went by and as the veterans became older the experience they had serving in the trenches began to tell upon them and they suffered accordingly.
The War Veterans Allowance Act established in 1930 has provided over the years for quite a number of individuals. Just to repeat one paragraph that I used last night, may I summarize the matter this way, that during the 30 years the act has been in operation 158,867 veterans and 28,075 widows and orphans have been given assistance and at the present time there are 47,204 veterans on the role and 19,266 dependents. That gives an indication, Mr. Chairman, of the number of people who have benefited from the act over the 30-year period I have mentioned. I have used figures which are shown in the annual report of the department for the fiscal year 1959-1960.
At the commencement of the legislation in the fiscal year 1930-31 there were only 2,219 veterans who came under the War Veterans Allowance Act and benefited therefrom. It was during the later thirties that the number steadily increased and it did not reach the peak, of course, until quite recently due to the fact that the veterans of the first world war are now of an average age of 70 years and a great many of them have reached the stage where they are not able to find employment and they have had recourse to this very valuable piece of legislation.
The act provides for seven classes of people, primarily veterans, of course, but also dependents. They can be considered in seven groups. The first is those who have survived

War Veterans Allowance Act from world war I or the South African war and a few dependents from the Northwest field force of 1885. The veterans there, not dependents, number 33,524. The second group of veterans comprises those from world war II and those who served with the special force in Korea. They number 6,676. Then there is a third class who served in both world war I and world war II, 992 of whom are assisted under this act. Provision has been made for veterans who served with commonwealth and allied forces and who are resident in Canada, 6,012 in number, or a grand total of veterans in these five classes of 47,204. Then, you have two additional classes, widows, who number 19,016, and orphans, who number 250. These veterans are found right across Canada in every province. I have a table here indicating that distribution. I think it is of interest to the committee to have some of this background material placed on the record at this stage. As other members participate in the debate, I hope they will add their observations with regard to the value of the War Veterans Allowance Act and also make their suggestions with regard to areas in which this act may be improved.
Subsequently, if the resolution passes and the bill passes second reading, we will refer the bill to the standing committee on veterans affairs for their detailed study and suggestions. I am sure we are all of the same opinion as the members of the house were in 1930, that this is a non-partisan operation in which we are working solely for the benefit of the veterans of Canada.
The distribution by provinces of the veterans and their dependents who come under the War Veterans Allowance Act is as follows: Newfoundland, 1,540; Prince Edward Island, 858; Nova Scotia, 4,650; New Brunswick, 3,199; Quebec, 7,572; Ontario, 24,316; Manitoba, 5,192; Saskatchewan, 3,015; Alberta, 4,634; British Columbia, 12,707. Each province has its quota of veterans under the War Veterans Allowance Act and in each province the Department of Veterans Affairs has an office operating to give care and attention to these veterans.
In addition, of course, there is the hospital service which is available to our veterans, not only those disability pensioners who are suffering from their wounds but also the veterans who are under the War Veterans Allowance Act. Just in passing, I might mention the fact that there are 11 veterans' hospitals located across Canada in Halifax, Lancaster, Ste. Foy, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Montreal, Toronto, London, Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver, Victoria and, in addition, there are special wings in certain civic hospitals, veterans homes and health and occupational centres. The bed

capacity in the hospitals is 8,450. Patients are admitted at the rate of about 50,000 per year, and some of that number would be people about whom I am talking tonight, people under war veterans allowance.
I referred earlier to the financial obligation that has been incurred. I will not give the 'figures over the years, but in 1955 the financial obligation was approximately $27 million. As a result of changes which have occurred in the act since that time and the increase in the number on war veterans allowance, the financial obligation rose in the fiscal year 1956-57 to $41 million and last year stood at $57 million. The proposal that we are bringing before the house today will increase the financial obligation. In so far as the veterans of earlier wars are concerned, it is a decreasing obligation each year because veterans of the South African war are now in their eighties and some in their nineties. The veterans of the first world war have not a great life expectancy and, as the records indicate, they are passing off our books at the rate of 3,000 per year.


Mr. Herridge:: Do not look at me when you make that statement.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope that the hon. member for Kootenay West continues to persevere and last in this house for a very long time, so long as his constituents think it is advisable he should do so.
There is one problem that has given us concern. It is the fact that during February and March we dealt with amendments to the Pension Act for disability pensioners and we raised pensions by 20 per cent across the board, with 33-J per cent for orphan children who had not been included in an earlier increase. On consideration of the problem, it seemed wise to deal with the War Veterans Allowance Act in the same session if at all possible. The reason is that there are approximately 13,000 disability pensioners who are in the lower brackets, 5 per cent, 10 per cent and 15 per cent, who are also war veterans allowance recipients. Having increased the rates under the Pension Act I knew immediately that was done some pensioners would feel that they had not received much of an increase because if they were on war veterans allowance, the amount of the increase in the pension was correspondingly deducted from the war veterans allowance. In so far as the approximately 13,000 disability pensioners who are on war veterans allowance are concerned, therefore, no increase has resulted. If in a year that the Pension Act is amended the War Veterans Allowance Act is also amended, then both classes of veterans are looked after

and those who are under both acts are certainly given what is intended in the way of increases.
Although the amendment to this act was not forecast in the speech from the throne, it has been possible to bring it forward this session. I am sure that before very long the house will be able to deal fully with the measure and make it possible to pay to the people on war veterans allowance the increases that seem advisable.
The resolution before you, Mr. Chairman, suggests that the measure which will later be brought before the house will result in an increase in the monthly rates of allowances and permissible income ceilings; that it will allow for further exemptions in property and income; that it will modify certain conditions of service eligibility and will make provision for certain administrative and organizational changes within the board. That is the nature of the proposal which we are bringing forward.
Our hope is that these amendments will improve the War Veterans Allowance Act. These amendments will give an increase of income to people on war veterans allowance, will raise the permissible income ceiling, and generally will bring it up to date having regard to present difficulties and living standards. Although I do not think anyone is prepared to state that the war veterans allowance rates are adequate for all the needs of those who are under this act, nevertheless this is in keeping with what has been done in the past. There has been a steady rise in the rates. Then there are these other benefits, such as the hospitalization benefit, which are of considerable advantage to people on war veterans allowance.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sorry but 1 must inform the minister that his time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Jacques Flynn: Has the minister the
unanimous consent of the committee to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was about to conclude my remarks. I think I have perhaps now said enough to indicate to the committee that we treat this War Veterans Allowance Act with the greatest seriousness. It is an important piece of legislation. It came about through joint effort in 1930, preceded by representations from both sides of the house of that day and by representations made over the years by veterans organizations. The Canadian Legion and all other veterans organizations have given close attention to the War Veterans Allowance Act.
90205-6-311
War Veterans Allowance Act At their annual meetings they have put forward resolutions suggesting changes for the better in the War Veterans Allowance Act and from time to time those changes have been incorporated into legislation which has been placed on the statute books. I feel sure that the veterans organizations will continue to make suggestions to us.
As I visit Legion branches and veterans groups I am impressed with the interest which the younger veterans-I refer to the veterans of the second world war and of Korea-show in the care and attention that is being given to the older veterans. Many a younger veteran has spoken to me of his pleasure at the increase in the Pension Act which we made early this spring and his interest in the proposal now on the order paper with regard to the War Veterans Allowance Act. The younger veteran wants to see the older veteran looked after. There is of course a community of interest among veterans. The younger veteran knows that his experiences in wartime were not any more severe than were those of the men who served in South Africa or the first world war; and he, recognizing that fact, wants the older veteran to be looked after. I hope that we can achieve that objective.
As far as the South African veterans are concerned, for example, I hope that not one of those men will suffer in his declining years through any lack of attention on the part of the House of Commons. If there is any field in which we have been negligent in assisting veterans of that period, let us correct the situation. The same thing applies with regard to first world war veterans. Men who have served their country well, who have suffered and who have not had the opportunities after the first world war to establish themselves as satisfactorily as they might have done, through no fault of their own, are the men whom a grateful country should assist. Let us not forget that the first world war veterans, after being demobilized, did not have the privileges which accrued to the second world war veterans in 1945 and subsequent years. The plans had not yet been laid. The country was inexperienced in dealing with a large number of veterans. Then he was struck by the depression of 1922, which is in the very dim and distant past now but which effectively put a number of people out of work, including myself. The veteran of the first world war went through the long drawn out depression of the thirties, the world wide depression which caused such a great diminution of trade and activity. The result was that the first world war veteran, even if he had recovered some of the ground he had lost during his service from 1914 to
4922	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act 1918, was barely established by 1929 or 1930 when disaster fell upon the country.
Then, following that great depression, of course, there was the second world war. Many of our first world war veterans have therefore had the full course in their lifetime. They went through the first world war, the great depression and many of them had the opportunity and willingly assisted in one way or another during the second world war. Many of them, of course, suffered the grievous losses of their sons in the second world war. Hence for the first world war veteran now getting on in years a grateful country cannot do more than provide assistance. That is precisely what the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act are for, namely to make sure that those who risked their lives in the service of their country should not suffer during their declining years. A very distinguished leader of this country at one time said this:
Our duty to the returned men, their dependents, and the dependents of those who have not come back is clear... It is a demand that we treat their requests with generosity, which is more than mere justice. To the men who sacrificed their all in that fight for freedom we owe all the freedom we have today; though we default the interest on the national debt (which would mean national bankruptcy), we cannot afford to let one of our returned men or their dependents suffer.
That statement was quoted by a distin-gished citizen of Canada and a former member of this House of Commons, namely Mr. L. J. Ladner; and he was quoting from a speech of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King. At that time-and this is in 1930-Mr. Ladner said this:
That statement of the Prime Minister merely reflected the prevailing sentiment and the great impulse of generosity and sense of duty which at that time animated the Canadian people.
I trust that the same spirit animates the Canadian people of the present day. We have passed through a second great world war and there is no one in Canada now who is not familiar with the peril in which this country stood at that time.
We have had the Korean war, in which many of our young men served, and we are fully aware of the services being performed by our men in the navy, army and air force in various dangerous posts abroad. All this service on behalf of Canada has maintained for us the freedom which we enjoy; the freedom to debate here in the House of Commons and on occasion to appear to be fairly annoyed with each other. But it is a bloodless type of fighting; we do it by words. It is only because of the sacrifices of our men in warfare, in the first and second world wars particularly, that we are able to carry on


here in the House of Commons the parliamentary system and maintain the system of democracy which means so much to us.
It is on behalf of the men who served in those wars that I am bringing to the attention of the committee tonight this resolution dealing with the War Veterans Allowance Act, and I hope it will receive the approval of the committee.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure all hon. members are very happy to have this legislation introduced at this session. We of the official opposition welcome it very heartily and we hope it will receive a speedy passage through all its stages and be made effective in a very short period of time.
As the minister has pointed out, no matter to which party we belong or on what side of the house we sit, we are all non-partisan when the welfare of our veterans is under consideration. Since we are so completely agreed on this principle there seems to be no need for any extended debate either on the principle of this resolution or even on the principle of the bill at second reading.
The minister has told us-and I welcome this information-that after the bill is introduced to the house it will be sent to the parliamentary committee on veterans affairs. I am sure it will there receive, as always, very sympathetic consideration and many useful suggestions will be made which will improve it and make it more suitable for the conditions it is designed to meet.
As the minister pointed out last evening and again tonight, the original War Veterans Allowance Act dates back to 1930. The objectives of this legislation were very neatly summed up in the original resolution which the minister put on the record tonight. That resolution was introduced in the house by the hon. member for Kootenay, the Hon. J. H. King, minister of pensions and national health in the cabinet of the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King, on March 4, 1930.
The present resolution seeks to bring about the following further changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act. It seeks to increase the rates of war veterans allowance and the permissible income ceilings. It forecasts changes in property and income exemptions, and it will modify certain conditions of eligibility and service.
The minister sounded very magnanimous in his remarks this evening and I hope that when the bill is introduced we will find that its scope has been extended to include the members of the Newfoundland forestry units of world war II, the merchant navy, the rescue tug service, the firefighters and other groups which have not yet been covered by

this legislation. All these bodies have a strong claim to the benefits under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
As hon. members know-it has been pointed out in this house more than once-the Newfoundland foresters of world war II are excluded merely on account of a technicality. Then we have members of the merchant navy who served their country well and are now in need of some sort of assistance which can very well be provided under this act. These people gave valuable service to their country in a time of great need, a service that was duly recognized as essential. As a result of that service they today find themselves incapacitated, unable to support themselves and their families and reduced to dependence upon public relief and charity.
I hope the minister will also see fit to include the British-Canadian veterans who served in India and Afghanistan. The minister mentioned the veterans of the South African War. As recently as this morning, in the parliamentary committee on veterans affairs, evidence was given about these British Canadian Veterans who served on the firing line in India. I also hope that the 365-day requirement for veterans of world war I will be abolished.
I think it may be worth while to again repeat the original 1930 resolution which the minister has already put on the record. It reads as follows:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting allowances to war veterans, to provide assistance for certain veterans who are not in receipt of pensions, or who, if in receipt of pensions, are only partially pensionable, or who are unemployable, and to provide for the administration, amounts, terms and conditions of such allowances, and for the payment of such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the proposed legislation.
When we consider the categories I have just mentioned, in the light of that resolution I think it is very clear that it was specially designed to take care of these particular kinds of cases. I say this because the emphasis in the resolution is on veterans and not on any particular grouping, organization or unit in which they may have served.
As far as my own province is concerned, certainly the War Veterans Allowance Act is much more useful and could benefit a great many more people than the Pension Act. There are a number of persons in my province who served their country, as I said, in the forestry unit, the merchant marine and other services who would now find it almost impossible to qualify for a pension under the Pension Act because they do not have the documentation necessary to relate their disability to war service.
I suppose the key word in the original resolution is the word "veteran". I think that 90205-6-311i
War Veterans Allowance Act some of these people have possibly been excluded because we have chosen to place a certain interpretation on that word. I think in the light of the experiences of two wars and particularly of the last war we should be more liberal in our interpretation of what constitutes a veteran and think not so much of the particular unit in which a man served but of the service that he gave to his country and whether his country now has any obligation to him at a time when he is unable to look after himself. It seems to me not only a tragedy but a matter for shame that any person who has served his country and who is disabled should have to resort to public relief. I do not think this was the spirit of the intention of the people who introduced the original resolution.
As I said earlier, I see no reason why there should be any extended debate on this resolution. There is nothing controversial about it. We are all in complete accord with it. We realize that increases in the war veterans allowance rates and income ceilings as well as adjustments to property ceilings are necessary for two reasons, in the first place to bring the veterans allowance payments in line with increases which have taken place in the cost of living and, second, to restore the relationship in the scale of benefits as between war veterans allowances and pensions which existed prior to the recent pension increase. We recognize, as the minister himself has pointed out, that the recent increase in pension rates has made the introduction of this legislation almost imperative in order to restore benefits to those 1,300 pensioners who lost their W.V.A. and other benefits such as hospitalizations when the pension increases came into effect. These adjustments to the War Veterans Allowance Act will put them back on the same footing as they held before the increase was made in the pension rates.
We give this resolution our complete support and hope it will receive swift passage through the house. We shall certainly co-operate to the fullest extent with the government to achieve that result.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I listened with interest to the minister reviewing the genesis and the history of this legislation. I remember well the days when consideration was being given to the need for legislation of this type to, at least, assist veterans in distress at that time. The minister mentioned Dr. King and said he was a member for the Kootenays. Well, one would expect this sort of legislation to be introduced by anyone from the Kootenays.
I am getting on in years and when anyone mentions something which happened in the years gone by, memory holds the door and

War Veterans Allowance Act I think back to years past. Dr. King's election think, is well and truly said. I judge a mem-campaign of 1911 was the first campaign in ber's genuine interest in veterans, if he is a which I participated. My father was the cam- member of the veterans affairs committee, by paign manager for Dr. King in our part of his willingness to attend the meetings regu-the Kootenays and I spent days and days larly and spend his time seeking information distributing Liberal literature attempting to concerning the details of the veterans affairs convert a Conservative riding to Liberalism, organization so that he may have a better
understanding of the administration, the needs


Some hon. Members:: Shame.	of veterans and so on.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Dr. King was a friend of my father's and of our family and I therefore have a personal knowledge of his interest in this question and of his interest in veterans generally. On that account he was well thought of by the veterans of the Kootenay area and he will be long remembered by those who knew him in pioneer days.
Since that time there has been a steady and somewhat gradual improvement in the legislation, usually as a result of representations from veterans organizations but to some extent because of the experience gained by those responsible for administering the law. The minister invited members to make suggestions with respect to improving this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I accept that invitation with alacrity and I intend to make a few suggestions on that account as well as to make a few general observations upon the legislation.
The minister failed to disclose the prize packet in full. He took the lid off and gave us an indication of the contents, arousing our curiosity without satisfying it by giving us details. I presume we must wait until the bill is introduced before we can satisfy our curiosity. However, I am confident that many veterans and their dependents have looked forward to the amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act particularly in recent months in the expectation that they will make their lives a little easier and a little more comfortable. There is no doubt about it that the Legion and other veterans' organizations, with their knowledge of the circumstances of individuals, are concerned about the needs of their members. On that account this is a subject which has been discussed very generally in the last year or two in Legion branches, at provincial conventions and at dominion conventions. As a result, resolutions have been adopted and recommendations made by the representatives of the dominion Canadian Legion and other national officers to the federal government and to the standing committee on veterans affairs. In addition, I am sure, hon. members of this house have received a voluminous correspondence.
I wish to express my agreement, for once, with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo when he said that the general spirit of the veterans' affairs committee is non-partisan. That, I

Since the minister did extend a kind invitation, I am looking forward to the introduction of the bill. I do want to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that the Canadian Legion-and other organizations made similar proposals-has been interested in certain particular aspects of this legislation. So far as rates are concerned-and this is a very important thing in the case of the War Veterans Allowance Act; it is the foundation of the act-how much are you going to pay? In its representations to the parliamentary committee last year on the War Veterans Allowance Act the Legion said:
In order to ensure that war veterans allowance recipients do not continue to suffer as living costs advance-the Canadian Legion recommends-
That the rate for married recipients be increased to at least $140 per month and that a comparative adjustment be made in the rate of a single recipient.
When the bill is introduced we hope that it will meet the requests of the Canadian Legion based on the needs of the veterans and their dependents.
Then we come to the question of ceilings which is related to permissive income. In its brief the Legion deals with this question and the necessity for an increase in the ceiling to meet certain particular circumstances. This is the result of experience. You can adopt legislation with the best of intentions. I have been a member of the committee since 1945, and I know of the numerous amendments that were required, and I am sure other hon. members have had the same experience over the years of overlooking something that you did not expect; you did not anticipate a certain situation. I have had that problem particularly brought to my attention with respect to married veterans and common law wives and that sort of thing. Experience has made it necessary to amend legislation that had been considered quite satisfactory years before. Anyway, in connection with the ceilings the Canadian Legion recommends:
That the ceilings on total permissible income under the War Veterans Allowance Act be increased to $1,200 per year for the single recipient and $2,000 per year for the married recipient.
We hope that when the bill is introduced it will meet the recommendations of the Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations.

Then we come to widows' allowance. This has to do with section 30 (11) (b) of the act. The Legion has been very concerned about this and recommends:
That where all other requirements are met, the war veterans allowance board be empowered to declare as eligible widows who would be qualified had the veteran made application during his lifetime.
I have always been interested in widows and their welfare, and I can think of particular instances in my constituency where, because of unforeseen circumstances, the widow of a veteran who served in the same company as I overseas was denied a war veterans allowance because he failed to apply for it during his lifetime. She was not qualified under the present act. I do urge consideration of this matter. I know the cases are few in number. Even though they are few, it is an important matter to the widow concerned.
I come now to the question of the merchant navy personnel. The hon. member preceding me dealt with this question. I can understand his particular interest in the question because he lives in a maritime constituency and would meet more merchant sailors than I would, but I wish to support his representations. I know he supports the representations of the Canadian Legion. In this connection, so far as the merchant navy personnel are concerned, the Canadian Legion recommends:
That the War Veterans Allowance Act be amended to include these veterans of the merchant navy and T.124 service.
There is no necessity to go into details because those who are interested in this legislation know exactly what it means.
I come next to the question of casual earnings. There has been a great improvement in the, shall I say, casual earnings situation over the years. The law, the regulations and the administration in the early days were pretty sticky on this point. It has been improved throughout the years but there is still room for amendment, particularly where you have veterans who have some small fixed income. They cannot earn $50 a month, but they may have $50 a month coming in as interest on a few bonds, and things of that sort. In all fairness I think it is the general opinion of the veterans affairs committee that consideration should be given to situations such as these. Because the Legion has considered this, it submits:
That since it is accepted that recipients are entitled to additional income in excess of the maximum rates and ceilings, the legislation should be amended to provide those recipients, who are unable by reason of ill health to enjoy this advantage, with a single benefit.
The Canadian Legion therefore recommends- that the act be amended to include as exempt income unearned income up to $50 per month for
War Veterans Allowance Act a recipient who is unable because of physical or mental disability to obtain employment.
I think it is a very reasonable recommendation and I trust that the casual earnings regulation will be amended to meet that type of situation.
Then, there is the question of interest on stocks, bonds and so forth. The present act limits to $25 per annum the exemption in respect of interest on bank deposits and bonds and dividends on shares in capital stock. The Legion recommends:
That the act be amended to increase the exemption in respect of interest on bank deposits and bonds and dividends on shares in the capital stock of any company to at least $50.
This is a very modest and responsible recommendation and I do hope the legislation will give it consideration.
There is a section in respect of personal property which is of interest to me, because of the particular circumstances of a number of veterans. The War Veterans Allowance Act from the first has permitted applicants to qualify while in possession of limited personal assets. Since the allowances provide only for minimum living expenditures, it is presumed that the provision in respect of personal property was to cover such eventualities as repairs to a recipient's home, replacement of furniture, medical expenses for dependents, funeral expenses for widows, and so on. This is a rather interesting recommendation:
In 1930 the limits were set at $750 for a single recipient and $1,500 for a married recipient. In 1948 these amounts were increased by $250 to $1,000 for a single recipient and $1,750 for a married recipient. In 1952 there was a further increase of $250 in respect of married recipients bringing the allowance to $2,000.
This shows a gradual improvement in the legislation and the regulations over the years. I continue:
There has been no adjustment whatever during the past eight years and none during the past 12 years in respect of a single recipient.
Therefore the Canadian Legion recommends:
That the personal property exemption be increased to $2,250 for a single recipient and $4,500 for a married recipient.
I hope consideration will be given to this recommendation.
Then we come to world war I Canadians who served in the United Kingdom forces. This has been considered. Representations have been made to the committee on a number of occasions throughout the years. It has been considered by veterans organizations. In this respect the Canadian Legion recommends:
That the act be amended to provide eligibility for those veterans with pre-world war I Canadian

War Veterans Allowance Act domicile who served in the United Kingdom with His Majesty's forces during world war I for at least 365 days prior to the 12th day of November, 1918.
In fact we were discussing this type of situation in the committee today. We hope the question will receive consideration.
Next is the question of world war I service in the United Kingdom. The brief of the Legion contains the following:
The Canadian Legion has in its files the cases of many veterans of world war I who volunteered for service anywhere in the world and who, through no fault of their own, served only in England.
On this account the Legion recommends:
That the act be amended to provide for those veterans who volunteered for active service in any of His Majesty's Canadian forces prior to the coming into force of the Military Service Act in June, 1918, and who served in the United Kingdom during world war I prior to the 12th day of November, 1918.
I think perhaps one of the hon. members from the government benches who will follow me will deal with another aspect of that problem. Then there is the question of eligibility for posthumous pension awards. In that regard the Legion recommends:
That the act be amended to provide that such awards shall be considered to have been in payment prior to the death of the veteran.
Then there is the question of the supplementation of the widows' pension and the Legion recommends as follows:
That the act be amended to provide for supplementation to those widows awarded a widow's pension up to the maximum permissive ceiling under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
That is to allow for a period of adjustment following the death of the husband and for particular circumstances. I trust that recommendation will be given some consideration. Then there is the question of the continuation of married rates which has been discussed on a number of occasions. In that regard the Canadian Legion recommends:
That section 5 (2) be amended to provide for the payment of married rates in such instances if, in fact, he was in receipt of married rates either at the time of the death of the spouse or child, or at any time within the 12 months preceding such death.
That recommendation is based on a few cases that were brought to the attention of the Legion by various branches throughout the country. Then there is the question of dependent's medical expenses which has been a matter that has been advanced by various veterans organizations, has been considered in the committee and has I know, been considered by respective governments. The Canadian Legion recommends as follows:
That the amount of permissible casual earnings be increased by the amount of such medical expenses.

We urge consideration of those representations. Then I want to support the previous speaker who urged consideration of those commonwealth veterans who served in India and on the Afghanistan frontier. That question was brought before the committee this morning by representatives of their organization and we listened to their representations with interest. From what we can gather their number would be very few. It was suggested during the committee hearing that the number possibly would be 50 or something approaching 50. I am not going to deal at length with this matter because I know there is a member on the government side of the house who has previously dealt with this question fully and is well acquainted with it. I happen to have one veteran among my constituents who would be affected if the government saw fit to amend the act to permit those veterans who served in Afghanistan to receive the war veterans allowance.
Finally, I do want to suggest that I believe that veterans or dependents who were in receipt of the war veterans allowance and then went to Great Britain or some other country should receive similar treatment to persons who receive old age security. The veteran or veteran's dependent has to return to Canada and reside for a year in this country and then if they wish they may return to the United Kingdom or some other country after qualifying for the allowance again as a result of 12 months' residence in Canada.
I had a case brought to my attention just before Christmas of the widow of a veteran who served in my company in the first world war who had been in receipt of the war veterans allowance in Canada for a number of years. Prior to the 1960 amendment to the act that made it possible for a recipient to draw the allowance and live outside Canada, this widow had returned to the United Kingdom. When she heard about the amendment she was very anxious to take advantage of it so her brother lent her the money to return to Canada in order that she would be able to spend a year here. She will be here until next January. On arrival in Canada she requalified for the allowance within two weeks but she has to spend a year here before she can return to the United Kingdom.
I suggest that where the record can be easily ascertained and there is no question of qualifying, shall I say, where there has been a clear-cut award of the allowance to a veteran or to a widow, the widow or veteran should not be required to return to Canada and reside here for 12 months. I think such cases could be handled by the administrator of the Department of Veterans Affairs in London. The veteran or widow could go

there and be interviewed by the appropriate official and qualify where it is a straightforward case.
I urge the minister to give consideration to an amendment that would avoid this unnecessary expense on the part of these persons. I think it is an unnecessary expense and in my opinion we should treat veterans and their dependents at least on an equal basis with those who qualify for old age security but who in some cases by no stretch of the imagination have fought in defence of Canada or have made the contribution that the wife of the veteran has made during his service overseas or has made since on account of the veteran's disabilities. In cases like that of the member for Kootenay West with his advancing years, his fidgetiness and crankiness and so on, I think the woman is entitled to some consideration and should be given consideration in these situations. I urge the minister to give consideration to that aspect of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I have reviewed the major recommendations of the Canadian Legion. I have little more to say at this time except that I must say that although the work on the veterans affairs committee sometimes does not appeal to some members, the intellectuals, shall I say, I think that those members who have served on the committee throughout the years have got a great deal of pleasure out of it because it does provide an opportunity to keep in close touch with the question of the needs and welfare of veterans and their dependents. That close contact and the time spent studying these matters at least gives a feeling of satisfaction that he has tried to do a little something for his comrades and their dependents.


Mr. MacRae:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this measure which is so important to veterans, a measure which I am sure is of interest not only to the veterans of this house but to all other members as well. There is an inscription on a soldier's grave in southern England in these words:
God and the soldier
Men alike adore
When at the brink of danger,
Not before.
The danger o'er-both are alike requited,
God is forgot
And the brave soldier slighted.
The brave soldier slighted. I am sure the majority of Canadians feel that the veterans legislation of this country brought into effect over the last 40 or 50 years is certainly second to none in the whole world. That of course is as it should be because
War Veterans Allowance Act Canadians' record of service and sacrifice in the wars of freedom has been second to none as well.
I should like to compliment the Minister of Veterans Affairs on the energy and the understanding that he has brought to this department. He follows in the wake of many able ministers who have rendered distinguished service in this most important portfolio. Since we are dealing with war veterans allowances, I should like to compliment the minister also on the appointment recently of the new chairman to that board. In bringing Colonel W. T. Cromb to this board from western Canada, he brought a man who has distinguished himself in war and in peace, in the service of his country. Over the last few months, I have found he has given every sympathy and every consideration to the cases I have brought to him and his board, and, I am sure, to the cases of others.
Like most other members in this house, I suppose there is hardly a day goes by that each of us does not have a case of a veteran or a veteran's dependent come across our desks. Perhaps those of us who come from the maritimes-I say this in complete humility-have a few more cases than do members from other parts of Canada. For whatever reason, we seem to have had more men and women serving in the Canadian forces proportionately than any other part of Canada. I think the record will bear me out. Perhaps we could get into an argument about that. Our war casualties were heavy and, therefore, we seem to be getting more and more cases as the years go by. I know of families in which every man enlisted. I know of one case which six sons went to the war and five were killed. I know of one family in which eight sons went overseas and some never came home. I knew one community particularly well, because I was teaching there at the time, in which every able-bodied man enlisted. Only the youngsters and the old people were left at home. These men served in Hong Kong, France, Italy, at sea and in the air. Many of them were killed and wounded.
This is a most welcome measure, not only to those who are receiving war veterans allowance but to all Canadians. The present scale is $120 for a married recipient. They may then receive, under most necessitous circumstances, an additional $25 from the assistance fund. We know, of course, that this amount does not provide for the necessities of life, let alone the luxuries. In order to be fair, we must admit that the sum does provide a few of the necessities but it does not go far enough.

War Veterans Allowance Act
When the Pension Act was amended recently many letters were written to us from pensioners who were receiving small pensions. I am sure all hon. members received such letters. Of course, the pensions were increased but because of the ceiling on war veterans allowances the income of these veterans did not increase at all. Some of the letters were worded rather strongly. Although there were no aspersions cast upon my ancestry, some of these letters cast some aspersions upon our ability to benefit the veterans of this country. Most of these veterans will be taken care of by this amendment.
We are all familiar, of course, with the conditions of service required to qualify under the War Veterans Allowance Act. A veteran must have served in a theatre of war or, if not in a theatre of war, he must have enlisted in both wars or be in receipt of a small pension. The previous speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay West, referred to the 365 days of service in England which are necessary in order to qualify for an allowance. This provision has been given considerable attention in past years. England was not considered a theatre of war for those who went overseas in the 1914-1918 war, but it was in the second world war. I had referred to me a while ago the case of an old man who had served for 11J months in England. He was, therefore, unable to qualify and did not receive the allowance which he badly needed. He was furious and his people were furious, but there was nothing we could do.
I suppose hon. members will ask whether or not that provision is going to be changed. I think the time is rapidly approaching when it should be changed. As has been pointed out, the average age of the men who served in the first war is now about 70. There may be a few who are 60, but they would have been in their early teens when they enlisted. Old soldiers never die, they just fade away. It is regrettable, but they are rapidly fading away now. If we are going to do anything for these men who, through no fault of their own, just got as far as England in world war I, it should be done now.
We can go too far with this idea of the welfare state, and we most likely will. However, we are dealing here with a very special group of Canadians. I would, therefore, urge the minister to be as generous as possible.
The minister put on the record some statistics from the annual report of the department. I should like to put a few more statistics on the record, that are of interest.
Before going further, I should like to compliment the minister upon the annual report turned out by his department. The


content is good; it is factual and I like the way the report is bound, with the name on the cover. I think this is the way the annual reports of all government departments should be bound at the end of each year.
The number of cases that have been approved over the years is rather interesting. In 1930 the act was brought into force, as the minister pointed out, and in that year there were approximately 2,000 cases approved. This figure remained steady until 1939 when there were 4,336 cases approved. It is interesting to note that the number of cases approved in the years 1939 to 1945 dropped off. In some years there were only about 1,000 eases approved. What was happening there? It is very plain to see that these men who had fought in world war I and who had been badly used up, rallied to the service of their country in 1939. We all know of cases of men who were badly wounded in world war I who were drawing pensions but who re-enlisted to serve their country. We find, therefore, that up until 1945 the number of cases approved was very small. In 1945 and 1946 the number of cases approved for war veterans allowances began to increase very rapidly. From 1950 to 1960 the number of cases has maintained a constant level at about 12,000 per year.
There is an interesting fact that came to my attention when I did my research on this subject. The number of first world war veterans is slowly declining. This means, of course, as I said earlier, that first world war veterans are regrettably leaving the scene, the numbers of widows and orphans on strength is still holding up. In 1960, as of March 31, the number of oases, that is for veterans and widows, stood at 67,683. While the minister did not give the figures, I think the records will show that the steady growth of cases will increase about 3,000 more this year. Now, if the veterans of the first war are declining in numbers, then evidently the increase must be coming from those who served in world war II. I have endeavoured without much success in the last year or two to ascertain from an actuarial point of view just when the peak would be reached in connection with war veterans allowance. No one has been able to tell me. I suppose it is because there are so many unknown factors, so many imponderables. However, it would appear that about 1980 we will reach the peak of pension cases and veterans allowance cases.
There are a number of other interesting factors concerning approvals in the last year that I should like to put on the record. The veterans of world war I, South Africa and the Northwest field force numbered 3,068 and reinstatements numbered 2,749. The number of approvals for veterans of world war II

and Korea amounted to 1,668, and reinstatements, 971. The dual service allowances, that is for men who served in both world wars but who did not serve in a theatre of war, numbered 103 and reinstatements, 42. The number of approvals for commonwealth and allied forces amounted to 932, with 449 reinstatements.
I should like to query the minister on one point. I do not expect an immediate answer on this. When the minister referred to South African and Northwest field force veterans or Riel rebellion veterans, he implied that the eight who were still on the strength of the Northwest field force were dependents.
I	think I am right in drawing to the minister's attention that these are not dependents but are actually veterans of the Riel rebellion. Since then I understand that there has been one death and that there are now seven Riel rebellion veterans still alive. When you realize that it is 75 years since that particular bit of unpleasantness in this country, it means that these men must be somewhere in their mid-nineties. It is perhaps amazing that that is all the liability there is at this point. Just three or four years ago the last pension in the United States of America was paid in respect of the war of 1812. It seems to me that our neighbor was obliged to pay pensions for a long time for a war which it lost.
As to widows and orphans, this particular group seems to keep growing but is a liability that none of us would decry in any way.
There is another factor that has interested me in the statistics; I refer to the world war
II	group under 60 years of age. Rather surprisingly in that group there are 4,235 veterans of world war II who are in receipt of war veterans allowance. What that means in effect is this: This group of men unfortunately cannot maintain themselves and in the opinion of the W.V.A. board will never be able to do so. They have therefore been granted war veterans allowances.
There is one other point that interested me in the statistics. I refer to the number of British veterans who are in receipt of war veterans allowance. At the end of the fiscal year March 31, 1960, 8,757 British men and women who served in the imperial army were in receipt of war veterans allowance. This is a rather large number. It indicates the large number of men and women who served in the British forces-because this is a large number of people to be receiving veterans benefits-and who came to this country, this land of opportunity, after their service in world war I or in world war II.
Mr. Chairman, I have covered the points I had in mind. I should again like to compliment the minister on the fine service being rendered by his department, his officials and 90205-6-312
War Veterans Allowance Act himself personally. The veterans of this country get sympathetic and courteous hearings on their pension and war veterans allowance claims. I as a veteran feel very happy that the men and women who served this country in time of war should have been so well treated, not only by this government but by all other governments over the years.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: I recognize the hon. member for Grey-Bruce.


Mr. Roberge:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is it not customary that, after a member supporting the government has spoken a member of the opposition be recognized?


Gordon Campbell Chown: I saw
the hon. member for Grey-Bruce. I apologize for not recognizing the hon. member who has just risen.


Mr. Winkler:: As the hon. member who has just spoken mentioned in his concluding remarks, I too wish to compliment the minister on bringing in this legislation at this time. I wish to point out that when the legislation was initially brought in in 1930, it was brought in in order to deal with a specific situation with regard to the veterans of that day who found themselves in increasing need and who were not eligible under the terms of the Pension Act as administered by the pension commission. I would venture to say that a sentence in the brief presented by the Canadian Legion to the Prime Minister and the cabinet applies then as it does now, namely that the war veterans were compelled to pay the same prices-and probably high prices-for goods and services as were all other people and consequently the government of the day saw fit to support this group of veterans in that way.
We all have agreed that legislation of this particular type is not contentious and the request has been made by a number of veterans that it be expeditiously dealt with. I feel that the veterans of the country deserve a voice here in the House of Commons probably more than we at times are prepared to give them and do in fact give them. Consequently I am going to make some reference to some of the remarks that have been made previously in the house. I hope that no pressure will be brought to bear on any member of the House of Commons to terminate the discussion at this resolution stage.
This may be in some respects somewhat irrelevant, Mr. Chairman, on the other hand it has a very direct bearing on the discussion as we proceed in my opinion. On a previous occasion when another piece of pension legislation was being amended, I made some remarks in this house. I do not say this in

War Veterans Allowance Act order to take advantage of the situation this evening nor do I speak with any political implication because, as a veteran myself I certainly feel that such legislation and discussion should not be contentious. In my brief years here as a representative of the people and of veterans, I have found that lip service is sometimes paid to this particular part of the question, but is not so much in evidence in other quarters in our operations here in the House of Commons. In speaking in the house on February 5, 1961- and I quote from page 1861 of Hansard- I said this to the minister at that time:
-and I am sure he will in the not too distant future-introduce similar amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I made that statement without the knowledge that this resolution to amend the act would be forthcoming at this time and with the sincere hope and desire that the purpose for which the resolution has been introduced will be served. I feel in this way about it. Many veterans who are in receipt of war veterans allowance today, in my view, should be recipients under the Pension Act as administered by the pension commission. I say that for this reason. In 1939-40, when as very young men many students were accepted by the authorities of that day, they were not asked what their disability was. As a matter of fact they were not examined too closely. They were not made any promises either. They were taken for the service they could render. The men with whom I served performed this service with the full knowledge of what the price might be, without asking what the return would be or what awards might be made.
Therefore I feel that when a decision is rendered adversely against a veteran, where he has indicated that the problem with which he is confronted is attributable to a condition which existed prior to enlistment, my sympathies always lean on the side of the veteran.
Where a situation exists when a veteran becomes incapable of earning his own livelihood following his service due to a condition which is not attributable to service, I am always inclined to examine that veteran's background and experience and try to determine in my own mind what would happen to any of us under those circumstances. I can assure this committee that in many cases these people are possibly not being dealt with as fairly as I personally feel they should be. These are very serious matters to my mind and hon. members would be surprised at the number of such cases with which we have to deal.
It certainly is not a very enviable thing to examine these situations and review them.

Nevertheless I can assure the committee that I and these veterans who are now and will be recipients of war veterans allowance are extremely grateful for the measure that is being presented.
If I may, I should like to refer to another matter. This is a situation that was created on another occasion in connection with a statement made in the house in reply to a question put to the Minister of Veterans Affairs by the hon. member for Trinity. The hon. member observed:
I wish to draw to the attention of the committee the necessity, in considering this item, to consider the revision of the War Veterans Allowance Act. The changes which were recently made in the Pension Act have resulted in pensioners being cut off from the supplements provided by the war veterans allowance and, worse than that, these pensioners no longer receive certain medical benefits which were previously available to them.
I should like to suggest that the committee urge upon the government an early reconsideration of the War Veterans Allowance Act so that these people, who in many cases are very much in need, will receive proper consideration.
To the best of my knowledge this hon. member is not a member of the veterans affairs committee. This certainly does not exclude him from the privilege of asking this question of the minister. Immediately following that statement I said to the committee:
I should like to say to the committee that this suggestion was made on numerous occasions during the consideration of the amendments to the Pension Act. If one refers to Hansard, one will find that this request was made by most hon. members who spoke.
Here is the way in which political advantage is taken by some hon. members. I do not say this because the hon. member to whom I am referring is not in the committee, nor do I make the next statement with any motive, but this may be the only opportunity I have of speaking in this regard.
I should like to refer for a moment or two to the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on veterans affairs. I refer to the evidence contained in the minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 6 dated February 23, 1961. This recommendation was moved by the hon. member for Renfrew North and was seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West:
This committee recommends that the government give consideration to the advisability of amending clause 13 by deleting the words "in respect of any period before the first day of the month next following the day on which this act is assented to" and substituting therefor the words "in respect of any period before the first day of January, 1961".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I feel I must rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman appears to be quoting from the proceedings

in committee on a bill which was before this house and settled by this house at the present session of parliament.
As you, sir, are well aware, of course, it is not within the rules of the house or the committee to revive debates on another measure at the same session of parliament.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. Does the hon. member who has the floor wish to make a comment on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Not on that immediate point, Mr. Chairman. However, since the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has raised this particular point I should like to reply to the hon. member for a moment or two. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, during the last consideration of the pension


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I think I should rule on the point of order that has been raised. I would have to find that the hon. gentleman is out of order in referring to the minutes from which he was quoting. I would ask the hon. member to refrain from making any further reference to them.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think sufficient reference has been made. However, in dealing with the point raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, hon. members will recall that he interjected on a previous occasion in a debate on veterans affairs. I am happy to say that he was well and properly reprimanded by a member of the press gallery who is attached to a very reputable paper in the province of Ontario, and justifiably so, I think.
If the hon. member has not a distinct contribution to make on the point under consideration, better he should remain in his seat.


An hon. Member:: You don't know the rules.


Eric Alfred Winkler: When this matter is concluded at the resolution stage I think most hon. members will have placed their views before the committee. I hope at that time the terms of the bill are such as I believe they will be, and an expeditious passing of the bill will occur.
It was at the committee stage that I made the remarks referred to by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Although they were, in a technical sense, irrelevant, nevertheless I can assure the committee that they were made for a purpose. The purpose is what I want to avoid in this instance, and that is the reason I made the interjection.
90205-6-3124
War Veterans Allowance Act
I certainly, as well as all other hon. members probably, do not wish to turn back the pages to the extent that we must make reference to other hon. members' statements when we disagree with them, even if it is on the other side of veterans legislation. I can say, however, just to indicate that we were not all of one mind, that efforts were made by some government members to change the date, or the circumstances of the legislation.
But let us not attempt to make any individual political profit from this. Rather let us institute the measure which the government has brought down for the benefit of veterans, truly and sincerely, on the date from which the government wants it put into effect. After all, this is the second time this government has considered veterans' welfare since 1957, and it will not be the last time. Let us pass the measure as it comes before us without endeavouring to take some small measure of benefit to ourselves politically. Again, I congratulate the minister and his officials for bringing this measure in at this time.
(Translation):


Gabriel Roberge: We heard a plea pro domo by the hon. member who just sat down, and I may tell you that I entirely disagree with the theory he expounded in the latter part of his speech.
If the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) would stop yapping, we might continue our discussion calmly and peacefully.


Mr. Tremblay:: I was speaking to my colleague.


Gabriel Roberge: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Roberval was speaking to a fellow member; but, according to standing orders, when a member has risen, no other member is allowed to speak.
As I was saying, I disagree entirely with the theory propounded by the hon. member who just concluded his remarks; if we accepted such philosophy, we might as well close down parliament and let the cabinet legislate as they please; for neither government nor opposition members would have an opportunity to make any suggestions in this house or in the various committees.
The resolution now before us-
(Text):


Eric Alfred Winkler: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, that is not what I said.


An hon. Member:: That is the way it
sounded.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You had better read it tomorrow.
4932	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act (Translation):


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, the resolution now before us is in four parts. The first one is designed:
To increase the monthly rates of allowances and permissible income ceilings.
That is the part I should like to discuss for a few moments.
Last night, when the minister made his statement on this resolution, he said there were 47,204 veterans now receiving veterans allowances. He also stated that some 13,000 veterans have had the sad experience (which was not intentional on the part of the government) to see their allowances reduced as a result of the 20 per cent increase in pensions brought about by the act we passed a few months ago. Now, those 13,000 war veterans represent approximately 30 per cent of the people eligible for war veterans allowances.
We shall have occasion to consider the legislation brought forward by the government. We shall scrutinize it and make such suggestions as we see fit. One such suggestion-in fact it is the only one I shall be making tonight-is that the government in the case of the 13,000 veterans I have just mentioned, should try to give retroactive effect to the improved rate.
In view of the fact that on March the 1st, which was the effective date of this Pension Act, those 13,000 war veterans had their allowances reduced, I see no reason why the matter could not be corrected now that we have this piece of legislation before us. Therefore, I would just ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) and the government to include a special provision in this bill, to make it retroactive for those 13,000 war veterans.
(Text):


Mr. Jung:: Before I begin my brief remarks, may I say how delighted I am that you should be occupying the chair. Knowing that modesty is one of your many qualities, I wish to take this opportunity to place on record for the benefit of your constituents in Winnipeg South that you have on other occasions taken over the duties of chairman of the committee and discharged in a most exemplary manner the heavy responsiblities of that office. Lest hon. members think I may be prejudiced in your favour, let me say at once that the fact you are my colleague, my neighbour and the godfather of my twins has nothing whatsoever to do with it.


Earlier this year the Minister of Veterans Affairs addressed a public meeting in Vancouver and in answer to a question from someone in his audience replied that the government was deeply aware of the hardships facing those in receipt of war veterans allowances even though the War Veterans Allowance Act had been amended as recently as 1957. Subsequently some misgivings were expressed in certain quarters that notwithstanding the sympathetic interest shown by the minister the government had no intention of doing anything to alleviate the situation. I am therefore very happy that the minister has introduced this resolution, because it is an indication that the representations made by the private members of this party have borne fruit and that this government has indeed kept faith with the veterans of Canada.
As one who has served on the standing committee on veterans affairs since my election to this house in 1957 I take great satisfaction with regard to what we have done for the veterans. I know that many veterans in my riding will welcome this resolution. I have at least three branches of the Canadian Legion in my riding and there is another organization of which I am particularly proud because it is unique in Canada. I refer to the organization known as the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, Pacific group No. 280, Chinese Canadians. This organization has as its life president Her Majesty the Queen, and to my knowledge this group, composed of over 200 Chinese Canadian veterans many of whom served with me and are my friends from boyhood, is the only unit of its kind in Canada and is another indication that Chinese Canadians have served their country in war as well as their fellow Canadians.
This unit will be holding its fourteenth annual meeting in Vancouver on Sunday, May 28, and I am sure that all hon. members will want to join with me in extending congratulations to this unit and in expressing the hope that their contribution, which was so worth while in time of war, will continue to an even greater degree in time of peace.
In the brief presented to the Prime Minister and the cabinet by the Canadian Legion on December 12, 1960, some seven pages out of 40 were devoted to proposed amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. In dealing with the War Veterans Allowance Act the Canadian Legion discussed increases in rates and ceilings; allowances for widows and orphans outside of Canada; widow's allowance payable under section 30(11) (b); merchant navy personnel; casual earnings; interest on stocks and bonds; personal property; eligibility for posthumous awards and supplementation of widows' pension.

In his remarks tonight the minister covered three of these subjects, namely increases in the monthly rates of allowance and income ceiling, further exemptions in property and income and modification of certain conditions of service eligibility. I am sure the increase in rates and ceilings will be welcomed by all but for some time, Mr. Chairman, I have been particularly troubled by the plight of the wife of a veteran who is receiving war veterans allowance because in one particular field, namely that of medical treatment, the wife is not covered. In theory the veteran receiving the allowance could quite easily and conceivably spend all of his pension in paying for the medical treatment of his wife who might have spent 10, 20, 30 or more years in looking after him and who by reason of advanced age is no longer in a position to work. This situation distresses me because without the assistance of his wife the veteran might have been in a very bad predicament. I would therefore suggest that some consideration be given to the advisability of extending medical treatment to the wives of those veterans who are drawing war veterans allowance so that this very heavy financial burden may be taken from the shoulders of those who can ill afford to carry it.
I want to emphasize that I understand the principle that medical coverage and treatment facilities under the act are designed only for veterans and therefore civilians do not qualify. None the less I think a very good case can be made out for the wives and widows of pensioners and other qualified persons. I also realize that practically every province in Canada has its own hospital insurance plan under which many people are covered. However, I still feel there are gaps which must be filled from the resources of the federal government. I am hopeful that a national health plan will be implemented by this government. If this is done the problem with which I am concerned will disappear. However, until such time as a national health plan is established I feel there is some urgency in providing medical treatment for wives and widows who have been of so much help to their husbands.
I wish to conclude by saying that much as I appreciate the proposed increase in the rates and ceilings now payable, I know that within a short time representations will again be made for a further increase. The complaint will be advanced that the level of payment is not keeping up with the rise in the cost of living. I would therefore make a suggestion not only to the Minister of Veterans Affairs but also to all members of the government that henceforth when consideration has to be given to an increase in pensions of this kind, rather than grant the increase in one
War Veterans Allowance Act lump sum we settle on an amount which will be adequate by present-day standards and also make the provision that any increases henceforth will be based on the cost of living index.
It may well be that this index will fluctuate from province to province, but I think that if we can supplement the basic rate, which is a reasonable and decent one, with a payment to cover the increased cost of living we will remove any need to have continual representations made because provision could be made for a periodic review by the war veterans allowance board. I think this proposal is sound. It would remove any possibility of increases of this kind in pensions being used as a political football.
To me, Mr. Chairman, there is something rather pathetic and repugnant about veterans delegations coming to Ottawa year after year pleading for an increase. By granting an increase we recognize the validity of their claim. If we could attach a provision for the payment of a sum to keep pace with the cost of living index we would all be spared the criticism that pensions are inadequate. Parliament would still have control over those funds because parliament would have to vote the necessary sum to cover those ancillary payments. Therefore there would be an opportunity for full discussion. Even with such a provision the payment would still lag behind the cost of living, but if there was a yearly review the gap would not be so disproportionate.
I have other remarks to make but I shall defer them until a more suitable stage of the proceedings. In the meantime I wish once again to congratulate the minister and this government for again keeping their promises.


Mr. Montgomery:: Mr. Chairman, usually I do not take up much time in speaking and seldom do I speak on a resolution preceding a bill. This may be owing to the fact that I would rather sit back and listen to others express their ideas from which I may learn. But I do feel I should say a few words on this resolution. One reason is that at the time the amendments to the Pension Act were before the house several members-I do not refer to opposition members in particular- rather implied afterwards that I was not in favour of granting increases to those recipients of war veterans allowance. This is quite wrong and is one reason why I felt I should say something on the resolution stage.
I suppose my trouble at the time, and it always has been, and I hear a great deal about it, is that these are two distinct acts. The people who are in receipt of a disability pension have always claimed to me that they felt they earned it. Those members who are
4934	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act on the veterans affairs committee and were fortunate enough to be at the committee hearing the other day know that we had a delegation before us. The spokesman for that delegation made it very clear to us that those veterans who were in receipt of disability pensions really felt that they earned those pensions a little bit more than other veterans have earned theirs.
There may be an element of boastfulness in that feeling and I suppose that is the way I felt in expressing myself at the time we were dealing with that legislation. Now we are dealing with an act which provides assistance for a group of veterans who, regardless of their service, deserve assistance. The group to which this legislation applies is that group of men who at one time in their lives were willing to take the chances of any other soldier. Many of them were fortunate enough to go through the first world war and the second world war without catching a "blighty" as we used to say in the first world war or without incurring any disability that was disclosed by an examination, and these men did not receive a pension. While they were fortunate, there is no doubt that if men spend two or three years in the service, especially in strenuous positions in the front lines, there is a deterioration and disability does exist to some extent.
In any case, the veterans allowance legislation was brought into being to help those veterans who, probably through no fault of their own, found it difficult to re-establish themselves or who encountered sickness or trouble. In many cases they lacked education and some of them suffered from unfortunate circumstances such as may happen to all of us. These people arrive at a time in life when they cannot fit into a position where they can make a living. This legislation is for that group of people. I should like to say, and I mean it, that my heart goes out to all people, whether or not they are veterans, who find themselves in such a condition in the later years of their lives. These people have got to receive assistance from the rest of us who are fortunate enough to be able to maintain ourselves, pay our taxes and possibly lay a little bit aside.
As far as the veterans are concerned, as other members have said this evening I think they deserve special attention. I remember that in 1955, I believe, the then minister of veterans affairs initiated a thorough review of this act. The principle was established that a man who had seen service was aged ten years and provision was made to pay him the old age pension ten years earlier. As time has gone by and more consideration has been given to these veterans, benefits have been added until we have reached the point where
[Mr. Montgomery.!

an unmarried man or woman is allowed to have an income up to $1,000 including the war veterans allowance.
It was brought very forcibly to the attention of members of the committee and to all members of the house no doubt for the first time that in the vicinity of 13,000 veterans who had been receiving both a disability pension and the veterans allowance would get no benefit if the two acts were not amended in the same year. I know that all members of the committee felt the same way regardless of the party to which they belonged. They felt that we must endeavour to have the War Veterans Allowance Act amended this year so that those who had been in receipt of benefits under both acts would still be able to receive these benefits.
As others have done, I should like to pay my compliments to the minister because I know he has worked hard to get these amendments before the house. I am very glad they have been brought forward. I do not really think it is necessary for me to correct any impression that people may have got from the attitude they thought I had, but I really believe that war veterans allowance recipients deserve benefits far more than some disability pensioners because the disability pensioners do have a preference so far as many things are concerned. This group of veterans does not get a preference.
I suppose this is not the right place to mention it but 1 hope I am here when the amendments to the Civil Service Act are brought forward. A case involving a veteran brought this situation very forcibly to my attention. A man with some four years service in the second world war returned from service and he was fortunate in that he was not wounded. He was not disabled in any way and therefore he received no benefits. He came back, married and started a family and had a nice home. Through an unfortunate accident involving a tractor he was killed. The widow was left with three small children, the oldest being about 12 years of age now. She has to go out and work. She is a secretary and, all other things being equal, I think that as the widow of a veteran she should have some preference in civil service examinations.
This is the first time this matter has come to our attention. I can see no reason why a widow of a veteran who is responsible for educating three children and has no other income than that which she can earn should not be given every chance when she wants to go out and work. When she takes a civil service examination she has no preference. She has to take her chance with all the other

secretaries. I just mention that at this time because it does have something to do with veterans.
I should also like to join other members in paying my compliments to the officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs with whom I have come in contact. I really think that some of the speeches that were made on the amendments to the other act, to which I know I probably should not refer, did have some effect. I know of some pensions that have been granted in various parts of the country under section 70 where there had been difficulty in securing a pension before, and that is all to the good. As one member has said, there are many veterans in receipt of the veterans allowance who should be drawing nearly a full pension under the Pension Act but their cases could never be thoroughly established.
There is one other point I wish to mention. I have not made any particular study of the problem but I am inclined to think that the time is coming when those men who volunteered to serve in world war I should be permitted to draw war veterans allowance even though they did not get overseas. Actually, I think I could make a list of about 30 cases myself of men who would have given their right arm to get overseas in the second world war. They were kept in camps in Canada because they were good staff men. I do not believe these men should be penalized. I am not making this plea on behalf of the second world war men because a good many of them made good and they are not interested in this measure. However, I do believe that the men who volunteered to serve in world war I and who never got out of Canada should be brought under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I do not believe there are any other points I wish to mention at this time. However, there may be some points I want to mention when I see the bill. Nearly every member has mentioned gaps in the legislation which he hopes will be covered. I do not look for too much. This act and the Pension Act have to be reviewed and brought up to date every few years. I do not know to what extent these amendments will satisfy hon. members. No doubt they will not satisfy me any more than they will satisfy anyone else. We are always going to want something more in the act.
It seems to me there will be something for the veterans affairs committee to study every year. A delegation appeared before our committee this morning to present several resolutions. Just as we started the representative said that he was going to remove some of the resolutions because he understood that legislation which had been passed or was
War Veterans Allowance Act before the house met some of the points referred to in their representations. I feel this is a rather encouraging sign to find that resolutions which were drawn by organizations four or five months ago have already been covered by legislation. I believe the disability pensioners in my area are fairly happy. I think the war veterans allowance group will be happy too. There will be some veterans who will not be covered by this measure unless there is some change in the period necessary for qualification. Those veterans who did not get in enough time overseas are going to be disappointed. The department, the minister and the government, in their wisdom will have to decide just what extension can be given. I think we must be thankful for what we do get for the veterans. I am sure the veterans who will be in receipt of these increases will be thankful. However, we will go on fighting for more if we do not get enough.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, near the conclusion of what the hon. member who just sat down said, he made a reference to certain observations he might wish to make when he had seen the bill. I know how keen the Minister of Veterans Affairs is in his other capacity as leader of the house to get on with the business of the house, particularly these non-contentious measures, as quickly as possible without abridging anyone's right to make any suggestions, particularly on this kind of legislation. It does occur to me, sir, that it might facilitate the work, not just of the committee but of the house, if I said publicly what I have indicated privately to the minister, that is that I think I can speak for my friends on this side of the house when I say that if the minister would like, before the conclusion of this evening's sitting, to bring this stage to an end and ask for unanimous consent to go on with second reading of the bill, we would be willing to do so. I am not saying that there would not still be a debate on second reading, but we could get started on that debate by the end of this evening and perhaps get closer to the stage when this legislation would come into operation. I think I can speak for my friends on this side of the house when I say that we are ready to co-operate in that respect.


Mr. Payne:: I should like at once to join with those who have congratulated the minister on assuming his new post. I do so as a former fellow officer of the Canadian armoured corps. I can assure the minister that the members of his old corps throughout Canada are proud to find one from our branch of the service in the role of Minister of Veterans

War Veterans Allowance Act Affairs. They feel, as I do, that the resolution the minister has brought forward tonight is of vital importance.
At the outset, I should like to draw attention to a few of the statistics which the minister mentioned in his opening remarks. It is a fact that over 12,000 war veteran allowance recipients reside in the province of British Columbia. This is somewhat over one fifth of the total in Canada, and if we calculated population on the basis of this distribution, the population of our province should be close to 3,700,000. This is far from the case. I mention this fact just to try to emphasize how vitally important this war veterans allowance legislation is to the people of British Columbia, far more so than to any other province in this dominion.
It has not been the privilege of all members during the past three years to serve on the veterans affairs committee. I happen to be one of those members who have not been so privileged.
The cost of living in urban areas has had an influence on the distribution of this heavy population of war veterans allowance pensioners in British Columbia. As a result of a desire on the part of many veterans in the prairies to move to a milder climate, many of them have come to the greater Vancouver area. Shortly thereafter, they find living costs are prohibitive. These pensioners have, therefore, moved up the coast. Those of us who are in the coastal regions up the coast from Vancouver therefore find in our area an inordinately high percentage of the 12,000 war veterans allowance recipients residing in British Columbia.
As I said earlier I have not been privileged to serve as a member of the war veterans committee so, as a member who represents literally thousands of war veterans allowance recipients, I should like to call attention to a few major points. I can assure the minister and you, Mr. Chairman, that those who are in receipt of war veterans allowances are grateful for this worth while and logically administered program. However, because of the cost of living, their interest has been great in seeing an increase in the amount of the pension.
I can assure you that the many hundreds and even into the thousands whom I represent will wish me to convey to the minister their gratefulness on seeing this change come into being. I think it is perhaps safe to say that nowhere else in Canada are these pensioners faced with living costs which make this change so urgent and so necessary. Many of those throughout my riding have discussed at some length the ceilings on their earnings. It is with great pleasure again tonight that we

learned the minister has indicated that adjustment upwards in the ceiling will be established by the new legislation.
There is, however, one point which I should most meticulously like to draw to the attention of this committee at this time. I refer to the W.V.A. recipient over the age of 70 and his position with relation to the old age security pension. If it can be done, and if it is financially feasible, it would certainly be appreciated if the war veterans allowance recipients after the age of 70 were able to receive old age security benefits, as are pensioners from industry and other walks of life who have reached that retiring age, without in any way reducing their basic war veterans allowance.
I should like to join with my colleague from Vancouver Centre who discussed the situation of medical treatment and hospital care for the wives and the widows of war veterans allowance pensioners. I do this without criticism of this government. I feel it is well to point the finger where the finger should be pointed. In this case I refer to the regulations under the public health and welfare branch of the province of British Columbia. I would urge the minister and his department to make contact with them in a spirit of cooperation and good will in order to ascertain whether the province of British Columbia cannot do something in a fair and equitable way to see that these wives and widows are treated as are the wives and widows of all other nonwar veterans allowance pensioners. I think this is a charge against the provincial government which they would be prepared to adjust in order to treat W.V.A. pensioners' wives and widows on an equitable basis provided the facts were strongly brought out and the situations were made known.
There is one other phase of this matter which has 'been discussed I believe by two hon. members who have spoken previously. It has to do with merchant seamen. I think very frequently the situation of merchant seamen is little appreciated or understood by many of those who are resident in areas which are not tidal. During the war many of these chaps were frozen in their positions. Many of them served at sea in Canada's merchant services and had no option, despite their wish to serve in Canada's armed services.
Another common misconception is, of course, that these Canadian merchant seamen benefited with rates of pay and other considerations comparable with those of merchant seamen from the United States. This unfortunately is not the case. Their rates of pay remained in a frozen state based upon the date that their retention was insisted on by arrangements Canada made in many cases with the British admiralty. In the course of

service Canada's merchant seamen visited ports in theatres of active operations. I can take you, I would say quite modestly, to 38 merchant seamen who received severe injuries and wounds who are today incapacitated to a very large degree and are suffering from the services they provided to this nation at a time of dire need. I would urge upon the minister and the members of this committee that fresh thought be given to and a fresh look be taken at our responsibilities to Canada's merchant seamen who saw service, have suffered injury and are incapacitated through serving in active theatres of war.


Mr. Phillips:: At the risk of offending the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on this resolution. I was rather surprised when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate tried to close discussion on this resolution. I was thinking of the amount of time that he and his colleague, the hon. member for Laurier spent in discussing the bill to provide for 12 directors on the Canadian National Railways.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -I am rising on a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman has suggested that I was seeking to restrict this debate. I was not seeking to do anything of the kind. My language which will appear in Hansard tomorrow will make that fact very clear. I was seeking to do what the government asked the opposition to do, namely to co-operate in a reasonable way in trying to speed up the work of parliament, particularly that part of the work on which there was unanimity in the house. If there is anyone who wants to speak on this resolution and who has something to say, as I said earlier I do not think he should be restricted in any way whatsoever. But in view of the very sensible observations that were made by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton I suggested that perhaps it would facilitate debate if we passed the resolution and had debate on the bill. I suggested that as a step towards co-operation to the government. If the government or its supporters do not wish to accept that suggestion, it is entirely for them to decide. It should not be suggested, as the hon. gentleman has done, that that is an attempt in any way to restrict his freedom or that of any other hon. member to say anything he likes as long as it is according to the rules.


Orville H. Phillips: Had the hon. member been a little bit more patient and had he allowed me a little bit more time he would have
War Veterans Allowance Act understood that what I was attempting to explain was that I was surprised that he placed the importance of the 12 directors of the C.N.R. above that of an extremely important measure such as this one.


Richard Devere Thrasher: It is of no importance.


Orville H. Phillips: It is sincerely hoped that this is not the importance that the Liberal party-


Richard Devere Thrasher: To assist the veterans is of no importance? That is what the hon. member said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said that the 12 directors of the C.N.R. were of no importance; and relatively they are not of importance.


Orville H. Phillips: When the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate visits Kings county next week, I hope he will discuss the 12 directors of the C.N.R. and forget the veterans pension.


Mr. MacEwan:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Is it true that there has been a call for the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the official Leader of the Opposition to go down and help to get some of the ice out of the strait?


Orville H. Phillips: It is quite true that the hon. gentlemen referred to do on occasion generate a certain amount of heat, but if they accomplish that purpose it will be the only useful purpose they have achieved.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs on this measure and on the other legislation introduced this session.
We had, first, the increase in disability pensions, then the reduction in the amount of land required for small holdings, and this measure completes the triad. When the disability pensions were increased there seemed to be considerable confusion concerning the future of the war veterans allowance. Like many other hon. members, I am sure, I have received representations concerning war veterans allowance. A branch of the Canadian Legion in my riding forwarded me a resolution urging an early revision of this act.
In a constituency such as mine the war veterans allowance is more important than it is in an urban riding. In an urban riding we find people retiring on pensions from the civil service and various employer-employee pension schemes. In a rural area the farmers and fishermen do not have this opportunity to retire on pension and therefore much greater emphasis is placed on war veterans allowance.
I also find that the general public express a great deal of interest in veterans legislation. I find that when people are speaking to me on behalf of veterans or veterans' widows

War Veterans Allowance Act they are most emphatic that these people should receive special treatment because of their contribution to the nation.
In making his remarks the minister requested hon. members to make suggestions concerning improvements in the legislation. One complaint I have received on a number of occasions concerns the 12 month service provision prior to the armistice. I realize there is a great deal of controversy among world war I veterans concerning this qualification, but I believe world war II veterans would appreciate seeing this qualification eliminated or reduced. The number of veterans affected is very small; I understand it is in the vicinity of approximately 5,000. Perhaps the minister could give consideration to either eliminating this qualification or reducing it.
The saddest war veterans allowance cases that I have had drawn to my attention are those of widows of recipients of war veterans allowance. These widows receive the war veterans allowance for a year and then it is discontinued.
It is said that the widow is under 55 years of age and is able to work. However, in a small town, with children, it is difficult to obtain either full or part-time employment. I should like to see consideration given to the allowance being continued to widows, especially in cases where there are small children.
One other complaint I have received concerns the amount of permissible income. The complaints have been that it was not high enough, and formerly there was a monthly limit on the income that could be earned. This situation has been improved and clarified. This has enabled a great many people to earn extra income. It has also allowed a great many qualified people, such as nurses, to return to their professions. Formerly, if a nurse took a case she would be more or less limited to four or five days' nursing; then she would have earned her permissible income for that month and would either have to discontinue attending the patient or have her income deducted from her husband's war veterans allowance.
There are two further points I should like to draw to the minister's attention. The first is that I feel there is too much emphasis placed upon the aspect of permanent disability. A war veteran may develop a severe case of ulcers and be unable to work for a period of, say, a year. But as long as there is hope of him receiving medical treatment and achieving recovery he is not eligible for war veterans allowance. When the veteran is unable to work and has no income, this further aggravates his condition. I think this

applies particularly to ulcer cases. I would appreciate consideration being given to this question.
The other complaint I have received in regard to war veterans allowance and the qualification for permanent disability allowance concerns the type of work available and the skill of the individual. A veteran who is qualified only as a labourer would have a difficult time carrying on with a partial disability. It is true that he could be referred to light work such as operating an elevator, or something of that nature, but in many areas this type of work is not available.
I hope the minister and the war veterans allowance board will pay more attention to this aspect of the legislation in the future. It is fine to say that a veteran can carry on light work, but if he is a labourer, farmer or fisherman it is very difficult for him to obtain light work. I think there could probably be more consideration given to this matter when these cases are being considered.


Mr. Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Chairman, my remarks at this time will have to be brief. I should like to confine them particularly to a problem concerning a small group of imperial veterans.
However, before I proceed along those lines I should like to congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs for initiating and bringing forward such a full program of benefits and assistance to our war veterans during this session of parliament.
First we had the 20 per cent increase in disability pensions. This was well deserved and well received. We now have this resolution to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act and to grant increases and other benefits which I am sure will be equally well appreciated.
When we look back to the days of the first world war it is interesting to note that the proposed increases to veterans allowance come at a time when the very youngest veterans who saw service at that time will now be 60 years of age, which is the age limit for veterans allowance. It will also provide much needed extra assistance to the elderly veterans and sweeten the declining years of their lives.
This problem I intend to bring up concerns imperial veterans. I brought it up last year and went into it at considerable length. However, I am not going to confuse the issue by reading over a lot of correspondence and different documents I have here on file. I would just like to state briefly that this problem concerns a group of imperial veterans who served on the Afghanistan frontier between 1914 and 1919. The records show there were about 5,000 of them altogether and it is possible there may have been Canadians among

them, at least people who had lived in Canada prior to the war. It will be recalled that a great many Britishers who were here when the war started returned to their native land and joined the regiments with which they had been associated before they came to Canada. This group served on the Afghanistan frontier. There were about 5,000 of them. But there were many thousands of other British or commonwealth troops who served in different parts of India and on the frontier. But this small group of 5,000 did not get the British victory medal and for that reason they were not entitled to war veterans allowance. They received other medals. They received the Afghanistan medal. They received the Indian frontier medal and they also received the general service medal.
I should like to put on record a case with which I am familiar. It is the case of the widow of one of these veterans. Her husband served some 12 years in the imperial forces and, not through his choice, when the war began in 1914 he was sent to the East and he spent his time in India. He was one of this force which was on the Afghanistan frontier. He has passed on now, but his widow is in dire need of assistance and I should like to deal with this particular veteran's widow. Her husband, as I say, had about 12 years' service in the army. He served during the war from 1914 to 1919. He had three medals given to him for active service. He had the red chevron for 1914 and he had the blue ones for 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, and 1919. Unfortunately he had not been granted the victory medal and for that reason his widow is today not entitled to war veterans allowance.
This lady, who had such an outstanding husband who did not enjoy particularly good health while he was in Canada due to a tropical disease he had contracted while serving in India-malaria and other troubles -is today required to go to the welfare office every two weeks and pick up her welfare cheque. I know there are hundreds if not thousands of women who have to do that. Nevertheless, this is the widow of a veteran who had a very good record of service but due to some misunderstanding this small, group of British veterans he served with did not receive the victory medal and are not entitled to veterans allowances. This lady happens to be one who has to suffer because
Business of the House
of it. As I say, some 5,000 troops were involved in this campaign. I have all the records here but, as I mentioned, I do not want to delay the committee by dealing with them now. My time is about up. Nevertheless this is in my opinion a very worthy case.
According to some estimates there are perhaps 50 of these veterans in Canada today. I do not, myself, think there are as many. I know of three men in southern Ontario. The hon. member for Kootenay West says he knows of one. I know it would be impossible to get the British government today to act and award victory medals to these men now but my suggestion is-and I made it last year and I notice that the British imperial veterans are asking for the same thing-is simply this: I strongly recommend to the minister that the 1914-1919 award of the Indian general service medal be accepted as entitlement to the war veterans allowance as well as the victory medal.
As I say, there is a very small group which would be affected. In dollars it would not amount to very much. Nevertheless it would be of great assistance to those who are suffering simply because there was a mistake made some 40 years ago.


Jacques Flynn: It being ten thirty o'clock shall I rise and report progress?


Some hon. Members:: Pass the resolution.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the leader of the house would indicate what the business of the house will be for the rest of the week. It might be useful to have it on record for reference.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow the house will not be sitting for more than two hours. We shall continue, and, I hope, complete, the second reading of Bill No. C-94 to amend the Canadian National Railways Act. Then for the balance of the week we shall consider the estimates of the Department of Transport, followed by those of the Department of Justice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not fisheries, as previously announced by your colleague earlier?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Question



ANSWER TO QUESTION

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

Mr. Argue: 1.	Has a resolution, approved by the director of the trans-Canada alliance of German-Canadians on February 19, 1961, concerning the loss of German and Austrian old age annuities and pensions to German immigrants on becoming Canadian citizens, been received?
2.	If so: (a) what action is requested of the
federal government:	(b) what reply has been
made?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
1.	Yes. Mimeographed copies of a resolution were sent to the Prime Minister and to the ministers of external affairs and National Health and Welfare. The Minister of National Health and Welfare replied on behalf of himself and his colleagues.
2.	(a) The resolution urged the government "to enter into a reciprocal treaty with the government of West Germany and the government of Austria with the intent that no individual's rightful claim to social security from these countries shall be lost by becoming a Canadian citizen."
(b)	The organization was assured that their representations had been carefully noted and would receive most sympathetic consideration in future social security planning.

Wednesday, May 17, 1961